Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 22, 2025, 05:22:50 PM

Now, vanishing point is about convergence of three-dimensional objects into two-dimensional space then one-dimensional space (a point is one dimension, a line is two dimensions). 

FFS!!  Do you know anything about anything? 

Mathematicians teach students things, but they are only true in theory. Good students understand that the teachers may be full of shit. An object with no dimensions cannot exist.

A point actually has three dimensions (it's basically a tiny sphere but length/width/height are indistinct). I can even prove it mathematically. I am sitting in a room roughly 8 ft x 8ft x 8ft.  I hold a ball of crumpled paper at a point in the exact center of the room. That denotes X, Y, Z location which requires exact dimensions. The point should therefore have three dimensions (it exists in this world, not on a page), but because they are not distinct, they are considered a single dimension. 

A cube has three dimensions (length, width, and height as three distinct dimensions). And because of the definition of a point as one distinct dimension, a line (or any other drawn object) actually has length and width, but no (distinct) height making it two dimensional (along with a square or circle). Bottom line, anything represented as a drawing that lacks three distinct dimensions and is not a dot is two-dimensional.


It appears that you don't know anything about anything. Line weight is basically width. A thick line is a rectangle. 



Your teachers are wrong, as usual.



Back to this. It's not a three dimensional object.  It's an abstraction.
You can neither see nor touch it. You can however use it as a dimensional grid to trace the sun's path.

Btw, the drawing of a cube or sphere is not the thing itself.

This means that technically a cube is two-dimension or drawn object. Only a cube that you can hold in your hands is three-dimensional.
(Laughter fades while leaving the room...)

Mathematicians teach students things,

Bulma.

Which has nothing to do with anything on the topic of this thread. Just more incoherent babbling by you.

There's no such thing as having zero dimensions.

Which has what do with a point used only for making a “point” on a map or ruler as reference.  Or in a room.  Noting the spot at X,Y,Z coordinates of 1 ft, 1ft, 1ft for a reference.  Why would a reference spot or point noting a location have dimensions other than its location in a 3D space.  What is the 3 dimensions of a point referencing the X,Y,Z coordinate intersection location of 1ft, 1ft, 1ft?

Your teachers are wrong, as usual.

No Bulma, you don’t understand referencing a specific point or referencing the intersection of coordinates.  Which is different than the actual volume of a real object.  What’s the dimension locating a car vs a fly at mile marker 101 on a highway?  Or the X,Y,Z coordinates of a large warehouse of 10 ft, 10ft, 10 ft. The fly can more precisely be at the coordinates.  Isn’t that interesting, smaller the object, the more precise its location.  “Point, zero dimensions”.  You don’t see the connection Bulma? 

A point actually has three dimensions

No.  It’s a location.  Not an object.  A point on a drawing or map noting position is as symbolic as the words “car at mile marker 101” in a sentence.  What’s the dimensions of the words car at mile marker 101?  But you understand what it symbolizes where you should be able to locate the car. 

Anyway.  Derailing the thread again.


For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.  Has no proof of existing. Proven not to work the way you needed it.  And no reason to cause a sunset as witnessed and documented in reality. 

Yet another fail by you to run a responsible experiment.

No, another demonstration of the failure of your model.
And coming up with such pathetic excuses.
No mirrors were used there, just simple glass bowls to represent your parabolas, to show it doesn't work.

If you want to do this correctly, you will need: three glass domes that can fit inside each other

Why?
When has your model ever had that?

We are only testing the expanding region, correct?

No, that was jumping back to the other issue, the fact that your parabola doesn't work.
But it does relate to the same issue.
What causes this "expanding region"?
Is it the parabola?
If so, you need the radius to be ~10000 km.

Like that. Or you could do two domes side by side.

i.e. what they did, to show how your parabola doesn't work.

The parabola is just as real as the vanishing point

i.e. not actually real and can't do the magic you need it to?
That it can't have the sun magically shine onto it, for it to then bend the light and have it magically reach your eyes from an angle expected for the RE?

You really need to make up your mind. Is it a real physical thing which is capable of changing the perceived angle of the sun, or it is useless that can be discarded entirely?

Now, vanishing point

Is simply the point where parallel lines appear to meet, infinitely far away.

1. A circle is a straight line in all directions.

Do you mean an equal distance? Because it certainly isn't a straight line.

2. We can then show from horizon to the observer and then from the observer looking straight up to the zenith of the sky is 90 degrees (sky, confirmed)

And you can also look straight down.
None of this helps with your parabola BS.

e.g. two people stand two hundred feet apart opposite a street, the relational nature of perspective means that if a car passes between them, one sees a car to the left and one to the right.

And there is no need for any of your BS for that.
We just simply use the direction to the object.

what I mean by real objects is that objects enter into the field of sight, whereas objects like the sun/moon/stars simply appear to move across the field of sight.

Just what do you mean by that?
Is that your way of saying real objects, where the distance changing dramatically, appear small at first, grow larger and then shrink again, while real objects like the sun which remains roughly the same distance keeps roughly the same angular size?

objects in the same longitude always appear relationally the same. That is to say, a person in Russia, China, New Zealand, and Australia, might see effectively the sun in the same position in the sky

Only if you accept the fact that Earth is round, so each person is seeing a different portion of that sky.
One obvious difference occurs at solar noon, where some places have the sun to the north, while others have it to the south.
Another big one is the different length of daylight, where some places can be day, while others are at night, while both being the same amount of time away from solar noon (so no, time zones aren't contributing here).

Why do you say such obvious BS?

Are you trying to make sure only those with absolutely no capability to think critically will pay any attention?

They won't see the sun north in on place and south in another, there won't be a distinction between rise and set directions.

So you just resort to outright lying to everyone?

If you take 2 people at solar noon, one to the north of the sun and one to the south, how can both see it to the north or both see it to the south?

Again, why say such obvious BS?

And unlike real objects (e.g. a car) it is centered around you, rather than around a position.

No, it behaves just like a real object, centred on you.
Do you know what that actually shows? That it is very far away, so the distance from you to the centre is negligible.

It was possible to determine the equator and tropics only by discovering day lengths.

No it isn't.
You can get the equator from day lengths, but that is only approximate.
The tropics require the subsolar point at the solstice to be over them.

you are fully capable of viewing the sun from north or south from anywhere on Earth.

Please explain how I can view the sun from the north in Sydney during the northern summer.

Bottom line, the picture of light moving between two glass domes is completely wrong.

Because your model is wrong.

Meanwhile, RE diagrams of this have the sun appearing to go underground.

Just like we observe it appear to do so in reality, where it appears to set.

The problem is all resolved when you realise Earth is round, so below for you can be above for someone else.

Again, all you are demonstrating is that the FE model doesn't work.

Good students understand

And that rules you out.

An object with no dimensions cannot exist.

Only when you want to play the semantics of all objects in reality are 3D, but that ignores point particles which don't appear to have any height, depth or width, except an uncertainty of measurement.

I hold a ball of crumpled paper at a point in the exact center of the room. That denotes X, Y, Z location which requires exact dimensions. The point should therefore have three dimensions (it exists in this world, not on a page), but because they are not distinct, they are considered a single dimension.

Thank you for demonstrating that lack of understanding.
What if you move it away from the centre, so it is say 1 ft from one wall, 2 ft from another, and 3 ft from the floor?
Then each of those dimensions are distinct.

What makes it so called "0D" is because the length, width and depth are negligible.
e.g. in reality everything is 3D, but a sheet of paper can be considered 2D at times, because the thickness of the page is basically nothing compared to the size of the page.
In the pure mathematical sense, it has no thickness.

It appears that you don't know anything about anything.

Great job projecting.

Your teachers are wrong, as usual.

Yet you haven't demonstrated anything that they are wrong about, just your own understanding is wrong.

Now again, care to explain how an obviously longer line can be shorter?

Which has what do with a point used only for making a “point” on a map or ruler as reference.  Or in a room.  Noting the spot at X,Y,Z coordinates of 1 ft, 1ft, 1ft for a reference.  Why would a reference spot or point noting a location have dimensions other than its location in a 3D space.  What is the 3 dimensions of a point referencing the X,Y,Z coordinate intersection location of 1ft, 1ft, 1ft?

A point actually matters if you're for instance laser etching a sword or something. You need specific dot on the sword that you're cutting into. But this is also why I call it a 1D object. In a zero D object you don't do anything. A 1D object, you make a dot on a page or poke a section in midair. 2D object, you draw on a page.

You call this 3D, but it only ever has length and width.
3D object, you make a sculpture.

But we're not calling it three dimensions but one dimension, when we speak of points.

Zero dimensions is to describe nothingness. A point on the other hand isn't nothingness.

The area where X, Y, and Z converge is our point.  One dimension. Distinct from something without dimension.

And yes, someone too stupid to see how topics relate to the main one, I imagine this does look off topic, but to me it just shows how you can't keep up to abstract thought.

Where lines converge into a point ought to make you think of something (but of course, it doesn't). Hmmmm.... the area where three dimensions converge into one point....? Naaaaaahhh!!!

The cube if made of wood IRL can be pushed or dragged until it becomes a single dot. It can be dragged even further, and it will in fact become zero dimensions, not a dot as you think, but actually invisible.

Thread is actually on topic.

You keep asking "What prevents us from seeing that sun? It's right there!  No, it's not. That sun merged with the sea, distant clouds, shadows, and sky. It did all of this because it went horizontally past the horizon at a high altitude. It did not dip around a curve.


What with happen in an hour (if that) is the sun will sink into that merge point of land and sky, make this shape (| then if you're really lucky and there are no clouds, you might even see it become a dot. Maybe.



The parabola is a way of understanding how horizontal space affects vertical angle. So if you draw a line straight through it to an object you are missing the point. The point is that you are drawing angles based on the position of the parabola (the point at the edge). This means if you put a dot (point) at the edge of the parabola and draw a line back to the person and it makes 30°, then the person sees an object at 30°. The closer the object is to directly overhead, the higher the angle until it moves 90°, after which, it starts behind you. "Look it's clearly in line of sight." No it's not! Make a point at the very right end of the parabola. Draw thee lines:

• One goes straight up from the parabola until it hits the arc that the sun orbit is on.
• One draws a straight line from the person to eye level/horizon
• One draws a line from the point of parabola to the person

What you will see is that the angle of the third line will probable go down, or at least does not go up towards the sun like you hope.

The parabola is a giant portable protractor. Now, I've drawn this several times, but you insist on not understanding it.


 

A point actually matters

Not if you use it as intended.  It’s just a reference to a location.

Like a mark on a map.


It can be a cross marking a point.


 

Or a single point.



Both quite clearly show a physical location. But there is literally no point there to dimension. 

Bulma, read what was also posted for context.

A point actually has three dimensions

No.  It’s a location.  Not an object.  A point on a drawing or map noting position is as symbolic as the words “car at mile marker 101” in a sentence.  What’s the dimensions of the words car at mile marker 101?  But you understand what it symbolizes where you should be able to locate the car. 

Anyway.  Derailing the thread again.


For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.  Has no proof of existing. Proven not to work the way you needed it.  And no reason to cause a sunset as witnessed and documented in reality. 

Again Bulma..


The sunsets and gets physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.  Like this..

Eric Dubay himself has a picture of the sun shrinking in places like the desert.

Funny.  This is time lapse of an actual sunset.




Which contradicts what you claim.

For the 1100th time, the parabola represents the narrowing perspective of vanishing point.

As pointed out and is obvious.  Your representation of the sun’s path doesn’t explain actual hours of daylight witnessed.

Requires the sun to rise and set north / south for large areas of the globe where those areas witness a due east sunrise and a due west sunset.

The sun circling overhead to a person just beside the path would change distance greatly and thus apparent size like an airplane being watched by a spectator at the edge of a pylon race.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 19, 2025, 07:40:35 PM

None of that has anything to do with sun size, in the same way as the swinging a door open or closed doesn't create the same noticeable distortion as for instance yanking a door off its hinges and throwing it 20 ft away.

Wrong.




The FE model, the sun would change distance from me in Ohio through the day. 

Where watching the sun in Ohio would be like watching an airplane from the infield of an airplane pylon race.



The sun on a flat earth model for someone in Ohio requires the sun to drastically change apparent size through the day.

That’s not redefining anything.  It’s pointing out how FE fails. 

For the 1100th time, the parabola represents the narrowing perspective of vanishing point.

If you think the sun “sets” in the flat earth model by involving vanishing point.  The sun would have to change apparent size through the day and shrink in apparent size all afternoon. 


If you want to invoke vanishing point for sunset, the sun needs to shrink all afternoon.

Bulma, I’m not redefining anything.  Just pointing out how you contradict yourself.

The parabola

Which doesn’t explain reality and has no proof and no reason to physically block the sun from view.

The planet Jupiter can rise like the sun if it’s not already in the sky when the sun sets.

I can take a decent telescope and see more details of Jupiter than what is possible with the naked eye.  With the telescope I can see the moons of Jupiter with the telescope that are not seen with the naked eye. The apparent size of Jupiter doesn’t change throughout the night.  Like the sun doesn’t change apparent size throughout the day.  Once Jupiter sets, its physical blocked from view by earth’s curvature where the telescope can’t bring it and its moons into view.  It’s literally physically blocked from view.

Light doesn’t die as you need it to Bulma.

Where on a FE, the sun would have to be different sizes for different people being different distances from each person.



If we take two people with parabola’s on opposite sides of the summer path in your failed FE model, you don’t see the obvious additional flaws and failures?  The sun would have to be seen in vastly different sizes by viewers through the world. 


Jupiter sets like the sun, becoming physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature without changing apparent size. 

The North Star as you travel farther and farther south becomes lower and lower on the horizon without changing magnitude of brightness and without changing apparent size.  The North Star is visible until you travel far enough south across the equator to becomes physically blocked from view by earths curvature.




The sun, Jupiter, the North Star all require them to change in apparent size as you change distance on a FE.  Especially if you want to invoke “vanishing point” for why they set.  But the reality is, these objects would always be in the line of sight on a flat earth.  Only a spherical earth explains why they get physically blocked from view by earh’s curvature where a telescope can’t bring them back into view once the set. 

FE totally fails at modeling reality.  It’s useless to me in amateur astronomy to celestial navigation. 

FE fails to model the sun’s path, hours of sunlight.  FE gives no reason why the sun, Jupiter, nor the North Star should ever be physically blocked from view by the horizon. Light doesn’t die as you need it to Bulma.  Bulma, your whole FE model is based on useless lies. 

A point actually matters if you're for instance laser etching a sword or something. You need specific dot on the sword that you're cutting into. But this is also why I call it a 1D object. In a zero D object you don't do anything. A 1D object, you make a dot on a page or poke a section in midair. 2D object, you draw on a page.

No, the reason you call it that is because you don't understand.
0D is a point. 1D is a line.

And yes, someone too stupid to see how topics relate to the main one, I imagine this does look off topic, but to me it just shows how you can't keep up to abstract thought.

To me it just shows more pathetic deflection.
These semantics in no way help you with your delusional BS which cannot work in reality.
They don't help you magically keep the distance to the sun fixed.
They don't help you magically have a shorter line be longer than a longer line.
They don't help you have someone due south of the sun see it to the south, or someone due north see it to the north.

It is just a pathetic deflection from your complete inability to defend your pathetic BS.

The cube if made of wood IRL can be pushed or dragged until it becomes a single dot. It can be dragged even further, and it will in fact become zero dimensions, not a dot as you think, but actually invisible.

Wrong again.
A cube in real life can be moved until it becomes to small to be resolved.
It still remains the cube, a 3D object, with 3 dimensions.
It never becomes a dot.
It never becomes zero dimensions.
Instead, it is merely your ability to perceive it that changes.

And comparing the sun to a cube is even more dishonest because this cube is not self illuminating.

That sun merged with the sea, distant clouds, shadows, and sky.

i.e. pure magic you cannot justify at all.

It did all of this because it went horizontally past the horizon at a high altitude.

If that was the case it would shrink to a point, and the ability to see it would be based upon distance and what optics you are using.
But in reality, that is not the case at all.
Instead, it doesn't matter what optics you use, once it has set Earth is blocking the view and you cannot see it; and it doesn't shrink to a point.

Again, your claims directly contradict what is observed in reality.

The parabola is a way of understanding how horizontal space affects vertical angle.

And it entirely fails to do so.
And it certainly doesn't have the sun magically project straight down onto it to look in a completely different direction.

So if you draw a line straight through it to an object you are missing the point.

No, you are.
If it is merely a tool for understanding, then it is entirely incapable of changing the direction to an object.
It means that an object at a certain position relative to you will appear in that direction, without any need for your pathetic, convoluted BS.

You need it to be something physical, something which can actually interact with light to change the apparent direction to an object.

Again, decide what you want it to be. It can't be both.

That is why your convoluted BS is used no where.

If you want to understand the apparent direction to an object, you use angles, based upon a line directly from the observer to the object. No convoluted BS parabola involved.

The parabola is a giant portable protractor. Now, I've drawn this several times, but you insist on not understanding it.

Wrong again. YOU insist on not understanding it.

A protractor works based upon a straight line to the object.

The parabola

Your parabola has no proof. Has no evidence of working.  And has been demonstrated not to work the way it needs.


Bulma.  If your parabola was real.  With enough height above the ground, it should be a sphere around a person.

With enough height above the ground in your delusion.  Any increase in height above the ground should cause the amount of visible area below to shrink.

Just one of the many examples how your parabola is a lie.  It’s totally debunked. 

I wonder how many dimensions Bulma’s parabolas have.

I am drawing a two-dimensional model of an abstract object.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 23, 2025, 05:31:17 AM

The parabola

Your parabola has no proof. Has no evidence of working.  And has been demonstrated not to work the way it needs.

Bulma.  If your parabola was real.  With enough height above the ground, it should be a sphere around a person.

With enough height above the ground in your delusion.  Any increase in height above the ground should cause the amount of visible area below to shrink.

Just one of the many examples how your parabola is a lie.  It’s totally debunked.

You're ranting.

And yet again, you've missed the point.

Triangles and lines are not a real thing. Platonic geometry is about using abstract forms as though they are real in order that they perform their job as tools. You draft a line across the sky and call it horizon. You draft a triangle toward the horizon and call it vanishing point. You draft a dome around the sky, and call it parabola.

I am drawing a two-dimensional model of an abstract object.

Which has what to do with using a symbolic point that isn’t an object that has actual dimensions to mark a location on a map or drawing. 

Which has nothing to do with…

Your parabola has no proof. Has no evidence of working.  And has been demonstrated not to work the way it needs.


Bulma.  If your parabola was real.  With enough height above the ground, it should be a sphere around a person.

With enough height above the ground in your delusion.  Any increase in height above the ground should cause the amount of visible area below to shrink.

Just one of the many examples how your parabola is a lie.  It’s totally debunked.

Triangles and lines are not a real thing. Platonic geometry is about using abstract forms as though they are real in order that they perform their job as tools. You draft a line across the sky and call it horizon. You draft a triangle toward the horizon and call it vanishing point. You draft a dome around the sky, and call it parabola.

Which again fails to do what you need it to.
Again, if you just have it as abstract then the sun works based on line of sight.

You're ranting.

No.  Your parabola is stupid with zero proof.


Since you contradict yourself on light dies.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 30, 2025, 06:48:02 AM

For the 1100th time, the parabola represents the narrowing perspective of vanishing point.

Which is different than you arguing the light dies before it can get to the person?  Why you claim the sun sets?

Which has nothing to do with what I actually posted.



The sun in your example is right there in the line of sight. 

There is nothing blocking the sun from view.

At night I can see Saturn that is a great distance away.  Saturn is smaller and night as bright as the sun.  Where on occasion, different planets and the moon passes in front of Saturn from the relative view from earth. 

With a telescope, you can see the rings of Saturn.  And the moons of Saturn.  Where the rings and moons are not visible with the unaided eye.

Why can’t a person see the sun in your flat earth delusion that would always be in the line of sight.  Where the sun doesn’t noticeably change apparent size to any given person during its path.  So the sun isn’t changing relative distance to even invoke vanishing point.

You didn’t answer the question. 

  Bulma.  In your provided example.  Why can’t the sun be seen by the person where the sun is directly in the line of sight.  Pink arrow.  You try to post in your delusion it’s because the sun’s light dies before reaching the person in your example.  But you claim the cloud is illuminated by the sun’s light that has to travel a longer and more torturous path to reach your person.  Purple arrow. The sun’s light has to travel down, reflect off some magical thing you can’t prove, up to the cloud, and then down to the person.  That path is longer than the line of sight path to the sun. 

Or even for the parabola.  Where you think the person can’t see the sun directly in the line of sight.  But light from the sun can travel to the parabola, bounce off, and then travel to the person?  So, if light dies?  Why can’t a person see the sun in the shorter line of sight path. 

Your parabola is pure BS with zero proof.  Is just stupid. 

Anyway.  Since you contradict yourself and believe this..



With enough altitude like being pulled up by a giant balloon, the parabola should turn into a sphere.  There should be a parabola below you.  Then the ground should start projecting onto the parabola like the sun.




Bulma.  I think it’s more like you created an ad hoc argument without regard to its consequences. But now you are stuck with a failed model that ignores for FE the sun would have to change distance to viewers throughout the world, and thus would have to greatly change apparent size.  The sun stays the same consistent size.  FE still fails to model the correct areas of sunlight.  And FE needs the sun to rise and set north / south for large areas of the world where on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west for those areas.

FE is a failed model. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 24, 2025, 05:10:02 AM

I am drawing a two-dimensional model of an abstract object.

Which has what to do with using a symbolic point that isn’t an object that has actual dimensions to mark a location on a map or drawing. 

Which has nothing to do with…

Your parabola has no proof. Has no evidence of working.  And has been demonstrated not to work the way it needs.


Bulma.  If your parabola was real.  With enough height above the ground, it should be a sphere around a person.

With enough height above the ground in your delusion.  Any increase in height above the ground should cause the amount of visible area below to shrink.

Just one of the many examples how your parabola is a lie.  It’s totally debunked.

Herp derp, it should be a sphere! Everything should be a sphere! But it's not a sphere so I've disproved you!

Keep telling yourself that. In reality, your failure to show a sphere is a failure in your model, not mine.

What actually happens in a parabola is that it's like a large tent with a false bottom that widens out like a bell. The bottom is always a flat circle. And as I've observed from being in airplanes, hot air balloons, and helicopters no matter how high up you are the ground doesn't go spherical. Instead, the focal length just expands.

If I rented a Wonder Woman style invisible plane, my vantage point expands outwards. The sky above plane really doesn't. it angles up to a zenith.


The ground does not bubble up to suit your fancy.

But it's not a sphere so I've disproved you!

No, you haven't. You have just spouted crap.
The reality is I can look down.
I'm not magically confined to looking straight out or up.

And as I've observed from being in airplanes, hot air balloons, and helicopters no matter how high up you are the ground doesn't go spherical. Instead, the focal length just expands.

i.e. your delusional BS is just incoherent nonsense with no connection to reality.

You still can't explain how your magic parabola works, and can't even remain consistent as to if it is just a tool for understanding or if magically changes the direction of the light coming from the sun so it doesn't work on line of sight.

Herp derp, it should be a sphere! Everything should be a sphere! But it's not a sphere so I've disproved you!

If you think the parabola is because light dies, it would have to be a sphere with enough altitude above the ground.  Where things like clouds, contrails, the ground, and other objects straddling the parabola like a building sticking out the top would have to do crazy things. 

Where, again…

Bulma.  I think it’s more like you created an ad hoc argument without regard to its consequences. But now you are stuck with a failed model that ignores for FE the sun would have to change distance to viewers throughout the world, and thus would have to greatly change apparent size.  The sun stays the same consistent size.  FE still fails to model the correct areas of sunlight.  And FE needs the sun to rise and set north / south for large areas of the world where on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west for those areas.

FE is a failed model.

But it's not a sphere so I've disproved you!

Bulma.  If light and vision dies like you want to believe.  Where you think the sun projects on a parabola, this should be your reality.




With enough height, the parabola would turn into a sphere from the limits you put on light and vision. You can’t invoke this failed model where light and vision dies, then embrace reality that proves your model can’t predict crap.  Like how I can take a telescope and see details and the moons of Jupiter that are not visible to the unaided eye.  Proving light and vision don’t die as you require them Bulma.   But then when Jupiter sets below the horizon it becomes physically blocked by earths curvature where the telescope can’t bring them back into view.  Proving the earth is spherical.  An observation I have made myself. Where you believe something Bulma because Dubay said so without question because it conforms to your FE bias. 

Things should be crazier than that.  Because the limits you put on light and vision where they must die.  With enough altitude the amount of visible ground should shrink because of the longer path of sunlight shining down on something outside your “parabola”, bouncing off that object, and enter the “parabola”.  Where you claim you can’t see the sun through direct line of sight that is shorter.  The parabola is stupid.

Where it doesn’t explain the actual dip of the horizon. 

Where it would get crazier.  Things like clouds and windmills would straddle the “parabola”. 

With enough altitude, the sun would straddle the parabola.  Along with clouds.  The bottom of the resulting sphere with altitude would straddle the ground.

The parabola is stupid.  Where light and vision Bulma work in reality differently than the unfounded limits you place on them. 

Then you need to contradict yourself Bulma.  Somehow in your warped mind you can’t see the sun from the shorter line of sight path.  But can see the sun because light travels to some “parabola” you have no proof of, projects on that parabola, bounces off, and then travels to a persons eyes.  So stupid

Bulma.  FE totally fails to model reality.  FE fails. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid

If I rented a Wonder Woman style invisible plane, my vantage point expands outwards.

No.  In your delusion you have placed limits on light and vision and how far they can travel because you claim they die.  How far outwards should be constrained to the limits you place on them.  The fact with height and altitude the amount of visible area grows debunks your parabola where it should turn into a sphere with enough altitude because of the limits you place on light and vision.

You parabola is stupid. 

There's that should term again. Wherein without articulating why something should be, you proceed to claim this or that behaves a certain way by fiat. 

Light does not simply "die", it scatters as it loses energy. Think of it this way, if I were to hit a cueball into the 6-ball at light speed, there is a transfer of energy.  This transfer is never 100%, some energy is lost to various forms of resistance. The pool ball has a finite amount of energy inputted into the cueball, and an even more finite amount transferred.  Moreover even in a vacuum, energy never is limitless. This because the object in motion is always hitting something and thus transferring energy.

The law of conservation of energy is a physical law that states that the total energy of an isolated system is a constant, although energy can change forms.

The thing is, energy nearly always does change forms. When a gun is fired, it makes a loud bang and gives off some heat,  losing some energy to conversion. Light is energy, but is also loses energy through radiation.
https://lightadviser.com/why-does-light-lose-intensity-over-distance-discover-the-science/
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/optical-distance-law-d_353.html
So this loss of intensity is called attenuation. And there's a few causes of this.

• Distance from Source: As light travels further from its source, it spreads out and loses intensity due to the inverse square law.
• Atmospheric Interference: Particles in the air, such as dust or moisture, can scatter light and reduce its intensity before it reaches your eyes.
• Surface Reflection: When light hits a surface, some of it is reflected away rather than absorbed or transmitted, leading to diminished brightness.
• Angle of Incidence: The angle at which light strikes a surface affects how much is reflected versus absorbed, impacting overall intensity.
• Obstructions in Path: Objects blocking the path of light can create shadows and reduce the amount of light that reaches a particular area.

Unlike you, who has to have this explained to you, because you've been successfully been propagandized by RE tripe, I managed to piece this together without being told. You say over and over again the FE can't predict things, but I more or less called this!

Light doesn't die. It scatters and diminishes. Nor is there any magical reason the flat ground below you turns all bubble shaped. What does happen is the gradual effect of the vanishing point. But this is far different from concluding that everything must be a sphere so Earth is a sphere.

Vanishing point even makes these balloons appear level to the viewer. But if it were actually level, we should see this spherical underside that you say happens at high elevations from the rooftops. Instead, distance causes overhead objects to appear to lower.

You parabola is stupid.

Your.

You are stupid.

You're projecting this onto your inability to understand something after repeated attempts.

Light does not simply "die",

Where you just ignore things can be just too small to resolve with the human eye, but can be seen with a telescope or a pair of binoculars.

Your parabola is stupid. 


We are talking about your entirely made up parabola that you now claims has a trick floor.  So you can get out of contradicting yourself.  Where you totally ignore what is posted and you change your model to suit the argument.   Because your parabola is a failed model.


If light scatters and loses energy like you claim, how can it imagine on your fictitious parabola then bounce off and imagine to a lesson.

Bulma.  FE totally fails to model reality.  FE fails. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid


 Gaining altitude in your delusion wouldn’t make light travel farther simply riding above the ground which is illuminated by the farther path of the sun illuminating the earth to bounce up to you above the earth.

Your stupid Bulma. 

This is reality Bulma..

You can’t invoke this failed model where light and vision dies, then embrace reality that proves your model can’t predict crap.  Like how I can take a telescope and see details and the moons of Jupiter that are not visible to the unaided eye.  Proving light and vision don’t die as you require them Bulma.   But then when Jupiter sets below the horizon it becomes physically blocked by earths curvature where the telescope can’t bring them back into view.  Proving the earth is spherical.  An observation I have made myself. Where you believe something Bulma because Dubay said so without question because it conforms to your FE bias.

There's that should term again.

Yes, as in "based upon your model, this is the expected outcome."

you proceed to claim this or that behaves a certain way by fiat.

No, we don't.
We use logical reasoning. Something you severely lack.

We are not simply asserting crap like you do.
We explain why.

Light does not simply "die"

i.e. what you have said to us many many many times, is a blatant lie.

Moreover even in a vacuum, energy never is limitless. This because the object in motion is always hitting something and thus transferring energy.

And the question then is just how far it can go.
With a good enough vacuum it can go very very very far.

Light is energy, but is also loses energy through radiation.

No it doesn't. Light IS that radiation.
Light loses energy by being absorbed.
Light loses flux by spreading and being scattered.

Unlike you, who has to have this explained to you, because you've been successfully been propagandized by RE tripe

There you go lying again.
You have repeatedly told everyone that light just has a magic distance after which it dies.
It has been repeatedly explained to you that your claim is pure BS and that light doesn't just magically die.
We already know this, but you had to have it explained to you repeatedly; only for you to then turn around and act like you knew it all along.

What does happen is the gradual effect of the vanishing point.

Which cannot cause the sun to set, nor explain the vast majority of the issues raised in this thread, nor does it in any way support your delusional parabola.

But this is far different from concluding that everything must be a sphere so Earth is a sphere.

i.e. it is far different from yet another pathetic strawman from you.

Vanishing point even makes these balloons appear level to the viewer.

No, it doesn't.
The ones with a positive angle of elevation are above the viewer.
The ones with a negative angle of elevation are below the viewer.
The ones passing through an angle of elevation of 0 have some part above the viewer and some parts below.

But if it were actually level, we should see this spherical underside that you say happens at high elevations from the rooftops.

Who is saying that?

You're projecting this onto your inability to understand something after repeated attempts.

No, that would still be you.
You can't even decide if your parabola is just a tool for understanding, meaning things should still work based upon line of sight, or some magical physical thing which bends the path of the light to make the sun appear where it is not.
You can't defend it in any honest, rational way and instead need to repeatedly resort to dishonest BS.
You have had the problems with it explained countless times, but you keep ignoring it.

There's that should term again.

This is a quote from you…

 People of science are like "That makes no sense!" until you realize that what they are talking about is night and day projected as energy through conduits. Light and dark, night and day, are not remotely the same as sun and moon. These things do not have their own energy, as such would exhaust itself from the laws of thermodynamics.

You must all join the House of Aten.

Then explain in your delusion where you think “‘Light does not simply "die", it scatters as it loses energy’” where the sun should always be visible above a flat earth why the sun sets.

Quote

So.  Why would the sun set in the Parabola on the left.

Because it's heading to the left. It's heading to the west. The west is clockwise, the east is conterclockwise. So no, it doesn't matter that this model looks weird. The observer within the parabola sees it rise from the east and arc until it sets from the west. There was not a good way to draw this, but rest assured, the sun still rises in the east and sets in the west. This is not Oz, no matter how you ppl from Seattle wish it.

Now…




Boy, didn’t mean to make it look like the little guy is stuck in an Iron Maiden. 

Now Bulma.  You claim light directly from the sun, blue arrow, can’t make it to the person for a sun always above a flat earth.

But you claim the person can see the sun as a projection on the longer pink arrow path of traveling down to your nonexistent parabola, bouncing off, then traveling to the person.


But you claim where you need light to magically die on the blue arrow path, that a change in altitude will make a person see farther “out”  where the sun’s light has to take the longer red arrow path to the ground in the distance, bounce off the ground, enter the parabola without making some weird projection like it does for the sun, then get to the person.  Your parabola doesn’t exist and is stupid.  And doesn’t explain reality.  And contradict’s itself. 

Bulma. If light dies so the person can’t see the sun directly overhead, with enough height the parabola needs to turn into a sphere where increasing altitude should make the amount of visible ground below shrink.  Not grow. 

There's that should term again.

Bulma.  Care to address my last post and the absurdity you claiming you can’t see the sun in the direct line of sight because light dies, but you think you can see the sun through longer and more convolute paths?  That requires bouncing off things that don’t exist. 

Knowing your scatter or trolling mind.  You forgot you have to a have a reason to explain why the sun always above a FE and in the line of sight wouldn’t be in sight.  Where FE wouldn’t have sunsets as we witness them in real life.  With a sun not changing apparent size. 

Bulma.  Care to address my last post and the absurdity you claiming you can’t see the sun in the direct line of sight because light dies, but you think you can see the sun through longer and more convolute paths?  That requires bouncing off things that don’t exist.

Knowing your scatter or trolling mind.  You forgot you have to a have a reason to explain why the sun always above a FE and in the line of sight wouldn’t be in sight.  Where FE wouldn’t have sunsets as we witness them in real life.  With a sun not changing apparent size. 

You seem to fixate on the idea that the sun shrinks or doesn't shrink. You think that it's proof of something. Meanwhile, you can't understand what line of sight really is.  So you can't understand the simplest idea because you don't bother to read or observe anything.

The model I draw for parabola is a shorthand.

This...

is actually this.

The longer the angle, the closer it appears to be to eye level. When an object above real eye level is simultaneously below perceived eye level, the brain does not understand what to do with this information. Note the red lines in this picture. As the object moves horizontally, the angles sink (top two red lines). The red line across is eye level. So at point A and point B (sunrise & sunset), the angle meets eye level.

Even vanishing point didn't exist, light shrinks over distance. So you say, "I've proved it! Light shrinks over distance! Then it should..." Try listening, please. What happens if we put a mountain... here?

Welp, it means the sun hits an obstruction before the horizon, the amount of visible distance is decreased, so the amount of shrinkage is decreased. Whether it's a cloud bank or a mountain, or even whether the object itself is all that visible.

You seem to fixate on the idea that the sun shrinks or doesn't shrink. You think that it's proof of something. Meanwhile, you can't understand what line of sight really is.  So you can't understand the simplest idea because you don't bother to read or observe anything.

Quite the opposite. We do understand, and unlike you, we think, and realise your BS doesn't work.

The model I draw for parabola is a shorthand.
This...is actually this.

Even though they are fundamentally different?
In one, you literally have the shining straight down onto your parabola to then appear in a completely different location to where it is.
In the other you now have the sun going at an angle.
You also throw on a completely useless set of red lines which mean nothing.

And if you did it honestly, you would draw in the line to either side of the sun and show how it appear to shrink:

Notice how the angle subtended for the sun, and the corresponding part of the arc you have drawn in, is larger for the sun directly above than off to the side?
That means it should appear smaller.

When an object above real eye level is simultaneously below perceived eye level

Good thing it never is, so the rest of your crap is entirely irrelevant.
It doesn't matter how far away you make the sun go, it never gets to point A or B.

Try listening, please. What happens if we put a mountain... here?

i.e. you yet again appeal to dishonest crap to avoid reality at all costs.
What about when there isn't one there?
What about when you are watching the sunset over the ocean without any obstructions?

You seem to fixate on the idea that the sun shrinks or doesn't shrink.

Yeah.  Because for the FE model the sun would have to change distance greatly for me in the Midwest as it traveled its circuit above a flat earth requiring the sun to greatly change apparent size.  This alone debunks flat earth. 

The longer the angle, the closer it appears to be to eye level. When an object above real eye level is


"I've proved it! Light shrinks over distance!

No.  Your babbling and haven’t addressed or proven anything thing,  you might as well posted “tuna”..



Boy, didn’t mean to make it look like the little guy is stuck in an Iron Maiden. 

Now Bulma.  You claim light directly from the sun, blue arrow, can’t make it to the person for a sun always above a flat earth.

But you claim the person can see the sun as a projection on the longer pink arrow path of traveling down to your nonexistent parabola, bouncing off, then traveling to the person.


Angles don’t magically make light die, doesn’t make the sun magically set and go relatively below the horizon unless the sun physically moves below the horizon.

Bulma.  FE totally fails to model reality.  FE fails. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid


But you claim where you need light to magically die on the blue arrow path, that a change in altitude will make a person see farther “out”  where the sun’s light has to take the longer red arrow path to the ground in the distance, bounce off the ground, enter the parabola without making some weird projection like it does for the sun, then get to the person.  Your parabola doesn’t exist and is stupid.  And doesn’t explain reality.  And contradict’s itself. 

Bulma. If light dies so the person can’t see the sun directly overhead, with enough height the parabola needs to turn into a sphere where increasing altitude should make the amount of visible ground below shrink.  Not grow. 

is actually this.

That’s not what you have claimed in the past, and still doesn’t explain sunset while the sun is over the sea.

Anyway



Notice.  In your delusion Bulma.  There is no predawn.  In your delusion there is only light when the sun is visible in your parabola.  Now you are contradicting that?
 

By the way, care to bring back this gif? 
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1256970200033792172/Parabola_animated.gif

Bulma.  Your model is just you babbling and disguising you’re making it more and more like the heliocentric model. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 30, 2024, 06:52:29 AM

Nice picture. I've got my own.

Sooooo, for the guys in night?  Why are the stars farther away and fainter than the sun still visible.

For the guy with the arrow.  Why is there no indication of the sun blocking stars on the horizon as it passes in front.


The heliocentric model explains and predicts reality in a reliable and useful manner.

Your ad hoc BS just creates more problems and contradictions than answers.

Well.  Most FE places the sun at least 480 km above the earth to try and match the angles created by shadows as seen in the heliocentric model.

This is how far the sun would be above a 4 km peek of 1mm is equal to 1km.


Sideview of about 264 scale km.


Sideview of about 1591 scale km.


Side view width of 6391 scale km.

Bulma.  Even if I simulate being 6391 km away, the sun still is way above eye level.  Also notice the point referencing where the person should be becomes a point meaningless to define that point as an object with three dimensions.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣