Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

You just answered your own question.

Shadows point away from the sun.

Which means the sun is below the cloud, and FE is wrong.
Thanks for admitting Earth is not flat.

So if the sun points light at an angle from above, behind a mountain, those shadows point straight up.

So you fail to understand what "away" means?
If the sun is above, away is below.

In order to have the shadow point up, with that being away from the sun, the sun needs to be below.

You insist on this narrative even after literally watching a movie where someone demonstrated that no, the shadow of a mountain could be done using a box, and light from outside.

You mean something with massive flaws which were pointed out and you proceeded to ignore?

No there's nothing wrong. Regardless of the sun's shape or the Earth's shape the shadow of a straight line is a straight line.

You sure love entirely failing to understand the issue.

The question isn't about the shadow of the piece of wood.
That wood is provided as a demonstration of a level surface, with the shadow of the ball on top of the rod tracing a straight line.

This makes sense for a RE, but not a FE.

More importantly, where is there a curved line? If the sun is a sphere, it should be giving light in a curved line, right?

This makes no sense at all.
The only impact the shape of the sun has on a shadow is the distinction between the penumbra, the umbra and the antumbra.
The centre of the shadow remains in the same location, so the path traced would be the same.

The distinction is in the relative position of the sun and how this changes over time.

If the sun is circling in a flat plane above and parallel to a flat Earth (regardless of if that is a circle on a disk or a circle on a dome), then the shadow of the ball on the stick MUST trace a circle, regardless of time of year.

However, if the apparent path of the sun is a plane which cuts through the observer, then the shadow will also lie on that plane, allowing it to appear as a straight line where that plane cuts through Earth, as the curvature of Earth is too small to make a noticeable curve on that line.

So yet again, the evidence shows you are wrong.
But you are happy to just spout whatever garbage you want to pretend there are no issues.

No, as I've tried to tell you for the tenth time, it's behind the cloud.

The sun doesn't dip. If you think this way, you're practicing unscientific thinking.

It doesn't dip in round Earth. It doesn't dip in flat Earth.

It moves straight across, and the longer the angle is, the lower it is. Toy can test this with a real object. Get close enough to hug a tree. The top of that tree is 90 degrees. Now ease off there tree-hugger and give it some space 80 degrees. Back some more. 60 degrees. Even more. 45 degrees. Off a faie distance. 15 degrees. Eventually the angle becomes so small that the top of the tree appears straight ahead. Then the tree kinda disappears.

Objects aren't dipping. You just don't understand what you're looking at.

I do. It's a high object appearing to be much lower as it gets farther and farther away. It's behind the cloud, not below it. You saw a video showing exactly this. You went in denial mode, because there's no talking to you when you are convinced of things that aren't so.

Whether you do flat Earth or round Earth, I give zero fucks. But I do care that your grasp of geometry is completely awful, and you can't tell the difference between something behind something and below it. We are getting downward angle light. Shadow is bouncing the opposite way. Downward light, upward shadow. If the sun were below the clouds, you would have no shadow.

It moves straight across, .

Uughhh, no.

FE fails to accurately model, predict, forecast the mechanics of our solar system. 

No, as I've tried to tell you for the tenth time, it's behind the cloud.

If it was behind the cloud, it would be shining light downwards, not upwards.

This is the issue you need to explain.

Also note that there are examples of people flying above the clouds and still having the clouds illuminated from below rather than above.

The sun doesn't dip. If you think this way, you're practicing unscientific thinking.

Quite the opposite.
If you think the sun magically stays above a flat plane, then you are practicing unscientific thinking.
You have your conclusion and you stick to it regardless of what evidence is presented.
You look for excuses and try to appeal to them, regardless of how often those excuses are refuted.

If you instead used scientific thinking you would recognise that the sun casting light upwards means it must be below the clouds. The fact it is still well above a point on Earth means that Earth's surface must curve.

It doesn't dip in round Earth. It doesn't dip in flat Earth.

Relative to an observer on Earth (i.e. the relative position, not absolute), the sun follows a circular path where it goes below the observer. So yes, it does dip. And any model to explain the sun and Earth needs to account for this.

It moves straight across, and the longer the angle is, the lower it is. Toy can test this with a real object.

And with this test you can easily see the claim is pure BS.
With an object moving away into the distance, the angular size shrinks.
And if it is moving at a constant speed, the angular velocity decreases.
And importantly, if it is above, it never drops to below and never casts a shadow upwards onto an object below it.

Conversely, with the sun, we observe it remaining the same angular size, traveling with the same angular velocity. Both clearly demonstrating it is NOT merely moving away in a straight line.
And likewise we observe it go below level.

Objects aren't dipping. You just don't understand what you're looking at.

The sun is "dipping". You just don't want to accept that because it doesn't match your fantasy, so you lie about it, in a manner which shows you either don't know what you are talking about, or that you are intentionally lying to everyone.

I understand how perspective works, and that means I understand that does NOT explain the angle to the sun.

You saw a video showing exactly this.

And I explained the flaws with the video.
Which you then ignored and you went in denial mode, because there's no talking to you when you are convinced of things that aren't so.

Whether you do flat Earth or round Earth, I give zero fucks. But I do care that your grasp of geometry is completely awful, and you can't tell the difference between something behind something and below it. We are getting downward angle light. Shadow is bouncing the opposite way. Downward light, upward shadow. If the sun were below the clouds, you would have no shadow.

And more pathetic projection.
The one who fails to understand geometry (or acts like it) is you.

If you understood geometry you would know what perspective does and that it doesn't match the sun at all.
You would understand that the video you appeal to shows a model drastically different from what FEers claim, with the sun so low it isn't funny.

But you don't care about any of that. Instead all you care about is promoting your delusional fantasy.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 24, 2023, 03:22:00 AM

It moves straight across, .

Uughhh, no.

FE fails to accurately model, predict, forecast the mechanics of our solar system.

So today, you repeated a bunch of pictures from some retarded hack, and passed those off as our own thought.

So what you saw in a time lapse film was a rounded object hitting a flat surface. Good to know.
There you did sleight of hand and compared a round object hitting a flat surface to a round object hitting a surface that has now been distorted so it is round. "And that matches reality." No, you've described a magic trick. I have this ordinary hat. I distract you and hope you won't notice that I now have an entirely different hat that has compartments with bunnies inside.

Sorry, but I'm one of those people that ignores the grand gestures of the magician and occasionally looks at the hat instead. He switched models without proper protocol (such as proof the surface hit is anything other than flat).

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 24, 2023, 04:47:39 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 24, 2023, 03:22:00 AM

It moves straight across, .

Uughhh, no.

FE fails to accurately model, predict, forecast the mechanics of our solar system.

So today, you repeated a bunch of pictures from some retarded hack, and passed those off as our own thought.

So what you saw in a time lapse film was a rounded object hitting a flat surface. Good to know.
There you did sleight of hand and compared a round object hitting a flat surface to a round object hitting a surface that has now been distorted so it is round. "And that matches reality." No, you've described a magic trick. I have this ordinary hat. I distract you and hope you won't notice that I now have an entirely different hat that has compartments with bunnies inside.

Sorry, but I'm one of those people that ignores the grand gestures of the magician and occasionally looks at the hat instead. He switched models without proper protocol (such as proof the surface hit is anything other than flat).

So.  otherwise.

You can’t argument so you’re going to again make blatant false allegations and appeal to slander than provide any actual evidence.


So you’re just another troll.

Good to know.

And how is citing, using the quote script, clearly showing the creator’s name, and linking to their YouTube channel “and passed those off as our own thought.”


How many photos and how much art have you used without even attempting to give credit to it’s owner and cite where you got the images from…


So…

Where did this come from?





http://xn--12c1czafac9b9bq7dxgrc.com/wiki/%E0%B9%84%E0%B8%9F%E0%B8%A5%E0%B9%8C:G34.jpg

So today, you repeated a bunch of pictures from some retarded hack, and passed those off as our own thought.

No. They repeated something you keep avoiding, your inability to explain so many things in your fantasy.
They did not pass it off as their own thought.
But there you go looking for a pathetic excuse to ignore the issue yet again.

The FE sun, circling above a RE, cannot explain this straight path of a shadow.
Just like it can't explain how the sun is above the clouds yet magically casts a shadow upwards from below.

Of course, because you can't explain this you look for excuses and deflect.

You can’t argument so you’re going to again make blatant false allegations and appeal to slander than provide any actual evidence.

Ummm no?

It's like this. we have a classic bait and switch.


 "I can see the sun has a circular shadow on what appears to be a flat plane. Therefore the sun is a round disc. (Hmmm. Nobody's paying attention) If the sun is a round disc, and certain shadows aren't showing up, then the Earth must also be round." You haven't proved that, you've made a false comparison.

Some people, like me, might concede that yes, the Earth is a round DISC. Or at least our eyes can see portions that are discs. But it's entirely different thing to say, "I see A and B, and I have proven A has X properties, there B must also be X." That's a fraudulent proof.

 But you don't stop there. Because are the same people who keep pushing the agenda, nor wanting compromise but complete submission.



In Oregon, it is not just "statutory rape" but "child molestation" to be even a day before 18. Same people. Create an oppressed group, have them campaign for justice. There's now a Y to LGBT+ standing for Touth-Admiring or something (paedophiles). The age of consent was 16, raised it just so you could bully people into not knowing the actual difference between fucking an 11 year old and having sex with another consenting teenager.

These same people never stop until they have their way. So when I say "Yes maybe the the parts of Earth we can see are rounded. Maybe the sky is domed," you push and push until you tell us the Earth is a sphere, that moves around the sun, that it has sidereal days (which is patent nonsense, as if true, the 1° shift difference adds a difference of 1° per year until by 40 years the Earth has tilted a whopping 40°.... Yeah, I think I would have noticed this), that water curves, that there's something called gravity, and finally you move to Hawking who says "philosophy is dead" and that " it is not necessary to invoke God." And quantum physics, which is a bunch of silly theoretical ideas like that if you cut a turnip and burn half of it, because of quantum entanglement the entire turnip actually burns.

Because Earth orbits the Sun once a year, the sidereal time at any given place and time will gain about four minutes against local civil time, every 24 hours, until, after a year has passed, one additional sidereal "day" has elapsed compared to the number of solar days that have gone by...

But it's not just scientific nonsense that the aim is to accept. I used pedophilia as one example of the larger goal, which is to create socialist front minorities. To use climate as a way that you can't even change the subject to talk about the weather. To hound people until they accept your nWo wrestling group. After all, you can't have a new World order without redefining the shape of Earth.

But these are not new. They are literally as old as Babylon. And like Babylon, they thought nothing of sacrificing babies, and engaging in other acts of self-destruction. Religion like Judaism was a slow crawl out of the darkness of self-centered "altruism" where the people doing all the sacrifice are the poor and those who have earned property, while a small elite group takes people's property through taxes, never earning anything. A crawl towards ideas like "consent of the governed" and "grace for all sins." Despite human pride, a kingdom was built on the sins of humanity.

Your Majesty looked, and there before you stood a large statue—an enormous, dazzling statue, awesome in appearance. 32 The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of baked clay. 34 While you were watching, a rock was cut out, but not by human hands. It struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and smashed them. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver and the gold were all broken to pieces and became like chaff on a threshing floor in the summer. The wind swept them away without leaving a trace. But the rock that struck the statue became a huge mountain and filled the whole earth.

36 This was the dream, and now we will interpret it to the king. 37 Your Majesty, you are the king of kings. The God of heaven has given you dominion and power and might and glory; 38 in your hands he has placed all mankind and the beasts of the field and the birds in the sky. Wherever they live, he has made you ruler over them all. You are that head of gold.

39 After you, another kingdom will arise, inferior to yours. Next, a third kingdom, one of bronze, will rule over the whole earth. 40 Finally, there will be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron—for iron breaks and smashes everything—and as iron breaks things to pieces, so it will crush and break all the others. 41 Just as you saw that the feet and toes were partly of baked clay and partly of iron, so this will be a divided kingdom; yet it will have some of the strength of iron in it, even as you saw iron mixed with clay. 42 As the toes were partly iron and partly clay, so this kingdom will be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 And just as you saw the iron mixed with baked clay, so the people will be a mixture and will not remain united, any more than iron mixes with clay.

44 In the time of those kings, the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be destroyed, nor will it be left to another people. It will crush all those kingdoms and bring them to an end, but it will itself endure forever. 45 This is the meaning of the vision of the rock cut out of a mountain, but not by human hands—a rock that broke the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver and the gold to pieces.

I think Daniel is editorializing to humor the king. I actually start the count at Egyptian (gold), Babylonian (silver), Persian (bronze), Greek (iron), Roman (iron/clay, because Roman culture is borrowed from Greek in everything from architecture to their gods, but is simpler in every regard). So ppl who use Daniel's passage as an excuse for Revelation have got it all wrong. Even if you bump that idea to start with Nebuchadnezzar, that ends the idea with the HRE. Sacked by Islam, and then we had the start of Western ideas under the darkness of that, blooming in the Renaissance, and finally flourishing when it was driven out. A Kingdom built on the blood of Jesus and the saints, finished years later. A  Kingdom not built by human hands.

Your nWo isn't really a new World order at all. It's the same shit, different day. Calling the Earth round was cute when you didn't know any better. But trying to revert centuries of progress back into a dark age where nobody knows anything of the past is not. Not that you'll succeed, mind you. Tyranny always falls to its own excess. Today's tyranny typically implodes in 50 years. Almost as though there were a King that deposes them, almost as though you've been trying for centuries to pave over the kingdom of God with more manly ideas.

If you're going at ad hominem, you haven't won an argument. You've lost it. Debate is about attacking the idea, not the person.

It's from Zatch Bell. You don't give credit either, for the thousands of stupid pictures that I eventually have to trace back to imgur, where they go further on as memes. Do you realize that I hand draw most of my models, and digitally alter the rest? That's hours of work whereupon I have made a picture my own. A digital composite is a new picture. It's not the sum of its parts. If you were to copyright the words "it", "was", "then" so that people couldn't use them, you could claim every novel that uses those words has to pay you royalty. But that wouldn't stick. As a guy who made a certain type of windshield wiper explained when brought to patent court after they tried to use patent to prevent his wiper (Flash of Genius 2008, and the doctrine it's based on)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_of_genius
 from seeing the light of day, the components used are common, it's how you put them together that matters. It was later overturned for non-obviousness, but the idea is the same. You can use the same components, but the end result must not be a straight up ripoff. Is it different from the original, are they components or did you just colorswap?
The components used to make an image are found in stock pictures online. I literally search for "astronaut no background." And plop that on a stock image of space. I'm not stealing things, I've made a new picture out of stock shots. Meanwhile, you routinely cite news articles, tired diagrams, and have the gall to accuse me of stealing things. Not that I care if you yourself are guilty of copyright.

Like liberal globalists everywhere, you think that despite the fact that I'm not making any profit, I should pay people for essentially spreading their work. The same globalists that tell people it's copyright when you're actually using something for artistic or educational purposes (artistic, it's pretty to look at) think that the Cayman Islands is somehow wrong to be a tax shelter. No, taxation is theft, and every country that taxes ppl raids their hard earnings in order to fund their government steals the prosperity of a nation. Likewise, trying to prohibit ideas being spread under the pretext of copyright is censorship. I never claimed that I drew that. But most of my flat Earth ideas are in fact my own observations. Where are YOUR ideas from? Oh right, you're a shill without one original idea in your head.

The stated point of copyright is to protect against work stealing commercially from another person (I'm not doing that). Not to censor ideas, as you seem to think. And that you're using it this way means you're trying to silence me.

Fair use is a legal doctrine that promotes freedom of expression by permitting the unlicensed use of copyright-protected works in certain circumstances. Section 107 of the Copyright Act provides the statutory framework for determining whether something is a fair use and identifies certain types of uses—such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research—as examples of activities that may qualify as fair use.

Such as commenting or criticizing, as you'd do in a forum. You can also use videos and images for artistic or educational purposes.

Because you get to see Brago's face often, you might actually watch Zatch Bell. Just to see why I'd put him in my signature for like a year or so. Support the original creator. Go watch Zatch Bell.

Better yet, buy Zatch Bell on Amazon so you and I can talk about Zatch Bell.

Likewise, I have one collection of parabolic drawings, and one altered EM spectrum. The original drawing was one of many EM spectrum drawings circulating the web. I think here. But this one's not like that one anymore.

https://www.iotacommunications.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Electromagnetic-spectrum-1280x662.jpg

There are hundreds of different EM spectrum pictures though. It's pretty much stock, because it shows an idea. And I've made a different one, not wanting to redraw an entire model just to have it look similar anyway. Is it substantially different from the original? Not really, but I did create an entirely new section and wiped the numbers.

Meanwhile, that picture? It's literally a cropped PrintScreen of a Youtube video. Pot, meet kettle. You probably do make profit from globalism, making you subject to the commercial clause of copyright. Do you pay royalties?

It's like this. we have a classic bait and switch.

Mean just like the lie you pulled.

The video in question shows the actual time lapse video of the shadow.



While you ignore that fact.  Act like the computer graphic to show additional modeling is the end argument.

While you will not address the predictions of what should happen on a FE.





With you offering no evidence the modeling was wrong.  With no evidence provided by you the test and actual travel of the shadow can’t be duplicated.  And no proof by you it’s anything than real evidence of a spherical earth.

Some people, like me, might concede that yes, the Earth is a round DISC. Or at least our eyes can see

One.
Please provide video and pictures

Two.  Our eyes don’t have the discernment to judge a few inches drop over miles.


https://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-people-holding-the-eiffel-tower-2014-3

Or even when using a reference…







And between your lies and your delusions. You judgement is the last thing I would trust.

It's like this. we have a classic bait and switch.

No, this is another case of you just blatantly lying and ignoring what has already been explained.

Again, we know that over 1 m, the curvature of Earth is insignificant. Also notice that they did not use the surface of Earth for their test. Instead they used a piece of timber, which can also be treated as flat to within uncertainty.

This does focus more on the sun than the shape of Earth, but it demonstrates that the modern FE model is pure garabge.

In order to have the shadow of an object trace a straight line like that, then you need the sun to have a relative motion of circling in a plane passing through the object casting the shadow and the object the shadow is cast on (or with a negligible offset).

For the modern FE models, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN!
Instead, they have the sun very much above Earth. This means the plane it is circling in does NOT pass through the object and the beam of wood.
This means it should NOT produce a straight line.

If the sun is circling above some point above the north pole, then the shadow will trace a different path depending on location.
At the north pole, the shadow will trace a circle centred on the object
As you move south, the circle will distort and shift off the object, eventually reaching a point (along the path of the subsolar point) where the shadow passes directly below the object, but still curves.
As you keep moving south, the circle moves entirely the one side of the object, and maintains a curved path.

At no point will it EVER trace a straight line.

But if we discard that garbage, and go to the ancient FE model or the RE model, then we have a sun which (again using relative motion) circle and go below Earth.
On the equinox, it rises due east, goes over a particular location and then sets due west.
This appears to be a circle centred on any object on Earth.
This allows a shadow to follow a straight line.

This has been explained several times, but you still act as if we are focusing on the shape of the shadow.

Some people, like me, might concede that yes, the Earth is a round DISC. Or at least our eyes can see portions that are discs. But it's entirely different thing to say, "I see A and B, and I have proven A has X properties, there B must also be X." That's a fraudulent proof.

No, some people like you blatantly lie, entirely ignoring what the argument actually is, instead setting up a pathetic strawman to attack.
All while deflecting from simple issues you can't explain.
Rather than even attempting to honestly address the issues, you present this pathetic strawman, and then run off on a tangent entirely unrelated to the topic.


Care to try addressing that argument, or try explaining how the sun casts a shadow upwards when it is meant to be above the object?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 27, 2023, 05:24:30 AM

Some people, like me, might concede that yes, the Earth is a round DISC. Or at least our eyes can see

One.
Please provide video and pictures

Two.  Our eyes don’t have the discernment to judge a few inches drop over miles.


https://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-people-holding-the-eiffel-tower-2014-3

You are able to do this with the Eiffel Tower (that made me laugh btw) because of the non-curvature of the Earth. I have a similar picture of me "pushing a boat".

Because objects shrink rather than bending vertically (I've seen vertical curve in Final Fantasy 7, and it's one of the weirdest effects ever, basically looking like trees and mountains come into view at an acute angle and slowly stand upright), you can see objects as simply shrinking and expanding.

(Skip to 21:50 onward)

 Near Jamestown from the coastline, you can see something like this.


But it doesn't look like that when ashore.


Different angle (looks to be an aerial shot) but note how spaced out the trees are.

You are able to do this with the Eiffel Tower (that made me laugh btw) because of the non-curvature of the Earth

What it shows is our eyes can’t be trusted.

Noticed you ignored this.

Or even when using a reference…







While this is more valid than anything produced by the FE community.  And more trusty than your eyes.

The Rainy Lake Experiment

Summary
All data and observations agree with the predictions of the Globe Model, which includes Terrestrial Refraction. The predictions for the Flat Earth Model, however, contradict the observations.

The Rainy Lake Experiment shows even better than the Bedford Level Experiment that the earth is a globe, since we also have GPS measurements that are not influenced by Refraction or Perspective, but are of a pure geometric nature. GPS measurements directly provide the radius of the earth.

Only one conclusion remains:

The earth cannot be flat, but is a globe with a mean radius of 6371 km!

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Rainy+Lake+Experiment%3A+Conclusion

You are able to do this with the Eiffel Tower (that made me laugh btw) because of the non-curvature of the Earth.

You mean because of how gradual the curvature of Earth is.
Again, a sufficiently large radius of curvature is in indistinguishable from flat.

Because objects shrink rather than bending vertically (I've seen vertical curve in Final Fantasy 7, and it's one of the weirdest effects ever, basically looking like trees and mountains come into view at an acute angle and slowly stand upright), you can see objects as simply shrinking and expanding.

No, we don't.
Instead we observe things shrink and sink.
And by sink, I don't simply mean have objects above you appear lower, but still above, based upon their distance.
I mean even objects below you appear to sink, and things above will sink to appear below.
The sinking part is what you can't explain.
And is also something that relates directly to this thread.

The sun doesn't merely shrink and appear to sink to eye level.
Instead, it appears to remain the same size (when using a solar filter) and sink to below you, even cast light upwards showing it is not perspective.

No, I mean the non-curvature.

The Eiffel Tower disappears instead because of vanishing point. If there was curvature, that object would have an obvious backward lean to it (like you see nowhere on Earth, aside from the Leaning Tower of Pisa, which has more to do with being built on unstable soil than curvature) that would make it completely noticeable that this is a distant object an not simply a small one. The Eiffel Tower simply shrinks. At no point does the Eiffel Tower do this, or you would not be able to perform the above illusion.


What I mean by no curvature. Yes, objects shrink in the distance, but you can draw straight lines and straight angles. If I were to move up one for every one I move left left, I am moving diagonally. If I move two for every one I move left, this is orthogonal (like a chess knight) but still a straight line. In order to move in a curved line, I would need to transition from orthogonal to diagonal, or orthogonal vertical to orthogonal horizontally. You do not see this happen in the sky, in objects, on the ground, anywhere.

Source video of the above picture. I include sources less for reference, and more to elaborate on the origibal concept.

No, I mean the non-curvature.

No, you mean a gradual curve, so gradual that over that distance it isn't significant.

The Eiffel Tower disappears instead because of vanishing point.

The Eifel Tower initially disappears because things get in the way, like a building or trees.
It has nothing to do with the vanishing point.

If there was curvature, that object would have an obvious backward lean to it

No, it wouldn't.
This is because of a key word you have left in OBVIOUS!
Just how obvious do you think it is?

Firstly, with the curve, it will be leaning backwards away from you.
This is one of the hardest directions to see a lean in.
It isn't like a lean sideways, where you can easily see a misalignment because the top is visibly at a different horizontal angle.
Instead, if the lean is slight enough, it is almost impossible.

Considering you bring up the Leaning Tower of Pisa, how about these view:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@43.7231669,10.3965931,3a,75y,178.56h,119.84t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sV2ZOnxSf9XXjp5t7pnupXg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@43.7236203,10.3966721,3a,75y,189.35h,106.04t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sBmPNlm05tqA7cxLSexoGrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i38
From these angle you can't easily tell that it is leaning, as it is leaning away.
This is because you are already looking at it from an angle.
And all it leaning away is like, is like looking at it from a slightly lower position.

But even ignoring that, just how much should it be leaning back?
In order to reach 1 degree, you need to go one 360th of the way around Earth. i.e. you need to go roughly 111 km.
If you were looking at an object 10 km away, it would appear to lean back less than 0.1 degrees. For something closer to the horizon, at 5 km away, it would lean back a mere 0.05 degrees.

So no, it would NOT have an obvious lean.
Earth is not a tiny ball you can hold in your hand.

Again, this relates directly back to a fact no FEer can refute. A sufficiently large radius of curvature is indistinguishable from flat.
The amount an object leans back (in degress) is given by:
a=(d/r)*(360/(2*pi))

With r sufficiently large, a will be too small to notice.

What I mean by no curvature. Yes, objects shrink in the distance, but you can draw straight lines and straight angles.

Again, objects don't merely shrink, they sink as well, with objects appearing to sink into Earth.

If you draw straight lines, they don't follow objects (at least not when you have enough distance).

And again, the sun is a great example of this.
If it was merely distance, then a shadow, a line from the sun to an object and beyond, should go DOWN.

Why do you continue to baselessly argue?

Whats the anlge between segments of a 300,000sided polygon?

Another impossible flat earth sunrise…



Sun is definitely relatively below the clouds. 

Why do you continue to baselessly argue?

If it were baseless, I wouldn't continue to argue. That there continues to be a basis to argue means you haven't actually disproven anything, that there is still doubt.

Another impossible flat earth sunrise…

Bottom line? The way the sunlight is cast is impossible. The only way the light can be where it is would be if it is cast downwards from actual location.

L

Another bulmabriefs144 epic fail.



The sun is literally relatively below the clouds illuminating them bottom up.

The sun can be relatively lower than the clouds, and still be “behind” the clouds.   

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2023, 03:12:43 PM

Why do you continue to baselessly argue?

If it were baseless, I wouldn't continue to argue. That there continues to be a basis to argue means you haven't actually disproven anything, that there is still doubt.

Quote

Another impossible flat earth sunrise…

Bottom line? The way the sunlight is cast is impossible. The only way the light can be where it is would be if it is cast downwards from actual location.

Great
So theres a base.
Lets have it.
Whata the angle between segments of a 300,000sided polygon?
Say it.

You cut out half of my 2setence post.
Why?
Your obviois avoidance is obvipus.

If it were baseless, I wouldn't continue to argue. That there continues to be a basis to argue means you haven't actually disproven anything, that there is still doubt.

Your wilful rejection of reality is not a basis.

You not accepting that you are wrong doesn't mean that you haven't been disproven or that there is a base to your insane claims.

You inability to explain how it works on a FE demonstrates your claims are baseless.

Bottom line? The way the sunlight is cast is impossible. The only way the light can be where it is would be if it is cast downwards from actual location.

Only for a FE. It works quite well on a RE, where the light is clearly being cast upwards. Notice how the trees aren't being illuminated directly from the sun, because the sun is below the horizon.

The clouds aren't being illuminated from behind, they are being illuminated from below.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 08, 2023, 06:08:33 PM

Quote from: Themightykabool on April 28, 2023, 03:12:43 PM

Why do you continue to baselessly argue?

If it were baseless, I wouldn't continue to argue. That there continues to be a basis to argue means you haven't actually disproven anything, that there is still doubt.

Quote

Another impossible flat earth sunrise…

Bottom line? The way the sunlight is cast is impossible. The only way the light can be where it is would be if it is cast downwards from actual location.

Great
So theres a base.
Lets have it.
Whata the angle between segments of a 300,000sided polygon?
Say it.

You cut out half of my 2setence post.
Why?
Your obviois avoidance is obvipus.

How did you manage to spell obvious wrong twice in the same sentence?

I don't feel like answering all questions. You overload me with questions, and then I get a 403 error when I try to post and it's too long.
Or it's possible your question was stupid, and I didn't feel like dignifying it with a response.

I'm sure you think you've got me stumped here. I assume that gives a small person like you pleasure. Narcissistic people actually have an inferiority complex, but they get to feel big by cutting other people down. I'm sorry.  But that's not gonna happen, because you didn't take geometry. You don't understand that there's a theorem for that.

Sum of the Exterior Angles of a Polygon
Exterior angles of a polygon are the angles formed between one of the sides of the polygon and outward extension of the adjacent side. The sum of all the exterior angles of a polygon is 360 degrees.

So, 360/300k = 0.0012

What was your point? You wouldn't make such a polygon except for "Prophesy! Who hit you?" type questions. Questions designed to mock or stump people. But this question ultimately has no point to it.

 Let's ask a question with a point. Why is it so impossible for you to believe that you can see the sunrise on a flat Earth? It's rather clear to me that the horizon is flat, the ground is flat and the light cast by the sun is a flat and hollow disc. Do you need to be right? Is that the payoff? Here, "You're right," now go away.
For the rest of all here, yes it is not only possible but very simple to see a sunrise on a flat Earth. What isn't possible is that we could see certain things on a round Earth. Like the sun for 12 hours. Oh sure, it makes sense in theory. You've got 180 degrees for 12 hours. But then there's a discrepancy between the amount of distance we actually can see, and the amount of time the sun spends in a small location like ours. And then there's the rate of rotation compared to the diameter. Yes, your scientists use the circumference. That is because they are bad at math. If you want to know how long it will take for an object to turn to the other side, you use the diameter. Why? Because that's the length one side to another, the other is based on assumption that Earth's a sphere. When determining rotation, you ignore the sphere and instead focus on a diameter turn, doubling that for 360 (what is supposed to be a day).

Earth's diameter = 7,918mi
Earth's (supposed) spin at equator = 1,037.5646 mph
Hours to sunset = 7.63133206357

If we are use this math, we quickly understand the model is wrong. For the Earth to rotate its full diameter (which would make the sun vanish from sight, as it is a full 180 degrees) only takes 8 hours. Instead of a day far closer to 12 hours (1/2 day of sunlight), the model only accounts for 1/3 of the day. Realistically, the Earth rotating doesn't make sense in practice, only in theory.

Heliocentrism is a great lie. They tell it to you young enough and often enough and then you start to believe it, even though it didn't make sense as a child.

I don't feel like answering all questions.

Of course you don't, because you can't answer.
You cannot explain how the sun is illuminating the cloud from below when it is meant to be above.

Narcissistic people actually have an inferiority complex, but they get to feel big by cutting other people down.

Is that why you are here pretending to refute the RE and failing miserably?

So, 360/300k = 0.0012
What was your point?

The point is that that is the kind of tiny angle you are trying to find on Earth.

With Earth's circumference of ~40 000 km, that would have each side of that 300 000 sided polygon be 133 m.

Of course you don't, because you can't answer.
You cannot explain how the sun is illuminating the cloud from below when it is meant to be above.

You just saw it. It's not below. It's behind. It's casting bright light below itself and at the sky.
You cannot answer how the sun is lighting the clouds above it (and the sky far above it) when it is below them.
Nor can you answer why it is that you object to flat Earth. You don't actually know, do you?
Isn't that what you said, that skipping questions means you dunno?

Is that why you are here pretending to refute the RE and failing miserably?

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better. Just as you can keep telling yourself that you've refuted flat Earth.
It's delusions that help us sleep at night. It's hard truths that keep us up. I am usually an insomniac.

The point is that that is the kind of tiny angle you are trying to find on Earth.

With Earth's circumference of ~40 000 km, that would have each side of that 300 000 sided polygon be 133 m.

A sphere (as you put it) is not a 300,000 sided polygon.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-sides-does-a-sphere-have?share=1
https://faqbeast.com/how-many-sides-does-a-sphere-have/

A sphere has two sides. An inside and an outside. Or a front and back.
Or it has no sides. Depending on what you are asking.

It is what the Jordan-Brouwer Separation Theorem (of which I have only skimmed) called a "smooth hypersurface."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersurface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_curve_theorem
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2323445

So yeah, again, there is no point to the 300,000 number. If it is a 300,000 sided polygon, then Earth is not a sphere.
Even so, I answered your question. This is the degrees involved. This angle would be so small that the surface of this "300,000 polygon" would be unable to see much of anything. The sun could cross 133 m easily, and your view of sunlight would be severely limited in time.

You just saw it. It's not below.

The sun is literally below the clouds that it is shining up into.



Same for this photo.  Taken before the time of sunrise. 



Where the sun is relatively below the lower clouds casting a shadow up into the higher clouds. 

A sphere (as you put it) is not a 300,000 sided polygon.

The other day the kid asked what I was doing.  I said debating with flat earther’s.

The kid looked at me funny and said how can the earth be flat, it has to have at least six sides. 

So I asked what do you get when you round the corners of a cube.

The kid’s eyes lit up with an aw ha moment and said a ball.

You just saw it. It's not below. It's behind. It's casting bright light below itself and at the sky.

No, it is below, not behind.
We see the clouds clearly illuminated from below, with the bottom of the clouds illuminated.

You cannot answer how the sun is lighting the clouds above it (and the sky far above it) when it is below them.

The clouds are not an impenetrable barrier. There are gaps. The sun can go through those gaps.
Also, the sun is very far away, coming in at a quite shallow angle at this time, so it can shine above the clouds.

Just what do you think the problem is?

Nor can you answer why it is that you object to flat Earth. You don't actually know, do you?

Yes I can, and I have repeatedly.
The FE model is entirely incapable of explaining so many aspects of reality, some of which you have just chosen to outright ignore, because you can't explain it.
Conversely, the RE model CAN explain reality.

Specifically for this case, we have clear evidence that relative to an observer on Earth the sun is going down, not merely far away. (Or in the case of a sunrise, coming up, not merely closer).
The sun is shining light from below the cloud onto its lower surface.
This is explained fine with a RE, where the sun is over a point quite far removed from the sun, so in the cartesian reference frame of the cloud the sun is below it.
But it makes no sense at all in a FE with the sun above the clouds.

It's delusions that help us sleep at night. It's hard truths that keep us up. I am usually an insomniac.

So you are kept up from the hard truths that you are here lying to everyone?

A sphere (as you put it) is not a 300,000 sided polygon.

No, but its cross section can be approximated as one.
A sphere has infinitely many faces.
It's cross section, a circle, has infinitely many sides.

But you end up with roughly the same angles, it is just that technically you need the distance along a chord not the surface.

If you approximated Earth's cross section as a 300 000 sided polygon instead of a circle, you would still predict similar results. The main distinction being that the horizon would move away in 133 m jumps.

The point is that your inability to see any obvious curvature is due to just how large Earth is. If you were standing on a prism which had a 300 000 sided polygon as its cross section, you would have quite similar issues to your inability to see the curvature of the RE.

Even so, I answered your question. This is the degrees involved. This angle would be so small that the surface of this "300,000 polygon" would be unable to see much of anything. The sun could cross 133 m easily, and your view of sunlight would be severely limited in time.

Why? Yet again you just make a bold baseless assertion.
The sun is roughly 150 000 000 km away. It is not just gliding along the surface. And it is much larger than Earth.
That means that even when it is above a point 90 degrees away, it will still be at least partially visible.

It is your fantasy where there is a magical parabola which magically restricts our vision to 5 km which requires the sun to glide along the surface and only be visible for some narrow track each day, and only visible in a specific location for a few minutes.

The RE model, which actually works to describe reality, using the curvature of Earth to explain how the vision to some distant objects are obstructed, doesn't have that issue.

a circle is the sectional of a sphere.

great
someone says 133m and 360/ 300,000 for the angle.
FINALLY!

now we know the 133m and the angle in between 133m segments is 0.0012degrees.

so you need a level, x2 (which you claimed a long time ago to have bought from homedepot) that is 133m long (was the homedepot one 133m long?) and protractor that can measure 0.0012of a degree.
now we can PROVE the earth is flat by debunking.



133m not practical?
looks like i did my units wrong.
30,000,000 sided polygon maybe required
two 1m level with 0.000012degrees between them.

You can say that all you want.

But if you define Earth thusly, it isn't a sphere.

Are you now rejecting your own RE model to instead pursue a 1d300000 dice?

You have not debunked anything, because you have not proved this angle exists. That this number of sides exists. In fact, you needed my calculation to get that angle.

And a definition of delusion is when you are convinced you have already succeeded in something. People on drugs think this way. They see a swimming pool, and they think they've just won and Olympic medal. Then they fall into the pool, swim for three yards, and then drown.

I'm not gonna work with this, either to prove or disprove the Earth is flat. The best proofs do not involve math. Math is largely a way for the mind to deceive itself into delusions of brilliance.
The further along in math, the closer to delusion. You start with numbers and fractions. These use real objects. Three can be three apples. 1/2 an apple is easily visible. Then there's multiplication and division. You can lay apples in rows and columns. Still real. Algebra is defined numbers, but I can do without the FOIL method. Geometry is back to the study of real objects. I memorized alot of theorems. Then you have stuff like tangents, sines, and cosines. These are useful for wave motion graphs, and measuring the height of objects by angle. About here is the end of real math.

Then they tell you about imaginary numbers, theoretical math, and scientific math. We work in huge huge numbers that are probably wrong. The absurd speed of light necessitates an absurd distance of the sun from Earth, distance of stars, size of the Earth, etc, etc, etc. And if the speed of light is dependent on atmosphere? All of these estimates fall apart like a house of cards, because each estimate is built on other estimates. We don't actually KNOW the speed of light. Scientists decided on a number based on measurements in a vacuum. There is nothing to say that light eventually doesn't degrade in speed, especially when dispersed across "outer space". Remember that in science? Rules of diffusion? Everything from air and water particles onward sifts itself to be more even. So these estimates are based on crunching numbers in your head rather than actually comparing them to reality. Thinking that because you can swim well for three yards means you can continue to do so. A delusion.

Because something seems real in a tiny area, you cannot crunch numbers and predict that it is the case for the entire Earth. But that's what the math of the first round Earthers did. They looked at a rounded shadow in Egypt, and decided the sun was a sphere, so Earth must be a sphere because calculation. Exploration, not calculation, is key. You can't verify or disprove anything from a limited sample and alot of math.

And they didn't even bother in some cases to prove things in a tiny area. Even micro proof is better than assumption. You can show that water doesn't work in a curved bathtub, that it lays flat instead of arcing up to adjust to the weird shape of the bath. Even this simple observation would be enough to realize that water cannot collect on the underside of Earth (the southern hemisphere), that it would drip down constantly. That a sphere simply is not a workable shape for liquids.

Now you could have a sphere, if half of the Earth was rock below everyone, and the other half was upright. But liquids don't do well with the sides of objects. A hemisphere Earth instead of a round Earth.



The designers of this house know that water will not stay put. That water rolls off rounded objects. Apparently, you have trouble with this concept.