Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

I think what has been proven is the willingness of FE’s to lie, and that FE’s do lie.

FE ppl guess. RE ppl lie.

In order to lie, you must be (1) certain of how things actually are then (2) tell something that isn't true.

RE ppl knowingly cooperate in UN/NASA and their globalist agenda. As far as I know, most of them are rich, paid to keep state secrets. I live with my parents, and haven't any property besides a few devices and a room of stuff.

And I don't think you made that picture, Data. I don't think you can draw even that well, or you'd be able to adjust that drawing based on new stuff we said. That kinda art is too much for you.

Draw me a unicorn, and I'll believe you.

Quote

I think what has been proven is the willingness of FE’s to lie, and that FE’s do lie.

FE ppl guess. RE ppl lie.

In order to lie, you must be (1) certain of how things actually are then (2) tell something that isn't true.

RE ppl knowingly cooperate in UN/NASA and their globalist agenda. As far as I know, most of them are rich, paid to keep state secrets. I live with my parents, and haven't any property besides a few devices and a room of stuff.

And I don't think you made that picture, Data. I don't think you can draw even that well, or you'd be able to adjust that drawing based on new stuff we said. That kinda art is too much for you.

Draw me a unicorn, and I'll believe you.

Then draw out how a FE sun miles and miles above the clouds can illuminate clouds top down making shadows on the ground for people close to the clouds, but people seeing the same cloud at sun rise on the horizon see it illuminated bottom up. Casting shadows away from earth. 

FE ppl guess. RE ppl lie.

No, FE people guess, double down with more BS and lie whenever they need to pretend Earth is flat.

The common RE posters here instead provide explanations of why the FE doesn't work and why the RE does work.

In order to lie, you must be (1) certain of how things actually are then (2) tell something that isn't true.

No, you don't.
If you are saying things that aren't true, even if you don't know what the truth is, you are still lying.
People Making shit up to pretend they have an explanation, and not honestly presenting it as such is lying.

e.g. you objecting to the RE model here, and spouting complete garbage about it, garbage you cannot justify at all, is you lying.
Us providing an explanation which does work for the RE model, and explaining why the FE doesn't work is not lying.

RE ppl knowingly cooperate in UN/NASA and their globalist agenda. As far as I know, most of them are rich, paid to keep state secrets.

And this is another pathetic lie.
You can't accept reality, so you need to make up lies about anyone who supports it or objects to your BS. Again, this is lying.
You have no evidence at all that RE people are cooperating with any agenda, nor that they are being paid to do so.
I am not cooperating in any globalist agenda.
Instead I care about the truth, and will object to delusional BS like you spout.
Because I care about the truth (unlike you), I don't need to be paid to object to your delusional BS.

And I don't think you made that picture, Data. I don't think you can draw even that well, or you'd be able to adjust that drawing based on new stuff we said. That kinda art is too much for you.

How about instead of pathetic dismissal of the pictures based upon alleged drawing skills, you instead focus on what is shown.

Here is one I made:

It clearly shows 3 regions for the round Earth.
When the sun is in region A, the cloud is illuminated from above and we can see the sun. It is day.
When it is in region B, the cloud is illuminated from below, we can't see the sun, but can see the illuminated cloud. It is twilight.
When it is in region C, the cloud is not illuminated at all, and we still can't see the sun. It is night.

In reality, the sky is much smaller compared to Earth, which makes region B much much smaller.

This demonstrates your claims about the RE are pure BS.
The RE works to explain this phenomenon.
Now care to provide a FE explanation?

Congratulations. You actually made a picture that makes a convincing case for round Earth. Not that I am convinced, mind you. But it's alot better than this...

Whatever..

I made this picture..



When a person is under a cloud say at noon, the bottom of the cloud is shaded from the top so the bottom is darker.  Or you can actually watch cloud shadows move across fields or mountains. 

Something like this for FE,

If you where talking about a geocentric model, I might actually say this model almost sorta has a point.

But the next teaching of round Earth is usually that the Earth moves around the sun at 66,600 mph (how aren't we crushed?!?), rotates at 1000+ mph (blurgh), and somehow all of this travels around a sun that orbits the milky way. But yet, we have zero proof of any of this, as the same stars seem to be in sight for millennia.



*cough* delusional BS *cough* *cough*

Congratulations. You actually made a picture that makes a convincing case for round Earth. Not that I am convinced, mind you. But it's alot better than this...

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 25, 2023, 04:47:16 PM

Whatever..

I made this picture..



When a person is under a cloud say at noon, the bottom of the cloud is shaded from the top so the bottom is darker.  Or you can actually watch cloud shadows move across fields or mountains. 

Something like this for FE,

If you where talking about a geocentric model, I might actually say this model almost sorta has a point.

But the next teaching of round Earth is usually that the Earth moves around the sun at 66,600 mph (how aren't we crushed?!?), rotates at 1000+ mph (blurgh), and somehow all of this travels around a sun that orbits the milky way. But yet, we have zero proof of any of this, as the same stars seem to be in sight for millennia.



*cough* delusional BS *cough* *cough*

You mean a solar system moving relatively to everything else.  A model that accurately predicts items like solar eclipses, comets and their orbits around the sun, phases of the moon and the planet mercury, high tides, and low tides. 

What’s the FE tide prediction (high tide, tide coming in, low tide, tide going out) based off what for Florida for this week? 

Now. Stop changing the subject.

I made this picture..



Because this was posted by a FE’r

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics.

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

So I posted this.


When a person is under a cloud say at noon, the bottom of the cloud is shaded from the top so the bottom is darker.  Or you can actually watch cloud shadows move across fields or mountains. 

Something like this for FE,


Now.  Flat earth.  How is the person farthest from the cloud and sun at sunset/sunrise seeing the cloud illuminated bottom up?  While the person closest to the sun/cloud is seeing the cloud illuminated top down with the cloud casting shadows on the earth? 

Then draw out how a FE sun miles and miles above the clouds can illuminate clouds top down making shadows on the ground for people close to the clouds, but people seeing the same cloud at sun rise on the horizon see it illuminated bottom up. Casting shadows away from earth.

Congratulations. You actually made a picture that makes a convincing case for round Earth. Not that I am convinced, mind you. But it's alot better than this...

Be honest, nothing would convince you.

But what this does do is demonstrate how your claims about the RE are complete garbage.
Care to address that and admit that this observation is trivially explained on the RE and then try to provide an explanation for the FE?

If you where talking about a geocentric model, I might actually say this model almost sorta has a point.

And if you were honest you wouldn't say anything like that, because switching from geocentric to heliocentric to the acentric model doesn't change the argument.
It still remains with the sun being in one of 3 regions in the sky.
Region A where it can directly be seen. (You could also hypothetically cut this into 2 regions, 1 where it can illuminate objects near the opposite horizon from below and 1 where it cant.
Region B, where it can't be directly seen, but it can illuminate the bottom of high altitude objects, like in the photos.
And region C, where it can't be seen and it can't directly illuminate the bottom of visible objects.

Earth moving doesn't change that.

So no need for you to deflect with irrelevant crap. Stick to the topic.
If you wish to suggest any of that magically changes it you will need to explain how, not get upset that you don't like reality.

If you think there is a fault with the RE explanation FOR THIS TOPIC, then provide it.
Otherwise, it demonstrates you know the RE model works to explain it.

Or, you can try to explain how this works on a FE.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 28, 2023, 05:21:21 AM

Congratulations. You actually made a picture that makes a convincing case for round Earth. Not that I am convinced, mind you. But it's alot better than this...

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 25, 2023, 04:47:16 PM

Whatever..

I made this picture..



When a person is under a cloud say at noon, the bottom of the cloud is shaded from the top so the bottom is darker.  Or you can actually watch cloud shadows move across fields or mountains. 

Something like this for FE,

If you where talking about a geocentric model, I might actually say this model almost sorta has a point.

But the next teaching of round Earth is usually that the Earth moves around the sun at 66,600 mph (how aren't we crushed?!?), rotates at 1000+ mph (blurgh), and somehow all of this travels around a sun that orbits the milky way. But yet, we have zero proof of any of this, as the same stars seem to be in sight for millennia.



*cough* delusional BS *cough* *cough*

You mean a solar system moving relatively to everything else.  A model that accurately predicts items like solar eclipses, comets and their orbits around the sun, phases of the moon and the planet mercury, high tides, and low tides. 

What’s the FE tide prediction (high tide, tide coming in, low tide, tide going out) based off what for Florida for this week? 

Now. Stop changing the subject.

I made this picture..



Because this was posted by a FE’r

Quote from: Danang on March 23, 2023, 08:46:09 AM

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics.

"U" shape of sunlight path means, the more distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at its upper part, while the less distant clouds undergo sunlight illuminating at the under part.

So I posted this.


When a person is under a cloud say at noon, the bottom of the cloud is shaded from the top so the bottom is darker.  Or you can actually watch cloud shadows move across fields or mountains. 

Something like this for FE,


Now.  Flat earth.  How is the person farthest from the cloud and sun at sunset/sunrise seeing the cloud illuminated bottom up?  While the person closest to the sun/cloud is seeing the cloud illuminated top down with the cloud casting shadows on the earth? 

Then draw out how a FE sun miles and miles above the clouds can illuminate clouds top down making shadows on the ground for people close to the clouds, but people seeing the same cloud at sun rise on the horizon see it illuminated bottom up. Casting shadows away from earth.

In what way am I "changing the subject"? It's a child's drawing. It's actually insulting that you want me to respond to that.

The man in the top picture is literally standing on water. 81% of Earth's water is in the southern hemisphere. The water at the opposite pole from the guy should be slowly draining.



No matter how fast you move, if the water is inside that globe, it stays on the bottom. If the water is on the outside, it is pushed away. 

The plane is higher than the sun.

The sun's angle is completely wrong. You would not be able to see the sun because the curve her would block it. For that matter, the distance of the sun officially stated under RE is so far, you would not be able to see the sun despite its size. You would not even be able to see sunlight.

It shows a childish level of perspective. I'm a crappy artist, and even I know this looks stupid.

Nothing about this is right.

As for the other one, you've got it wrong.



This would result in the cloud being lit from the top. 





You can even see a yellow line going straight down in this picture.

This would result in the cloud being lit from the top. 





You can even see a yellow line going straight down in this picture.

You didn’t read the “fine print” of the opening post for my picture you’re using by misrepresenting what it is showing. 

“ The brightest spot in each photo was a shaft of light.  Not the actual sun as it was still below the horizon.

Tha shaft of light radiating up from the sun below the horizon was seen in real time.  It’s not from my lens nor cellphone case.”

Anyway..


How on a flat earth delusion where the sun is always 300 to 3000 miles above the clouds.  Especially when the bottom of the clouds are essentially full on illuminated by the sun, and the illumination isn’t constant with reflected light.  Everything from color to hues.  To having to shine down through clouds before being reflected.  To there would be detectable shadows from the tree line showing there was enough light to reflect off the earth, not the darkness of the tree line from still being in the uniform shadow of the curvature of the earth. 

How far is it to the sun on the flat earth model? Have an answer?

And the person closest to the cloud in your drawing which you removed out of blatant intellectual dishonesty would also see the cloud illuminated in the same way as the person seeing the cloud on the horizon.

And your delusion still doesn’t explain this for a sun 300 to 3000 miles above the earth.



And if it was from reflection light like your trying to falsely push…

What changed in 10 minutes between these two photos..





It was the relative position of the sun to a spherical earth.  Not a sun 300 to 3000 miles always above the clouds. 

On the spherical earth model relative position changes.  What changed in your flat earth in 10 minutes? 


And there is no evidence your damn parabola exists.

Not from the way mist lies.



To..

Hello.  There is no parabola.  It’s been debunked repeatedly.

Wrong.

Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve,

How are these two different sets of towers parallel on the horizon?





With no sign /indication of these distortions:


https://www.vision-doctor.com/en/optical-errors/distortion.html

In your parabola delusion where the “lensing” effect has to be powerful enough to hide the sun at sunset on the flat earth fantasy?


How would laser range finders be accurate in that your parabola delusion is actually distorting the media the laser travels through?

In what way am I "changing the subject"?

Is it really that difficult for you to understand?
The subject was how the cloud is illuminated from below.
You provided with explanations of how this works on a RE, after lying and claiming it can't.
You then entirely changed the subject to your irrational hatred of the RE by trying to discuss the motion of Earth through space.
That is changing the subject.

Staying on the subject would be accepting that it works in the RE model, and providing an explanation of how it works with a FE model.

Yet again, you just change the subject because you can't explain how it works on a RE model.

The subject of this thread is how the cloud is illuminated from below, not your inability to understand that there is no universal down so the water shouldn't magically drain from a RE.

Likewise, it isn't about your inability to understand how size and scale works.

The sun's angle is completely wrong. You would not be able to see the sun because the curve her would block it.

Again, that is not a problem.
That is what is observed here. The sun is NOT visible in the photos. Instead only indirect light from it, such as the light from the bottom of the clouds is visible.

This would result in the cloud being lit from the top.

Which is the point. That is what would be expected for a flat Earth.

Conversely, you are just arbitrarily drawing in lines to pretend it works.
What magic causes the light from the sun to go down, bounce of Earth and then go back up?
Why isn't it going directly to the cloud?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 28, 2023, 09:50:26 PM

This would result in the cloud being lit from the top. 





You can even see a yellow line going straight down in this picture.

You didn’t read the “fine print” of the opening post for my picture you’re using by misrepresenting what it is showing. 

“ The brightest spot in each photo was a shaft of light.  Not the actual sun as it was still below the horizon.

Tha shaft of light radiating up from the sun below the horizon was seen in real time.  It’s not from my lens nor cellphone case.”

Anyway..


How on a flat earth delusion where the sun is always 300 to 3000 miles above the clouds.  Especially when the bottom of the clouds are essentially full on illuminated by the sun, and the illumination isn’t constant with reflected light.  Everything from color to hues.  To having to shine down through clouds before being reflected.  To there would be detectable shadows from the tree line showing there was enough light to reflect off the earth, not the darkness of the tree line from still being in the uniform shadow of the curvature of the earth. 

How far is it to the sun on the flat earth model? Have an answer?

And the person closest to the cloud in your drawing which you removed out of blatant intellectual dishonesty would also see the cloud illuminated in the same way as the person seeing the cloud on the horizon.

And your delusion still doesn’t explain this for a sun 300 to 3000 miles above the earth.



And if it was from reflection light like your trying to falsely push…

What changed in 10 minutes between these two photos..





It was the relative position of the sun to a spherical earth.  Not a sun 300 to 3000 miles always above the clouds. 

On the spherical earth model relative position changes.  What changed in your flat earth in 10 minutes? 


And there is no evidence your damn parabola exists.

Not from the way mist lies.



To..

Hello.  There is no parabola.  It’s been debunked repeatedly.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 18, 2022, 05:38:03 AM

Wrong.

Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve,

How are these two different sets of towers parallel on the horizon?





With no sign /indication of these distortions:


https://www.vision-doctor.com/en/optical-errors/distortion.html

In your parabola delusion where the “lensing” effect has to be powerful enough to hide the sun at sunset on the flat earth fantasy?


How would laser range finders be accurate in that your parabola delusion is actually distorting the media the laser travels through?

What changed in ten minutes?

Well, you either reordered the pictures (you are dishonest when it is clear the Earth is flat, you're dishonest about other things), this is actually sunset (see above), or the cloud shifted <- blocking the sun. When the sun is over clouds are the unaltered drawing shows, we instead get...



Well, the cloud doesn't reach the ground but picture 1 shows light hitting the underside of the cloud, while your picture 2 shows it over the cloud.  The photo thingy I shared is what light looks like when directly over a cloud.

Here, better picture.

What changed in ten minutes?

The amount and intensity of illumination from bottom of the clouds to the top that you delusionally think is from ground reflection. 

Where did it go in ten minutes. With the tree line still in the shadow of the earth’s curvature.

Explained by spherical earth that makes this possible.

And your delusion still doesn’t explain this for a sun 300 to 3000 miles above the earth.

What changed in ten minutes?

The angle to the sun, for both the observer and the clouds.
It has changed from being below the clouds, to being above the clouds.
That means it goes from the clouds being lit from below, with the light quite clear; to being lit from above, where the clouds block the light.

you are dishonest when it is clear the Earth is flat

How about instead of discussing how we are in your fantasy, you stick to reality where Earth isn't flat?

Again, why does the sun hit the ground then magically go back up to the cloud, rather than just shining directly on the cloud?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 29, 2023, 05:54:19 AM

What changed in ten minutes?

The amount and intensity of illumination from bottom of the clouds to the top that you delusionally think is from ground reflection. 

Where did it go in ten minutes. With the tree line still in the shadow of the earth’s curvature.

Explained by spherical earth that makes this possible.

And your delusion still doesn’t explain this for a sun 300 to 3000 miles above the earth.

Because this is how it works! If a magnifying glass is enough to burn a hole in dry grass in the right angle, even sunlight being projected is intense enough to make the sky red.

The sun isn't below some imaginary curve. If the sun could be seen from more than 90 degrees around a ball, as your shitty picture claims, you would only have six hours of darkness each day! That is, you have it visible far below the ninety degree line. Extending out to where that sun is, that's an 8 to 6 (h
10 hour) night at the North Pole where he's standing on the ball, where from my experience not on the poles, days are more like 6 to 6. Btw, nobody I know (you don't count) has visited the so-called "South Pole" so we cannot confirm the same there, but for months of the year, there is 24 hour sunlight in the North Pole. There is no possible way to account for this in a ball model, as either it curves vertically, enabling him to see a sunrise from that position, or this is completely bogus position of the sun, which should have him standing sideways and the sun near the 90 degree angle, crossing towards him. In a flat Earth model, 24 hour daylight is easy to account for. The North Pole is at the center (the "South Pole" is a rim), and when the sun gets far enough north, sunlight is cast all day. Your model just proved that you literally can't understand your own theory.

And it isn't above the cloud. If that were the case we'd get light towards the top of the cloud and blocked light in the path, as we observe on a cloudy day.

It is behind it. Round Earthers obviously flunked geometry or had a shitty teacher. You can even see a shaft of light in the picture at the height of its beforeglow (afterglow being after the sun sets). What happened in ten minutes? Well either the clouds in the sky moved back (or to put it better, the sun moved toward them), or if we're assuming a daily occurrence, as the sun gets closer, the angle of incident changed. At certain angles, light heavily refracts, at other angles, it doesn't as well.

The sun isn't below some imaginary curve. If the sun could be seen from more than 90 degrees around a ball, as your shitty picture claims, you would only have six hours of darkness each day! That is, you have it visible far below the ninety degree line. Extending out to where that sun is, that's an 8 to 6 (h
10 hour) night at the North Pole where he's standing on the ball, where from my experience not on the poles, days are more like 6 to 6.

You don't understand scale. The earth's radius is ~6700km, the clouds are ~2km high. So it is not far blow the ninety degree line, it is a tiny fraction below the ninety degree line.

Btw, nobody I know (you don't count) has visited the so-called "South Pole" so we cannot confirm the same there, but for months of the year, there is 24 hour sunlight in the North Pole. There is no possible way to account for this in a ball model, as either it curves vertically, enabling him to see a sunrise from that position, or this is completely bogus position of the sun, which should have him standing sideways and the sun near the 90 degree angle, crossing towards him.

I have worked with data from the South Pole Telescope and personally know someone who was there to fix it when there were problems.

In a flat Earth model, 24 hour daylight is easy to account for. The North Pole is at the center (the "South Pole" is a rim), and when the sun gets far enough north, sunlight is cast all day. Your model just proved that you literally can't understand your own theory.

So what about the southern hemisphere? There are inhabited places in south america that get 24h of daylight in their summer.

It is behind it. Round Earthers obviously flunked geometry or had a shitty teacher.

I thought all education is just round earth indoctrination?

The sun isn't below some imaginary curve. If the sun could be seen from more than 90 degrees around a ball, as your shitty picture claims, you would only have six hours of darkness each day! That is, you have it visible far below the ninety degree line. Extending out to where that sun is, that's an 8 to 6 (h
10 hour) night at the North Pole where he's standing on the ball, where from my experience not on the poles, days are more like 6 to 6.

"More than 90°" by no means implies how much more than 90°. It could be 91°, or 90.1°, or any angle greater than 90°.

Btw, nobody I know (you don't count) has visited the so-called "South Pole" so we cannot confirm the same there, but for months of the year, there is 24 hour sunlight in the North Pole. There is no possible way to account for this in a ball model, as either it curves vertically, enabling him to see a sunrise from that position, or this is completely bogus position of the sun, which should have him standing sideways and the sun near the 90 degree angle, crossing towards him. In a flat Earth model, 24 hour daylight is easy to account for. The North Pole is at the center (the "South Pole" is a rim), and when the sun gets far enough north, sunlight is cast all day. Your model just proved that you literally can't understand your own theory.

The "midnight sun" at the north pole is easy to explain in both spherical and north-pole-centered flat earth models. The difference is that the explanation works at both poles of the sphere, but does not work at all at the rim of that flat earth model, or any other that I'm aware of. This is one of the more compelling bits of evidence against the flat-earth model.

Your description of sunrises and sunsets at the north pole is not correct. The sun doesn't rise vertically at the poles (either of them); rather, it skims the surface around the horizon for a number of hours at the equinox while slowly but continually getting higher in the sky until it reaches about 23.5° above the horizon at the solstice, then slowly drops while continuing to circle the horizon for the next three months, reaching it at around the next equinox.

I worked in Antarctica for three months years ago. We arrived at McMurdo Station on October 20th, the last sunset was October 24th at McMurdo's latitude (about 78° S). After that, the sun just circled the sky all day and "night", getting highest above the horizon to the north at around local noon and closest to the horizon to the south around local midnight. In mid-November, we moved to our remote field station at about 84° S. From there, the sun continued to circle the sky, never setting for the duration of our stay, and remained up all day and night when we returned to McMurdo in mid-January and departed the continent about a week later. This is all exactly as would be expected based on the spherical earth model.

Btw, nobody I know (you don't count) has visited the so-called "South Pole" so we cannot confirm the same there, but for months of the year, there is 24 hour sunlight in the North Pole.

Lots of people have, as history shows...

If the sun could be seen from more than 90 degrees around a ball, as your shitty picture claims, you would only have six hours of darkness each day!

You sure do love your blatant dishonesty don't you?
Especially vague claims backed up by nothing.

The diagram was very much not to scale, to make the regions quite clear.
But instead of being honest and accepting that the RE can easily explain what is observed in reality while your delusional BS has no chance; you instead deflect to the not to scale diagram, and dishonestly misrepresenting it.

Firstly, yet again, the sun is NOT visible. That is the point that is being made. The sun is not visible while light indirectly from the sun is.
Even if the sun was visible for more than 90 degrees, that doesn't magically mean only 6 hours of darkness.
If the sun was visible for 90 degrees, that still gives 178 degrees for darkness.

In reality, the sky is a very thin layer around Earth.
The official border of space is 100 km.
At that point there is basically no air.
If you had a picture of Earth, 1000 pixels wide (so much wider than the ones used), then the atmosphere would appear roughly 8 pixels wide.

It wouldn't provide the details required to easily see the key parts.
So a not to scale diagram is used for greater explanatory power.

If you had even a shred of integrity, what you would do is look at the diagram, see what is required to determine what the angle is, and then actually do the math, with the RE numbers, to see just how large an angle it is. And then do the math to see what kind of time that corresponds to.

As you are too dishonest, and will likely cling to this dishonest delusional BS, here is the math for you (still ignoring refraction, as that complicates the diagram more). First an image, this time also considering the observer height:

Key parts:
We have the radius of Earth as r.
We have the height of the observer as ho.
We have the height of the clouds (for this I have just used the sky) as hc.
The angle we want to find is a.
This is first found by constructing a line, initially level with the observer going out horizontally.
Then we take a line from the observer to the horizon then back up to the clouds, then from the clouds to the Earth to find the angle to where the sun can cause this indirect lighting.
We then extend this last line to meet the first line.
This last line is the direction to the sun, and due to the distance would be at ~ the same angle going through the centre of Earth.

We can translate this angle down to the point on Earth, by drawing a line parallel to the first.
We can then switch it to the inside either using the shortcut regarding crossing lines, or via one of the other regions, as that line on the inside is given by 180 degrees - (180 degrees - a))=a; by noting that angles on a straight line add up to 180 degrees.
We can then transfer this to the centre of Earth by noting that the angle marked in blue is 90 degrees - a, as a line tangent to a circle meets an angle from the centre of that circle to that point at 90 degrees, and then as we have a right angle triangle, the angle at the centre of Earth will be 90 - the angle in blue.

We can also see that the angle at the centre is made up of the angle in the three other right angle triangles, 2 of which are congruent.
For these triangles, we note that the angle at the centre is given by arccos(r/(r+h)).
For one of these it will be r/(r+ho), for the other it will be r/(r+hc).
That means we have arccos(r/(r+ho)) + 2*arccos(r/(r+hc)).
Being generous and putting in an observer height of 0.01 km (10 m) and a cloud height of 100 km (the edge of space); along with Earth's radius of 6371 km, this works out to be ~20 degrees.
And if you plot it with the height of the clouds fixed, we see it take quite a lot of height to change that.
Even with an observer height of 10 km, (~the height of mount Everest) it only increases to 23 degrees.
If we make the height of the clouds more reasonable to 20 km, the angle drops to roughly 10 degrees.
Each hour correspond to roughly 15 degrees.
So that means you have to 0.7 to 1.3 hours of twilight, depending on elevation and what standard you use. And doubling that (for morning and evening) we get 1.3 to 2.7 hours.

Also note that for the day, we have more than simply day defined by the time between sunrise and sunset. Even sites like timeanddate show that.
For example, for quito:
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/ecuador/quito?month=3&year=2023
on the equinox we see "daylight" is 6:17 am to 6:24 pm. This is 12 hours and 6 minutes. This is slightly more than 12 hours due to refraction, the fact that the sun isn't a point and is actually larger than Earth, and that the length of the solar day varies over the year. Refraction and the size of the sun gives roughly 0.75 degrees in the morning and 0.75 degrees at night. That gives a total of roughly 6 minutes. So this is reasonable.
"night" is defined as ending at 5:09 am and starting at 7:33 pm. Notice that this is only 9.5 hours.
The remaining 2.5 hours are for twilight. And notice how that fits nicely in between our 1.3 to 2.7 hours of twilight expected?

And again, the RE explains this quite well.
When the sun sets, that simply means Earth is blocking the view from you to the sun.
But the sun can still shine on objects above you, including the sky and clouds, and the sky clouds which are visible.
The sky will still scatter light, giving you twilight.
It is only once the sun can no longer indirectly hit you like that that you actually get night.

And there are different definitions of twilight:
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/different-types-twilight.html

And, this conversion of angles to time only works simply at the equator.
This is because the angle is what is important not how much time after sunrise or sunset.
At the poles, the rotation of Earth doesn't dictate that angle, the position of Earth in its orbit does, so twilight can last for days.

Conversely, this makes no sense in the FE model.
If you appeal to light magically dying, then if the light from the sun is too weak to reach your eyes, then it will certainly be too weak to scatter off the sky and reach your eyes, and even more so to scatter off the clouds to hit some surface and scatter off that to reach your eyes.

So once more, the RE model works while the FE model is clearly delusional garbage.

And if you had a basic understanding of geometry and chose to honestly analyse this you would come to the same conclusion.
Unlike your extremely dishonest representation where you claim the RE magically means you only have 6 hours of night, we see that the RE model produces the observed result.

at the North Pole where he's standing on the ball

No, they are not standing on the poles.
If you want to focus on the rotation they would be standing on the equator.
But this would merely be a plane containing the person, the centre of Earth and the sun.

Again, stop pretending that the north pole is some magical top of Earth.

nobody I know (you don't count) has visited the so-called "South Pole"

Nobody I know personally has visited the north pole. Does that mean I can pretend it doesn't exist?

for months of the year, there is 24 hour sunlight in the North Pole. There is no possible way to account for this in a ball model

And yet again, rather than deal with the issue at hand and explain how your delusional garbage works to cause the sun to shine upwards on clouds, you instead deflect with pure BS.

The RE model trivially explains that the north pole will have daylight from the spring equinox to the fall equinox.
Again, this diagram is NOT of someone standing on the north pole.
The part of Earth in a photo or diagram which is at the "top" of the photo, does not need to be the north pole.
Stop repeating the same pathetic delusional BS.

In a flat Earth model, 24 hour daylight is easy to account for.

The FE model entirely fails to explain the observed patterns of daylight over Earth.
It cannot explain why the sun isn't visible for everyone all the time. Instead it needs to resort to vague BS to pretend it has an explanation.
It cannot explain why on the equinox everyone recieves roughly 12 hours of daylight with the exception of very close to the poles.
It cannot explain why during the northern summer the further north you go you get more daylight, peaking at the north pole which only gets daylight; and during the southern summer you get more daylight the further south you go, peaking at the south pole which only gets daylight.
It cannot explain why the equator always receives roughly 12 hours of daylight.

It entirely fails.
Yet the RE HC model, with a round Earth rotating on an axis, while orbiting the sun, with the axis of rotation not perpendicular to the plane of the orbit, explains all this trivially.
It also directly provides an explanation for the location of the equator, the 2 tropics, the Arctic circle and the Antarctic circle.
So just like sunlight shining up on clouds, we have a very simple explanation from the RE, and just dishonest, delusional BS from the FE which still fails to explain it.

And it isn't above the cloud. If that were the case we'd get light towards the top of the cloud and blocked light in the path, as we observe on a cloudy day.

That's the point. The sun isn't above the clouds like you want to claim for a FE.
It goes below them so it can cast light upwards.

What happened in ten minutes?

The angle from the clouds to the sun.
In one shot, with the sun casting light upwards, the angle of elevation of the sun at the clouds is negative. i.e. the sun is "below" the clouds, and shining light upwards.
In the other shot, the sun is above the clouds, shining light downwards.
Again, the RE model can explain this, the FE can't. You can't explain what caused the light from the sun to go up and hit the clouds while none goes straight from the sun to hit the clouds.

And refraction wont save you.
Refraction in the atmosphere occurs with light going from a denser medium to a less dense medium curving away from the normal, and in the opposite case of going from less dense to denser medium it will curve towards the normal.
As the atmosphere has the density gradient vertical, light going down to it curves to be more vertical, i.e. downwards; while light going up curves away from vertical, i.e. downwards.

It doesn't magically curve upwards to hit the clouds.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 30, 2023, 04:30:07 AM

The sun isn't below some imaginary curve. If the sun could be seen from more than 90 degrees around a ball, as your shitty picture claims, you would only have six hours of darkness each day! That is, you have it visible far below the ninety degree line. Extending out to where that sun is, that's an 8 to 6 (h
10 hour) night at the North Pole where he's standing on the ball, where from my experience not on the poles, days are more like 6 to 6.

"More than 90°" by no means implies how much more than 90°. It could be 91°, or 90.1°, or any angle greater than 90°.

Buncha bullshit artists.

Look at this picture.



Top with guy to side is 90 left and 90 right. The maximum someone can see is ninety degrees in either direction. This represents an arc of 180 degrees. If you're gonna believe in round Earth, the base expectation is that you understand that humans can't see around corners (they also can't see angles that diminish to less rhan 1 degree, which is why flat Earth has a case). I can prove this looking outside my bedroom door. I can see the handle to the staircase, but not down the staircase (180 degrees) not can I even see the door (90 degrees). I can't see light, nor darkness, cast from around a simple corner.

If you're at all good at angles, you can draw 45 and 60 degrees. Look where the sun is! It looks to be at least (45+90) 135 degrees away from the person on top, not a mere 91. On second look, probably closer to 60(+90). That's a significantly shorter night (if you claim the sun can be seen from there) than day.

Or we can call this a child's picture and properly bury it among artifacts of people who profess belief in the "science" of RE but have zero understanding.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on March 30, 2023, 09:10:56 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 30, 2023, 04:30:07 AM

The sun isn't below some imaginary curve. If the sun could be seen from more than 90 degrees around a ball, as your shitty picture claims, you would only have six hours of darkness each day! That is, you have it visible far below the ninety degree line. Extending out to where that sun is, that's an 8 to 6 (h
10 hour) night at the North Pole where he's standing on the ball, where from my experience not on the poles, days are more like 6 to 6.

"More than 90°" by no means implies how much more than 90°. It could be 91°, or 90.1°, or any angle greater than 90°.

Buncha bullshit artists.

Look at this picture.



Top with guy to side is 90 left and 90 right. The maximum someone can see is ninety degrees in either direction. This represents an arc of 180 degrees. If you're gonna believe in round Earth, the base expectation is that you understand that humans can't see around corners (they also can't see angles that diminish to less rhan 1 degree, which is why flat Earth has a case). I can prove this looking outside my bedroom door. I can see the handle to the staircase, but not down the staircase (180 degrees) not can I even see the door (90 degrees). I can't see light, nor darkness, cast from around a simple corner.

If you're at all good at angles, you can draw 45 and 60 degrees. Look where the sun is! It looks to be at least (45+90) 135 degrees away from the person on top, not a mere 91. On second look, probably closer to 60(+90). That's a significantly shorter night (if you claim the sun can be seen from there) than day.

Or we can call this a child's picture and properly bury it among artifacts of people who profess belief in the "science" of RE but have zero understanding.

Have you ever noticed the sky lightens up before you actually see the sun rise? Or how the sky is still a little light after the sun sets?

Of course you have. This has to be the dumbest 'pull shit out your arse explanation' I have seen. Completely divorced from reality.

Your mug would make a great birth control poster

Or we can call this a child's picture

Why would anyone put much effort when you can’t even explain this…

What changed in ten minutes?

The amount and intensity of illumination from bottom of the clouds to the top that you delusionally think is from ground reflection. 

Where did it go in ten minutes. With the tree line still in the shadow of the earth’s curvature.

Explained by spherical earth that makes this possible.

And your delusion still doesn’t explain this for a sun 300 to 3000 miles above the earth.




At no time on the flat earth delusion where the sun is always 300 to 3000 miles above the clouds should the sun appear below the clouds.

You know what would be nice.  If you could give an actual distance to the sun in your delusion so it can be modeled and tested.

Funny FE’s can’t answer the most basic questions concerning their delusion….

Buncha bullshit artists.
Look at this picture.

Look at the math.
It shows you are spouting pure BS. The fact you ignore it all and again appeal to a not to scale diagram, and again fail to comprehend the difference between seeing the sun and seeing light from the sun hitting a cloud shows who is spouting BS here.

Again, the entire point of that diagram is that the person can see the sun shining on the cloud, but they can't see the cloud.

This is really quite simple. Why play dumb?

they also can't see angles that diminish to less rhan 1 degree, which is why flat Earth has a case

No, that doesn't give FE a case.

If you're at all good at angles, you can draw 45 and 60 degrees. Look where the sun is! It looks to be at least (45+90) 135 degrees away from the person on top, not a mere 91. On second look, probably closer to 60(+90). That's a significantly shorter night (if you claim the sun can be seen from there) than day.

Again, understand scale.
The diagram is intentionally drawn not to scale to make the issue clear.
If you want to find the angle, you do the math.
And doing that shows the RE matches reality.

Again, the math shows that the angle expected for a RE, with the sun illuminating the sky before you can see the sky, resulting in twilight and reducing the length of night.

The RE matches reality. Your delusional BS does not.

Or we can call this a child's picture and properly bury it among artifacts of people who profess belief in the "science" of RE but have zero understanding.

Or can we provide your response to it as an example of how a delusional fool responds to a not to scale diagram, showing either a complete lack of understanding of sketches, or intentional dishonesty?

MCTOON had an interesting take recently regarding the non-existence of a flat earth map. On the Equinox the sun rises basically due East and sets due West for everyone on earth - Easily verifiable and irrefutable.


Picking a long line of longitude that runs from Norway all the way down to the southern tip of Africa, specifically, 20° East, literally the only way for this to work on a flat earth, due East for an Equinox sunrise, is this:


And even more strangely, for the Equinox sunset to work on a flat earth, the entire earth must flop/flip completely underneath the sun:


I can't seem to think of any way around this. Full vid:

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 31, 2023, 06:39:11 AM

Or we can call this a child's picture

Why would anyone put much effort when you can’t even explain this…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 29, 2023, 05:54:19 AM

What changed in ten minutes?

I did, actually.

Well either the clouds in the sky moved back (or to put it better, the sun moved toward them), or if we're assuming a daily occurrence, as the sun gets closer, the angle of incident changed. At certain angles, light heavily refracts, at other angles, it doesn't as well.

When ideas hit your brain, you filter them out immediately, pretending they never happened.

MCTOON had an interesting take recently regarding the non-existence of a flat earth map. On the Equinox the sun rises basically due East and sets due West for everyone on earth - Easily verifiable and irrefutable.


Picking a long line of longitude that runs from Norway all the way down to the southern tip of Africa, specifically, 20° East, literally the only way for this to work on a flat earth, due East for an Equinox sunrise, is this:


And even more strangely, for the Equinox sunset to work on a flat earth, the entire earth must flop/flip completely underneath the sun:


I can't seem to think of any way around this. Full vid:

I am pretty sure everywhere on Earth, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Drawing silly half maps doesn't change this.

I did, actually.

Quote

Well either the clouds in the sky moved back (or to put it better, the sun moved toward them), or if we're assuming a daily occurrence, as the sun gets closer, the angle of incident changed. At certain angles, light heavily refracts, at other angles, it doesn't as well.

When ideas hit your brain, you filter them out immediately, pretending they never happened.

You didn't really.
You may have provided a collection of words, but you haven't explained.
Firstly, the sun would be moving closer to reach sunrise, which means it would be higher, so it clearly isn't being blocked by being behind.
You are yet to offer an explanation of what magic would cause a sun above the cloud to illuminate the cloud from below.
Refraction doesn't help as that would bend light down, not up.

I am pretty sure everywhere on Earth, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Drawing silly half maps doesn't change this.

On the equinox it rises due east and sets due west.
In the southern summer, it rises south of east and sets south of west.
In the northern summer it rises north of east and sets north of west.

But the big issue is the equinox.
For everyone along a line of longitude (excluding right near the poles), it rises and is observer ~due east.
Everyone on that line of longitude sees the sun due east.
And at the same time, 180 degrees away, they see it setting due west.
Assuming a 1 degree margin of error, and a radius of the disc FE of 10 000 km, that would require the sun to be above a point at least ~570 000 km away, putting it well off Earth.

Once more, the FE can't explain it, but the RE can.

When ideas hit your brain, you filter them out immediately, pretending they never happened.

You mean your lies that you can’t back with demonstrable evidence?

How in your delusion did the illumination at the bottom of the clouds change so much in ten minutes. 

I am pretty sure everywhere on Earth, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Drawing silly half maps doesn't change this.

How does that work for summer in the flat earth model for the northern hemisphere.  Where the sun would have to turn and travel north along California after going west of the USA? 

"North" in FE map means something quite different than in a RE.

In other words, you can't go north by going west. It would head around the Pacific Ocean, not up Canada. Use the lines of latitude. They're your friend.



During summer in the northern hemisphere, the sun moves around the Tropic of Cancer. During summer in the southern hemisphere also known as winter in the northern hemisphere (having been to South Africa, June, July, and August are freaking cold), the sun moves around the Tropic of Capricorn. At no point does it move "up Canada".

The reason the sun is never setting near the North Pole during certain times of year is because it is a convergence point. That is, while the rest of the world it arcs around, the light from the sun is cast at convergence all day long once it gets close enough.

"North" in FE map means something quite different than in a RE.

Really?



The sun would still have to travel relative north in areas that we see it go east to west. 

The sun track is pretty useless unless you understand the map is a projection of a globe and the earth rotates as it orbits the sun.