Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Another modern one that came to mind is the time it takes for satellite internet to send up to a satellite and back to a ground station.



Bulma, killing flat earth with stupidity.  Or just being a lying troll.

I'm neither lying nor stupid.

Great, you asked from data latency to upload latency, a bait and switch comparison. Surely you're not a lying liar looking for an easy strawman to knock down. One of these is software stored on the computer, the other is transferred information.

All the same, let's use your analogy. I'm a Russian military operative here. And that particular information is important. As they try to upload it to satellite, while it is experiencing that sort of latency, it finally finishes uploading, at that moment, I use some kind of experimental laser to blow the thing up. Not one fragment doesn't turn to dust and ashes.

What is the rate of transfer from the destroyed satellite to another base? Surely you can answer this question. The satellite has just finished uploading then that very second been blown up. How long will it take for the blown up satellite to send its data out to the new location after being destroyed?

No? Why don't you ask AI?

This is the same logic you just used. The star is gone. No matter how much time supposedly it lags, you can't send back information  from a star that isn't there. No, stars are not dead from trillions of miles away. Because stars are not trillions of miles away. But even if they were, one blowing up would, regardless of latency, instantly produce a change, no matter how many years away it supposedly is.

[
All the same,

Which has nothing to do with the fact there is no evidence that light transmits instantaneously.  From how light behaves from observing the solar system, to fiber optic communications, to its known light travels at different speeds through different media.

Where you still have no evidence the  visible sun changes dimensions throughout the day to even invoke vanishing point. 

Where the sun is observed and documented acting exactly like what is predicted by the heliocentric reality.  Where the sun moves through the sky nothing like what is required by flat earth.

Flat earth is soundly refuted and debunked. 

So all you retained of my quote was me saying "all the same"?

Very well.

You are

soundly refuted and debunked.

As for the thing about have no proof of the sun changing dimensions, that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

Objects don't change dimensions due to vanishing point. A ball that is 5 inches cubed is still those same dimensions whether being held or in a boat 2 miles away. Your viewpoint of the object changes, if you can even still see it. The sun's angle changes. Its distance changes. Its dimensions do not change.

As for the first point, then you admit that the so-called speed of light is a lie? If we have variable speeds when the speed is 186,282 miles per second, and fiber optic speeds are in fact well within that range, so you are effectively admitting that this arbitrary number isn't remotely connected to the real speed of media at supposed light speed EM frequencies. Almost like the speed depends on frequency, as I've said earlier.
Which is it? Do all types of media travel at the speed of light? Or is latency dependent on frequency, with only actual light traveling at light speed? Btw, near Earth orbit would only be 62 miles away. Satellites shouldn't have lag at this distance either. EM frequencies do not travel at light speed, whether in a vacuum or not.

Again, if a signal doesn't exist, we can't see or hear it.

So all you retained of my quote was me saying "all the same"?

Very well.

You are

Quote

soundly refuted and debunked.

Funny.  I pointed out how you derailed a thread and why you are debunked.

You just create word salads based on lies and fantasy with no demonstrable facts.  And then you hope your lies and empty words mean something.

Care to actually address what was posted concerning the sun, fiber optic communications, the speed of light through different medias, why satellite internet sucks for gaming, how light is observed to behave throughout the solar system.

Again.

Where the sun is observed and documented acting exactly like what is predicted by the heliocentric reality.  Where the sun moves through the sky nothing like what is required by flat earth.

Flat earth is soundly refuted and debunked.

Because flat earth fails at producing any useful predictions on a number of subjects.  From the sun to the celestial north and south poles as they relate to each other.

That's not how any of this works.

I’ve extensively shown the visible sun doesn’t change dimensions.

Hello.  A whole thread on the subject.

The Size of the Sun the Past Few Days - No Proof Dimensions Shrinks
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=93094.0

Bulma.  Actual observation and documentation that matches numerous other reproducible observations regarding the sun.  Vs your empty words Bulma. 


Bulma.  If you want to invoke this…

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

Then the sun has to visibly shrink in size all afternoon.  The sun does not.

Flat earth soundly debunked.  The sun acts / moves nothing in the way required by flat earth. 

Objects don't change dimensions due to vanishing point.

Which has nothing to do with what is actually being posted.

Below is the context of my argument that you are butchering.

If you want to invoke vanishing point, the sun needs to shrink in size all afternoon like this ball rolled down the hall. 



Where it’s been shown the sun gets physically blocked from view.



Similar to this ball being blocked from view by the wall.

As for the first point,

Which has nothing to do with there being no evidence that light is instantaneously transmitted.  Where all evidence especially in fiber optic communications, as in light travels at differ speeds through different medias, that light takes a certain amount of time to travel from point to point. 

I'm neither lying nor stupid

From what you have posted it is quite clear that it is one or both of them.
But a stupid would be unlikely to realise their stupidity, and a liar wouldn't admit they are lying.

Great, you asked from data latency to upload latency, a bait and switch comparison.

Just what do you think an upload is? It is the transfer of data.

The bait and switch here was by you, switching from latency of communication, to your computer processing things slowly so the frame rate drops.

What is the rate of transfer from the destroyed satellite to another base? Surely you can answer this question. The satellite has just finished uploading then that very second been blown up. How long will it take for the blown up satellite to send its data out to the new location after being destroyed?

Another pathetic bait and switch. You have the satellite destroyed before it sends the information, completely incomparable to the stars sending out their light and then being destroyed.

Why not try an honest comparison with a simple honest question, based in reality rather than your pathetic games.

The satellite transmits the data, and is then destroyed before the data is received.
How does destroying the satellite destroy the data in transit?

We can do even better with sound.
e.g. consider lightning and thunder.
You see big a crack of lightning, and then it is gone.
Only some time after is is gone do you hear it.

If your delusional BS was true the lightning having disappeared would mean there is no way for that sound to ever be heard.

That is the kind of delusional BS you are spouting.
Delusional BS which is trivially refuted by countless observations from reality.

Another simple example from reality showing just how stupid and pathetic your claim is.
Someone takes a picture of a house and puts it in an envelope to send it a long distance away.
Then the house is destroyed by a fire, at the same time the envelope is put into the mailbox some distance away (and the envelope is not harmed by the fire at all).
Again, according to your delusional BS, the house burning down should magically prevent the photo from ever being recieved.
It is pure BS with no connection to reality at all.


Going back into reality, the star emits light, that light then has to travel a very long distance to reach us.
If the star is destroyed, that light has already been sent and isn't going to be magically recalled, so we still receive it.

But again, what makes your comments and yourself truly pathetic, is that this BS you are appealing to (to show everyone you are either lying scum or a complete imbecile) in no way helps your argument.
It doesn't magically explain why the sun sets.
It doesn't magically explain how the sun could ever possibly illuminate a cloud from below when it is above.
It doesn't magically explain how the sun could ever rise due east on the equinox instead of north east like your garbage indicates it should.
It doesn't magically explain how a sun, which is to the north of you, could ever rise south of east.

It doesn't help your BS at all.

You are just appealing to this delusional BS to deflect from your complete inability to other delusional BS.

Objects don't change dimensions due to vanishing point. A ball that is 5 inches cubed is still those same dimensions whether being held or in a boat 2 miles away.

The angular size changes.
Based upon simple geometry.

There are a few different options depending on the shape.
For a ball with a radius of r a distance of d away, the angular size, as dictated by simple geometry is 2*asin(r/d).

Simple geometry.

The sun's angle changes. Its distance changes. Its dimensions do not change.

The fact the angular size does not change significantly, shows that the distance to it does not change significantly.

You can replace the size of the sun with the size of the space between the sun and Earth.
Either both are shrinking because of distance, or neither should shrink because of distance.

You can't have the sun appear to sink because it is going away without it also appearing to shrink.
The 2 are governed by the same basic geometry

This shows us the change in apparent angle to the sun, is because the relative position of the sun has changed, and that when it appears to set, at least from our perspective it is going down, not away.

As for the first point, then you admit that the so-called speed of light is a lie?

No, no one has ever said that.
The speed of light, as quoted as just that typically refers to the speed of light in a vacuum.
But media will interact with light in a way to slow it down, so the speed of light in a medium will be different to the speed of light in a vacuum.

Btw, near Earth orbit would only be 62 miles away. Satellites shouldn't have lag at this distance either.

Except communications are often done with satellites in geostationary orbit, at a much greater distance of 35 000 km.

EM frequencies do not travel at light speed, whether in a vacuum or not.

Yet all the evidence shows they do and you have nothing to refute it.

Bait and switch nothing.

Destroyed star (from going nova) vs destroyed satellite.

What's the difference? Matter is not there.

You know as well as I do that the star cannot send back visual information of its existence if it is no longer there.
So the "stars are all dead now because they are trillions of miles away" is exposed as the fallacy it is.
If they are in view, they are likely less than 1000 miles from the ground, as unbelievable as it seems to you gullible RE worshipers. If a star blows up, you'll know about it that day. As for being able to see the same stars with Earth's supposed orbit, no matter how close or far stars are, the existence of constellations is the nail in the coffin of that crackpot theory.

What would realistically happen if Earth moved is that any constellations would need to keep perfect pace or break in formation.

What would realistically happen if Earth moved is that any constellations would need to keep perfect pace or break in formation.

That would depend on how far the earth moves compared to how far away the constellations are.  The earth's 180ish million mile diameter orbit around the sun is very small compared to the hundreds or thousands of light years to the stars that make up the constellations.

That would depend on how far the earth moves compared to how far away the constellations are.  The earth's 180ish million mile diameter orbit around the sun is very small compared to the hundreds or thousands of light years to the stars that make up the constellations.

Wrong again. Earth is said to spiral around the sun like so.



So what do you think happens to the Southern Cross when the Earth moves even 15 degrees from the center?
The Southern Cross is between Mimosa, Gacrux, Imai, and Acrux. That constellation depends on the Earth being centered on all four stars. 

                    Gacrux
                         |
                         |
                         |
Mimosa ---------+-------- Imai
                         |
                         |
                         |
                      Acrux

If it's not, one star appears overly big, and the cross shape star to either go asymmetrical or outright break down. That's just one dimension being off. But Earth is supposed to be moving in multiple directions as it orbits, spins, and wobbles around. So this above might become this.

                           Gacrux
                              /
                            /
                          /
Mimosa ---------+-------- Imai
                        /
                      /   
                    /   
                 Acrux

 
As it continues to lean, it will start to look more like this maybe.

Acrux ---------+-------- Gacrux
Mimosa ---------+-------- Imai

Spectacular!


Says he inderstands paralax then prooves he doesnt understnad parallax

Bait and switch nothing.

No, that is exactly what you have done.
You have changed between latency of transmitting data, to your computer going processing things too slowly.
You have changed between a signal being sent and then the thing transmitting it being destroyed, to having it destroyed before it is sent.

You cannot defend your delusional BS at all, so you lie to everyone.

Again, your BS is trivial to refute from simple everyday occurrences.

You know as well as I do that the star cannot send back visual information of its existence if it is no longer there.

But all the information it was sending before it was destroyed is still propagating along. It can't magically recall it.

Just like if you take a picture of something and send it and then destroy what the picture was of, that picture still gets sent. It doesn't magically get recalled.
And just like you can hear the lightning (i.e. thunder) even after it has gone.

So no, you have not shown anything to be a fallacy. You have just repeatedly lied to everyone, and had your pathetic BS exposed as the pathetic delusional ramblings of a lying coward.

If they are in view, they are likely less than 1000 miles from the ground, as unbelievable as it seems to you gullible RE worshipers.

The gullible fool here, is you; the fool who happily accepts the lies of your conman cult leader.
You have absolutely no basis for the stars being that close.
If they were that close, then different people from different locations would see vastly different constellations.
If they were that close, then a single individual observing them over time would see vastly different constellations.

If a star blows up, you'll know about it that day.

Why?
You just assert this pathetic BS with absolutely nothing to justify it.

As for being able to see the same stars with Earth's supposed orbit, no matter how close or far stars are, the existence of constellations is the nail in the coffin of that crackpot theory.

Which yet again demonstrates you either entirely fail to understand incredibly trivial geometry, or you are intentionally lying to eveyrone.

And what makes it even more absolutely pathetic, is that if you actually tried thinking for once in your life you would realise it actually destroys your delusional fantasy.

Again, distance matters alot.

If you have an object directly overhead, a distance of a mere 1000 miles away, and then you move 1000 miles away from it, you will change the view to be 45 degrees off.
e.g. you want to appeal to the southern cross, then lets pretend it will appear as a nice symmetrical cross with an angular size of 5 degrees, instead of the 7 by 5 in reality.
That gives it a width of roughly 87 miles.

Now we move 1000 miles, in the direction of one of the arms.
That now changes the overall distance to it to be 1000*sqrt(2) miles.
That means the arm which is perpendicular to the direction we travelled has reduced in angular size down to ~3.5 degrees.
But the arm parallel to the direction you have travelled is now viewed at an angle which makes it appear smaller and has been reduced even further to 2.5 degrees.
So the angular size of the parallel arm relative to the perpendicular arm changes from 1 to 0.7. Quite a big difference.

That is because of the massive parallax of 45 degrees.

This does not match what is observed in reality.
In reality, wherever you are on Earth, if you can see the southern cross, it has the same angular size.
Showing it is being viewed from roughly the same distance and roughly the same direction.
There is no other possibility.
The only way to make this work is if you have a round Earth with very distant stars. So distant that the size of Earth is insignificant compared to the distance to them.

i.e. what you are dishonestly using to pretend the RE is wrong actually shows your delusional BS is wrong.

And for completely, we can also do this with the RE model.
The closest star in that constellation (in reality rather than your delusional BS) is roughly 88 light years away.
Earth's motion through the milky way galaxy (i.e the speed of the solar system in orbit around the galactic centre) is at a speed of roughly 250 km/s.
Over 1000 years that gives 0.83 light years.

Plugging that back into the above we get the perpendicular arm change from 5 degrees to 4.9998 degrees.
We have the parallel arm change from 5 degrees to 4.9996.
And the relative length changes from 1 to 0.99996

i.e. not really a significant difference. Especially when you consider what tools where used 1000 years ago to measure it.
And that was just taking the simple case of those stars remaining fixed in place, while in reality, because they are close they orbit mostly with us so the relative motion would be even less.

So distance most certainly matters.
It shows the RE model actually works, while your delusional BS doesn't stand a chance.

So what do you think happens to the Southern Cross when the Earth moves even 15 degrees from the center?

15 degrees from the centre of what?

Yet again you just appeal to vague crap, so you can appeal to an entirely useless number to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

Why don't you try drawing a simple diagram showing just what motion you are appealing to.

Remembering that going 15 degrees around the centre of a circle does not mean you will magically be viewing distant objects from 15 degrees away measured at them.

You can even test this yourself. Go find a nice long hallway. Draw a cross (or basically any shape will do) at one end.
Then at the other end get a small round table. Put a camera on it directly in line with the hallway.
Then move that camera 15 degrees around the table, and see basically no difference in the angle you view the shape at.

Yet again you demonstrate either a complete lack of understand of basic geometry, or that you are are intentionally lying to everyone.

Yet again you demonstrate either extreme stupidity or extreme dishonesty (or both).
Which is it?

And again, none of this helps you explain the sunrise.

Quote

That would depend on how far the earth moves compared to how far away the constellations are.  The earth's 180ish million mile diameter orbit around the sun is very small compared to the hundreds or thousands of light years to the stars that make up the constellations.

Wrong again. Earth is said to spiral around the sun like so.



So what do you think happens to the Southern Cross when the Earth moves even 15 degrees from the center?
The Southern Cross is between Mimosa, Gacrux, Imai, and Acrux. That constellation depends on the Earth being centered on all four stars. 

How far does the earth move in those 15 degrees and how far away are those stars? 

the star cannot send back visual information of its existence if it is no longer there.

And yet you have fiber optic systems that turn on and off “lights” to send data where the photons being used to transmit data don’t just instantaneously appear at the other end of the fiber optic cable.  It takes time for the photon of light to travel from point to point.  If a single photon traveled instantaneously, it would have to occupy and populate the entire length of cable for an instant.

Like a laser pulse.  As in turn on and off and reflected off mirrors.  You don’t think a laser pulse can bounce around mirrors?  You think it’s just one photon stretched out infinitely long just there or not? 

Let's tackle one issue at a time.

If I cut a portion of the fiber optic line, would it jump to the next part of the line? Or would the energy scatter? You know the answer. It's the exact answer I've been hinting at.

Next, fiber optic lines, despite the alleged speed of 299,792,458 meters per second (186,000 miles per second which is well fast enough to cross the entire diameter of Earth about 26 times, given that diameter is about 7000 miles) actually encounters resistance (expressed in Ohms). And yeahhhh no, it's not actually that speed to start with, and we both know it.

The third thing is that the EM spectrum is an expression or speed, and length before breakdown. In other words:

• The higher the wavelength, the lower the frequency.
• The higher the wavelength, the longer the signal carries. This is why older radio (such as amateur radio) can be heard across the world, but gamma rays are mainly dangerous at their epicenter.
• The higher the frequency, the more information is carried and the faster. This is why 5G is at a higher frequency than 4G, because it's intentionally higher to give more speed and fidelity.
• Higher frequency signals have more energetic radiation, and as such are a health risk if our bodies aren't adjusted. 

Mirrors tend to reflect light. Some light passes through glass (this is known as projection).

A laser pointer is like a flashlight. The battery or other source of energy supplies power which the laser emits as individual photons. Each photon is a dot moving (presumably) at light speed. This is dot after dot. If I shut the power off, that second, new photons stop being emitted.
Now here's the interesting part. Lower wavelength vibrations, such as water being knocked around by a rudder, continue for a few moments after the energy source dies off. This means that waves seem to run after a splash for some time, but a light switch that casts light on a table or a laser pointer in the air shuts off not only at the source but breaks down instantly when there isn't enough energy to sustain.

The higher the frequency something is, the less momentum it has, I guess.

Let's tackle one issue at a time.

You didn’t address what was actually posted.  For light to travel instantaneously in a fiber optic cable, a photon of light would have to automatically be the length of the cable no matter how long the cable for an instance.  There is no proof.  From how photons act in a fiber optic cable to how photons interact with solar panels to initiate electron flow, photons of light are a size that requires photons a certain about of time to travel from point to point. 

If I cut a portion of the fiber optic line, would it jump to the next part of the line?

The conduit of the system is broken, and a single photon of light will leak out.  No mater what you mean by scattering, light is still made up of packets called photons.   The individual photons of light exist with a certain size that take time to travel point to point until absorbed by a material.

• The higher the frequency, the more information is carried and the faster. This is why 5G is at a higher frequency than 4G, because it's intentionally higher to give more speed and fidelity.

Maybe over simplified. But a good example. Higher frequency, you can send more 0’s and 1’s comprising binary code per unit of time so more data is transmitted per unit of time.

Fiber optic cables, light with a certain speed still travels faster than what electrons can travel down a copper cable.  Fiber optic cables vs coax cables.

A laser pointer is like a flashlight.

Photons vs electrons where electrons can be used to excite a material to give off photons.  How does the electron exciting a material at the atomic level?  Result in creating light with photons of what size.  With no evidence a created photon takes up all available space to travel instantaneously. 

Each photon is a dot moving (presumably) at light speed.

And there you hit the nail on the head.  The dot of light doesn’t take up all available space to instantaneously transmit to a point over distance. That dot takes time to travel a distance from point to point.  The dot of photon light is very small in length compared to miles of fiber optic cable.  A dot of photon light is very small compared to the distance sun light must travel to illuminate Jupiter and its moons, reflect, and travel to earth for Jupiter to be seen.  Where a telescope can aid people to see the moons of Jupiter too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.  It makes sense dots of photon light very small in size travel several minutes in this journey.  Makes no sense a single photon of light occupying all space of the solar system to transmit instantaneously. 



 

 If I shut the power off,

Which in no why destroys the photons already emitted.  The only thing that can “destroy” photons in transit already radiated is to be absorbed by something.  So yes.  You can turn off the light, but the photons already emitted still travel, reflect, scatter, until absorbed. 

Let's tackle one issue at a time.

How about you stop derailing the thread with idiotic babbling and blatantly false assurances with zero proof. 

Address how you, yourself debunked flat earth.

That's your failing, not mine.
You assume that the sun in a real object that blows up and then shrinks like crazy.

The sun that gives me sunburns and I’ve seen rise in the east from Japan is real.  The big orb in the sky called the sun emitting radiation and charged particles that drives the Aurora Borealis.

Rather than an abstract object that changes angle. The sun indeed does change in size some, but over 12 hours, it appears to only move with a small area because of perspective.

Meaningless babbling.

From my thread, “ The Size of the Sun the Past Few Days - No Proof Dimensions Shrinks”

Just the filtered stuff..

Yesterday April 11, before sunset where the sun set at 8:23

Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter



Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter



Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter



After sunrise today.  April 12.  Sunrise was at    7:16 am

Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter



Today. April 12.  Later in the morning.


Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter


Today. April 12. Close to sun straight overhead.


Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter.

 The sun most definitely and provenly doesn’t change size that can be discernible to the human eye.

If you want to invoke vanishing point, the sun needs to shrink in size all afternoon like this ball rolled down the hall. 



Where it’s been shown the sun gets physically blocked from view.



Similar to this ball being blocked from view by the wall.




 

More like your oh-so-sensitive measurement instruments are about as sophisticated as a crystal ball.

Vary real telescopes and comparing how the sky changes with recording the night sky and how the view changes.

Just as you can't predict storms well, you can't predict earthquakes well,

The prediction was good enough for comet Tsuchinshan-ATLAS that people like me were ready and able to capture imagines.  Where flat earth provided no forecast. 

A thread on my pictures.  “Not Great Pis of Comet Tsuchinshan-ATLAS, But They Are Mine.” https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92842.msg2433217#msg2433217

Not great pictures.  But my first effort.  The lens autofocus wouldn’t lock on the comet.  Had to do it manually.  I now understand why it’s best to use a wide angle lens when the comet is at it’s brightest.  Took the pics tonight. 85mm lens with a crop sensor.  Canon R100. Various exposures.






This pic below is probably my best one exposure. 


Still interesting to watch the comet hang there as it sets lower and lower to the horizon.

Unfortunately, lots of camera shake despite using a tripod when it got closer to the tree.




I guess I should have used my smartphone to activate the camera remotely.

The comet will be a little higher above the horizon each night.  But will get farther away and more faint each night. 

Moving forward, capturing decent photos will take longer exposures, and a good mount that will match earth’s rotation to keep the comet from turning into a light trail / streak.  The comet in the longer exposure is streaked.

We know that that comets when they enter atmosphere burn up. 

Comets are more like dirty snowballs that usually orbit the solar system.  Where a comet hit Jupiter around 1993 and caused wide spread chaos in Jupiter’s atmosphere that was observed for years.

Meteorites are what usually enter earth’s atmosphere that are mostly comprised of rock and metals.  Explaining why comets have tails when they go around the sun and the rocks float around the solar system don’t degas to produce comet like tails.


Where not all meteorites completely burn up in the atmosphere and sometimes hit earth.

No, you have no honor.

I’m actually going out and presenting data from the real world.  Bulma, you steel other people’s cartoons to cling to a fantasy.

Bulma, you done running from the failures of flat earth.  Care to actually address some of flat earth’s glaring failures.

Now explain how stupidly invoking vanishing point to explain a sunset where the sun visibly stays a consistent dimension throughout the day killing flat earth.


You need to realize the flat earth model totally fails to predict the path of the sun where the sun needs to travel north / south over areas of the world like Japan, killing flat earth.

Flat earth is useless to me.  Where flat earth can’t even accurately predict the path of the sun.

Let's tackle one issue at a time.

Fine, stop spamming loads of crap, stop jumping topics.
Just stick to one point, and defend it.

Even just look at what you have posted now. So much crap, trying to go through so many different points.

If I cut a portion of the fiber optic line, would it jump to the next part of the line?

Yet another bait and switch.

Again, what is this meant to represent?
A star has exploded after the light has already left it and is now travelling across the universe until it reaches us.
Is it possible for that light, which has already left the star, to be seen by us after the star has exploded.

Do you know what that is actually equivalent to in this example?
Get a massive fibre optic cable, have a message sent through it, and break the tansmitted.

Does breaking the transmitter magically recall that light that energy that is already travelling through the cable?
No.
It keeps going. It doesn't care that the transmitter has been destroyed.

Next, fiber optic lines, despite the alleged speed of 299,792,458 meters per second (186,000 miles per second which is well fast enough to cross the entire diameter of Earth about 26 times

In a second.
Which for a computer is a very long time.
Ping is typically measured in ms.

But if you really want to get down to it, look at a modern processor. That operates at GHz clock speeds. If we take it to be 1 GHz, that is 1 billion cycles a second.
That is 1 cycle every nanosecond.

Do you know how far light travels in that time?
Roughly 30 cm.

Cheap microcontrollers, like an arduino mega, operate at 16 MHz. That means over 1 clock cycle, light travels a mere 18 m.

And you can easily go to Walmart and buy a 500 ft spool of fibre optic cable. That is ~150 m or 8 clock cycles for an Arduino or 500 clock cycles for a modern PC.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Armored-12-Strand-Indoor-Fiber-Optic-Distribution-Cable-OS2-9-125-Singlemode-Corning-Optical-Fiber-Riser-Rated-Yellow-Spool-500-foot/1051720747?classType=REGULAR&from=/search
Then you just need to terminate the end.
And if you didn't want to use a processor, you can use much simpler logic chips and an oscilloscope.

Now while you can't physically destroy the transmitter, what you certainly can do is turn an LED on and off, such that it is off before the signal arrives, to show once and for all you are a lying POS.
But of course, you will not do that, because you have no interest in the truth.

The third thing is that the EM spectrum is an expression or speed, and length before breakdown. In other words:

No, that is just your delusional BS you cannot justify at all.

The higher the wavelength, the longer the signal carries.

Wrong.
Instead, it entirely depends on what it is interacting with.
That is why a microwave with a metal grid inside can stop the radio waves but doesn't stop visible light.
That is why different coloured filters allow different wavelengths of light through. e.g. some only allow red, some only allow blue, some only allow green.
None of that works with your BS.

This is why older radio (such as amateur radio) can be heard across the world

No, that is because it is reflected off the ionosphere.

If I shut the power off, that second, new photons stop being emitted.

Yet all the old ones which have already been emitted have still already been emitted and don't magically get recalled.

a light switch that casts light on a table or a laser pointer in the air shuts off not only at the source but breaks down instantly when there isn't enough energy to sustain.

No, it doesn't.

As you have already said, it is photons continually coming out. That is nothing like causing a wave in water.
Instead it is a steady stream of photons hitting the table and scattering off with some going to your eyes.
Switching it off stops the stream.

It is far more like turning off a hose.

The higher the frequency something is, the less momentum it has, I guess.

You guess wrong.
The higher the frequency the greater the momentum.

What is actually important for how far it travels is how it interacts with the medium it is passing through.

Next, fiber optic lines, despite the alleged speed of 299,792,458 meters per second (186,000 miles per second which is well fast enough to cross the entire diameter of Earth about 26 times, given that diameter is about 7000 miles) actually encounters resistance (expressed in Ohms).

Fiber optic cable resistance is measured in Ohms?!?  FFS, please stop acting like you have any th*rking clue about anything even remotely scientific or technical. 

Let's tackle one issue at a time.

That you are a typical idiot / trolling flat earther? That has’t to derail threads off topic.  Where you try to focus on one off topic point, then make flat earth look more idiotic by not realizing on attempting to hammer one point the amount of flat earth contradictions, false assurances, and blatant lies you invoke. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 27, 2025, 10:10:31 PM

Next, fiber optic lines, despite the alleged speed of 299,792,458 meters per second (186,000 miles per second which is well fast enough to cross the entire diameter of Earth about 26 times, given that diameter is about 7000 miles) actually encounters resistance (expressed in Ohms).

Fiber optic cable resistance is measured in Ohms?!?  FFS, please stop acting like you have any th*rking clue about anything even remotely scientific or technical.

Ohm's resistance, measured in ohms (Ω), is a unit that quantifies how much a material opposes the flow of electric current

Unless the resistance isn't electrical, then yea, I do sorta know that I'm talking about every now and then. But light is electromagnetic, is it not?

Unless the resistance isn't electrical, then yea, I do sorta know that I'm talking about every now and then. But light is electromagnetic, is it not?

Electromagnetic, not electrical.
They are related but different.

Ohms is used to measure resistance in an electrical cable, like a copper cable for power, or twisted pair or coaxial cable for data.
It can also be used for impedance.

But for light, you have absorbance and attenuation.
Absorbance is unitless, as it is the negative of the log of the transmittance which in turn is a ratio of light leaving divided by light entering. Noting that absorbance and resistance are for particular samples, i.e. a particular length of a particular cable. You can have the resistivity for a material.
You can also have it expressed as attenuation, such as a measure of dB/km. e.g. the link I provided before was 0.5 dB/km.

And dB in turn is a logarithmic value, but often technically misquoted.
One bell (B) (which is 10 dB) is log base 10 of the ratio of power out divided by power in.
so 0.5 dB is 0.05 B, but it should really be -0.5 dB/km, which means over 1 km the output would be 89% of what it was when it went in.

This is because that is how light works, it enters a medium and the medium absorbs some of it as it passes through, absorbing an amount proportional to the amount passing through.

This is quite different to electricity, where in the simple case of DC, where in order to have a certain current pass through a region of wire of a given resistance, it requires a certain voltage to drop over it.

Unless the resistance isn't electrical, then yea, I do sorta know that I'm talking about every now and then. But light is electromagnetic, is it not?

Why post with somebody that gives blatant false assurances?  But you Bulma keep pitching slow balls.

Like the obvious?   A sheet or bar of copper makes for a poor window.  But makes an excellent busbar for an electrical system.  And a sheet of ultra pure glass which is what is used in fiber optic cable would make an excellent window or lens, but a poor busbar for an electrical system?

Sun already risen.  More upward cloud shadows killing flat earth.





Only works where the sun due to a rotating earth can be relatively below the clouds.  Doesn’t work for FE where the sun would always be in the line of sight and always 300 to 5000 miles above the clouds.  FE soundly debunked. 

Just pretty pictures of real events to combat the ugly lies of flat earth.

😁

They are indeed pretty pictures.

God would likely (I cannot claim to speak for him, but it's a good guess) claim that your calling is photography and you should stop being a shill for RE. I would much rather see your artistic pictures over your same repeating arguments against FE.

But if you insist on continuing: The sky domes up so clouds can do that cool layered feathery effect.
The rainbow should be straight line of light, as it looks in the water reflection, but instead appears to curve in the sky.

This domed sky exists because of the way we see on a flat surface.
Because of this, we get cool visual effects like "mirages" of far off shores, scenic mountain overlooks, and so on.

Flat is beautiful. The Round Earthers have been calling round girls "body positive" for a few years now, but it's time to stop.

This is beautiful.

This is not. Speaking as someone who for years befriended heavier ladies hoping that less attractive = nicer to me, but in fact what I found was that they had a toxic entitled mentality that prevented any sort of meaningful relationship. I wasted about six years on three different girls before I conclude that round is indeed ugly.

This is beautiful.

This is not.

It's probably delicious but it's just a greyish brown ball of meat.

Only works where the sun due to a rotating earth can be relatively below the clouds.  Doesn’t work for FE where the sun would always be in the line of sight and always 300 to 5000 miles above the clouds.  FE soundly debunked.

The sky angles up as you so neatly drew with that line, as I have demonstrated several times with my parabola model.
Note the rim effect of the sky, how light is spread all across the bottom of the sky. If you were to use a flashlight (with a narrow bright beam), a table, some string, and a curved juice glass like so

and possibly a compact mirror, you could rather quickly create a track of light on a domed perspective.

But don't take my word for it. A tiny amount of light is hitting this domed glass on the flying saucer.

There's the dot, and then it scatters nearby, similar to how the sun lights all the clouds around it.

Your pretty pictures are like makeup they hide the truth.

my parabola model.

The lie you have no proof of that really doesn’t explain anything.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 11, 2023, 05:05:18 AM

If you think the sun and moon are at ground level, no wonder you have issues. The sun isn't actually falling in the sky.

Spherical earth rotating while orbiting the sun explains how the the sun goes relatively below the viewer to become physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature to create night.  And the sun’s radiation.

FE earth has no credible explanation.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 11, 2023, 05:05:18 AM

So basically what you've proven is that a light source lightens the entire sky.

No.  What I proven in your delusion of a moon being seen on “screen” at moonset would also reflect the image of the sun rising in the east on the days these events occur simultaneously.

I didn’t prove anything about “lighting up the whole sky”. All the glass should be a red tint, and is clearly not.   What I proved, there would be multiple images of the sun and moon by reflection in your delusion they are projections on a dome.

In my example, lights besides the  laser pointer would also cause reflections in your needed delusional of a screen.  Everything from stars to ground lights would cause multiple reflections

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 11, 2023, 05:05:18 AM

Btw, what is "space dust"? Is it some kind of product? Or is this just glitter?

Just foot powder.

You never seen how the line of projection lights up in a smokey movie theater?  Or a projection through a dry ice cloud?

Something like this..


https://walkerart.org/magazine/moviegoing-and-the-architecture-of-theaters-in-the-age-of-virtual-reality

Funny.  The movie projector doesn’t light up the whole theater to the same brightness as it does the screen…


There is NO proof the moon and sun are projections.

There is evey indication the sun and moon are three dimensional objects.

It’s ok to question.  You’re delusional and ignorant because you can’t excepted the sun and moon are physical three dimensional objects.  The sun a source of radiation and charged particles.  The sun oversimplified is the lamp.  Which explains what illuminates planets, comets, meteorites, satellites for visual detection. The moon a solid body illuminated by the sun like seeing a passenger jet illuminated in the sky by the sun.  The moon’s gravity influencing earth’s rotation and tides.

If you think the sun is a projection on a screen.  Notice you can see the light coming from the projector.  There is no evidence the sun is a projection from sunburns by UV light to charged particles.  Then the light from the screen is scattered after hitting the screen making it hard for light to cast a directional shadow which is seen in my cloud photo.



Where you ignore there is still clouds east of your parabola the sun still would have to shine down through from time to time to project on you delusional parabola, but somehow never casts cloud shadows onto your parabola. The reason is, there’s no parabola.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 12, 2025, 08:15:30 PM

Don't see the problem?

Bulma, that your model doesn’t explain reality so you have to use cartoons?




And thought about how photography and and amateur astronomy is just line of sight, composition, and lens choice.  The right telescope brings objects in the night sky to faint to be seen with the unaided eye into view.  Unless that object like a moon of Jupiter is behind it, or a planet sets below the curvature of the earth.  Or if the moon or a particular galaxy hasn’t risen yet.

Watching the rain storm, I remembered an old argument that shows you ignore the consequences of your made up parabola from the context of down into your model.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on November 19, 2023, 01:34:41 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 19, 2023, 06:42:42 AM

Look at this picture. 



Why does the tree line fill the field of vision from side to side.

With this..



Why is the much farther away cloud  line just as visible, and fills the photo side to side like the much closer tree line




If your cone of perception was true, then the much farther away cloud formation shouldn’t fill the picture side to side.  It should only look like a cloud column or a sliver. 

Light and sight work nothing like what the parabola needs it to do.

Like this set of photos with the horizon.

Sight ahead of my car.


Same area and light pole looking left from my car.



The much farther away cloud line is just as visible and takes up the whole picture side to side like the horizon.  And the cloud didn’t “disappear top down”. Or in this case didn’t reveal itself top down? 

Parabola delusion totally dead on arrival and debunk!

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 14, 2025, 10:53:50 AM

I'm not. I watched him zoom the camera in. I've done similar zooming, and this doesn't feel odd.

What are you incoherently babbling about.

Why did you abandon the below argument that has “zooming”  involved?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 13, 2025, 07:44:41 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 12, 2025, 08:15:30 PM

Seems simple enough.

?

What happens when a cloud bank is large enough to straddle both ends of the parabola.



Added.  Where the sun still isn’t illuminating the clouds bottom up like this picture.

Especially for the below with clouds all the way to the east horizon for sunrise.  With no evidence the sunlight is reflecting off the ground.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 21, 2023, 10:05:28 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 21, 2023, 05:45:20 AM

Funny you should mention that. Let's watch a video together. ❤

Meanwhile.

Another impossible flat earth sunrise you have to ignore. Run away like a coward.  You have no explanation, you change the subject from the opening post, lie, use BS, and go into delusion rants, and try to derail another thread…







Clouds illuminated bottom up before sunrise is a property of spherical earth.  Not explained by FE without lies, BS, delusion

The clouds would have to do bendy crap like this, climbing up then turning overhead.



Where these low altitude clouds, maybe 1000 feet altitude.


Are just a going away from the camera, like this ball down the hallway.



Which is nothing like the motion of the setting sun.



Where “zooming” in from the original didn’t visually uncompress anything. 

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.

Remember this video Bulma..

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280

Bulma. There is no evidence of your parabola.  The sun would still have to shine down through the clouds to shine on your parabola making unexplained shadows and disappearances of the sun.  Or it would result in mirror images of clouds running into each other.

Bulma.  Your parabola is complete BS and a delusion, would change how reality worked, and doesn’t explain what is actually witnessed.