Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

It's funny, but I see a faint yellow line near this sun. Start with the sun, and trace your finger above it, and you can pretty clearly see that the sun isn't in its actual position.

You mean you are looking for excuses?

Light isn't being refracted here.

Then why not just use a diagram which has reflection?

It's behind the cloud and getting reflected (by the ground) so it looks ahead and below it.

Reflection from the ground wouldn't make the sun appear in the sky.
We also see plenty of light coming upwards to the clouds, but basically none coming from above.

And how does it manage to reflect for such a large distance? You would still need the sun to be far too low for your model.

Yeah no. A cylinder has a horizontal curve.

And you see that by the edge of the cylinder, where the surface curves such that the rear surface is blocked by the front surface.

And if you hold that cylinder horizontal, that is quite like the horizon on Earth, where it curves downwards.

You have yet to understand that the horizon does wrap around

No, we understand that quite well.
The horizon is a circle.
Something that shouldn't happen on a FE, but is entirely expected on a RE.

but until you establish vertical curve you haven't proved a damned thing.

And it has been established in countless ways.
Without horizontal curvature, what is obstructing the view?

If the horizon appears cylindrical, then it cannot be a sphere.

It doesn't appear cylindrical. It appears as a circle. Exactly as you would expect for a RE.

As I say. Seeing what you want to see.

That does appear to be what you are doing. Ignoring everything that destroys your BS and just focusing on what you pretend matches it.

Saw this today,

Which as what to do with this?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 05, 2023, 08:02:10 PM

Sigh.  Which in no way explains..

A sun that can produce the amount of charge particles required to make the magnitude of witnessed northern and southern lights.

The straight paths of charged particles.

Lunar eclipse.

Solar eclipse.

The sun becomes physically blocked by the earths curvature so at night the light and radiation of the sun is blocked physically from the night side of earth.

And there is no proof of your delusional parabola.  From radar and laser range finders being accurate.  To how the mist lays.

To how these towers show no distortion from your parabola that has to hide the sunset at three miles…

And why don’t you use thiese pictures

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 07, 2023, 01:06:38 PM

Saw this today,

Which as what to do with this?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on June 06, 2023, 01:28:53 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 05, 2023, 08:02:10 PM

Sigh.  Which in no way explains..

A sun that can produce the amount of charge particles required to make the magnitude of witnessed northern and southern lights.

The straight paths of charged particles.

Lunar eclipse.

Solar eclipse.

The sun becomes physically blocked by the earths curvature so at night the light and radiation of the sun is blocked physically from the night side of earth.

And there is no proof of your delusional parabola.  From radar and laser range finders being accurate.  To how the mist lays.

To how these towers show no distortion from your parabola that has to hide the sunset at three miles…







And why don’t you use thiese pictures

You keep talking about distortion. You simply don't get it.

I don't use those pictures because you have written all over them. But sure, why not.


(Click for full picture)


Distortion? No. Until you get to the horizon, you can draw a line straight enough to build a level building, road, bridge, tunnel, etc. Architecture on RE, on the other hand, is impossible. You could not build a road more than a few miles before you would have to substantially adjust to curvature. 
And even at the horizon, the distortion is only horizontal. That is, you'd only encounter a difficulty if you were trying to make a perfect spiral road or something, and extended it for miles and miles. It would not be a perfect spiral if you measured it out. The distortion affects things like latitude, not simple lines.

I don't have to deal with distortion. You do. 



Meanwhile, this used to extend for miles and miles. It's now kinda broken in its western sections, due to centuries of neglect, but the point is that these builders were mostly dumb peasants forced to build a structure. Not people who knew about curvature. Yet the structure is 69,541,000 ft (or 13,170.6439 miles).

If an airliner is flying at approximately 500-600mph, it seems to me that there would need to be a significant adjustment for altitude so as to not fly off into space.

Wikipedia says that there's an 8 inch drop for every mile because of the Earth's curvature. But, I've never heard of any airliner adjusting for the curvature.

There should be a substantial amount of curve for this amount of distance of wall. Yet there's 13,170.6439 miles with no adjustment for curvature to the best of my knowledge.

Feel free to talk nonsense all you want. But I shall never admit that it's not nonsense.

I don't have to deal with distortion. You do. 



Meanwhile, this used to extend for miles and miles. It's now kinda broken in its western sections, due to centuries of neglect, but the point is that these builders were mostly dumb peasants forced to build a structure. Not people who knew about curvature. Yet the structure is 69,541,000 ft (or 13,170.6439 miles).

Quote

If an airliner is flying at approximately 500-600mph, it seems to me that there would need to be a significant adjustment for altitude so as to not fly off into space.

Wikipedia says that there's an 8 inch drop for every mile because of the Earth's curvature. But, I've never heard of any airliner adjusting for the curvature.

There should be a substantial amount of curve for this amount of distance of wall. Yet there's 13,170.6439 miles with no adjustment for curvature to the best of my knowledge.

Feel free to talk nonsense all you want. But I shall never admit that it's not nonsense.

I know I've said you are an idiot before, but I take it back.  You're retarted.  The Great Wall of China is not a flat level surface across it's entire length.  Curvature of the Earth is irrelevant as the wall follows the geography of the land.

Grow a brain, or get some electroshock stimulation to get the clearly non-functioning brain in your skull to possibly start working.

(Click for full picture)

A line a constant distance away is NOT straight. It is a curve, specifically a circle.
That is the shape you would expect for the horizon on a sphere.

What we observe on Earth, in reality, is what we would expect for a RE, and nothing like what is expected for a FE.
The way Earth itself disappears, and objects on Earth disappear is evidence of curvature.
The fact you can go up higher and see further is more evidence of curvature.
All the signs point to curvature. Nothing points to your fantasy.
You cannot demonstrate a single issue for curvature.

Distortion? No. Until you get to the horizon, you can draw a line straight enough to build a level building, road, bridge, tunnel, etc.

Draw it on what?
You can't just draw a giant straight line on Earth. If you are going to do that, you need some way to make sure it is straight.

Architecture on RE, on the other hand, is impossible. You could not build a road more than a few miles before you would have to substantially adjust to curvature.

How would you need to adjust?
If you are laying a road level over level ground (following the curve) there is no need to adjust.
Instead of just baselessly asserting crap, try explaining why. Try explaining exactly what you need to do.

Meanwhile, this used to extend for miles and miles. It's now kinda broken in its western sections, due to centuries of neglect, but the point is that these builders were mostly dumb peasants forced to build a structure. Not people who knew about curvature. Yet the structure is 69,541,000 ft (or 13,170.6439 miles).

And if you just build a wall on the RE, you end up with something like that. There is no need to specifically adjust for curvature.

Feel free to talk nonsense all you want. But I shall never admit that it's not nonsense.

You are the one talking nonsense here.

Yes, it does follow the geography of the land.

You know what it doesn't follow? 8 ft of curvature per mile. There is literally no evidence of this.

I have a brain. This brain allows me to do my own thinking. You just parrot dogma. How is that better than a ChatGPT? They programmed info in your brain in school, and you don't have the ability think outside what the info told you. You don't have the ability to call bullshit.

Yes, it does follow the geography of the land.

You know what it doesn't follow? 8 ft of curvature per mile.

That is part of the geography of the land.

I have a brain. This brain allows me to do my own thinking.

Try thinking honestly, rather than trying to think of lies and BS you can use to mislead people.

You don't have the ability to call bullshit.

We most certainly do, as we keep doing it to you.

You have the ability to lie and claim something is BS, but you never seem to be able to back it up.

This is just yet another example. You claim architecture would be impossible on the RE, but you can't articulate why. You can't tell us just what corrections need to be made for something like a road which is following the terrain, or being laid level.
Instead, all you can do is assert dishonest, delusional BS.

Thinking doesn't mean rejecting reality just because it was taught to you in school.

You keep calling them lies and BS, but it never occurs to you that I came by this information honestly.

No. You're just reciting programming.

In the same way that a cult member, when confronted by a regular person telling them "there is no second death (some of the stuff I encountered in Twelve Tribes)," instead actually calling it bullshit on their own, they repeat what the elders or cult leaders have told them.

 A man was healed of his ailment by Jesus. The Pharisees all gave him stock answers from Judaism. But the man had personal experience. He had no witty or clever answer to Pharisees (they were scholars, after all). But he could clearly see their "wisdom" was wrong. That something about Jesus was different from what was written in Talmud.

When you talk only of secondhand knowledge, without any ability to reject or process what you have learned, you are what college calls a sophomore (lit, "and idiot who 'knows' things"). College was originally supposed to weed out such nonsense, but today's college usually doesn't let those coming out of it to develop critical thinking.

Distortion? No. Until you get to the horizon,

As in these sets of towers literally on the horizon show no distortion from your none existent parabola that has to be powerful enough to hide the sun three miles to the horizon , for a sun that would never be physically blocked from view on a flat earth.


With theses set of photos being zoomed in views of towers on ridges across a river valley at least three miles away if not more. 

You know what it doesn't follow? 8 ft of curvature per mile. There is literally no evidence of this.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 08, 2023, 05:53:07 PM

Standing on a flat surface with your eyes about 5 feet off the ground, the farthest edge that you can see is about 3 miles.

https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain


https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 08, 2023, 05:53:07 PM

Anyone who has been atop a mountain,

https://flatearth.ws/bonneville

Shrugs…

See thread, “Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved”

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91626.0

More stock pictures from flatearth.ws

Did you even post these yourself? Because if not, these are just stolen thoughts.

Prove these pictures are even real. Because when I look at telephone poles toward the horizon, they don't curve or warp. They do like so.



Meanwhile, since you keep dredging up the same crap about Ponchatrain.

More stock pictures from flatearth.ws

Did you even post these yourself? Because if not, these are just stolen thoughts.

Prove these pictures are even real. Because when I look at telephone poles toward the horizon, they don't curve or warp. They do like so.



Meanwhile, since you keep dredging up the same crap about Ponchatrain.

Sigh.

You ignored horizon, and the curvature seen at the salt flats.  And that is in regards to you saying “You know what it doesn't follow? 8 ft of curvature per mile. There is literally no evidence of this.”

With visible curvature and horizon as evidence of earth’s curvature.  Then four more cases in the thread, “Four cases together show beyond a reasonable doubt the earth is curved”

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91626.0

Four cases you ignored.  And now trying to change the subject too. Vanishing point, that has nothing to do with visible curvature at the Utah salt flats.  And vanishing point doesn’t explain why the horizon is below eye level.


Covered in detail in this thread, “Horizon did not block duck from view”
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.msg2370399#msg2370399

That vanishing point doesn’t physically block objects from view. Doesn’t block the sun to prevent radiation and light from a single light source reaching the viewer. Vanishing point doesn’t explain why the earth’s curvature blocks a ship beyond the horizon from view.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 18, 2022, 03:16:27 AM

Sorry, long post with lots of photos.

So.

Let’s recap and get back on topic of this thread.

Trying to push the limits of perspective and small object photography to try to get a flat surface to make an object to become physically blocked from view where zooming cannot bring it back into view.

Yesterday I tried to use a small object on the railroad tracks at 350 steps.  Which is about 750 feet.  Unfortunately, the heat coming off the track made it impossible to focus on the target.

So. Changed gears. Did an experiment at night.  Placed a relatively small flashlight right on the track.  Took pictures of the flashlight at various distances.

Using the track because it is relatively on a grade made flat for the old railroad car yard. 

My camera was placed so it could be close to the tracks as possible on its highest zoom setting.


Used this flashlight.




Place the flashlight on the track


View from 100 steps no flash


View from 100 steps with flash


200 steps no flash


200 steps flash


300 steps no flash


300 steps flash


360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


360 steps flash


360 steps camera at a greater hight above ground.  About three feet.


In conclusion. Pushing the limits of photography using the smallest practical objects on the flattest and longest surfaces I have access to.  I have not been able to use perspective to physically block an object from view. In the flat earth delusion, it’s impossible for the flat earth to block the sun from view.  Or a ship at sea in the example below.



Thus, thus is true.

 

You know what it doesn't follow? 8 ft of curvature per mile. There is literally no evidence of this.

Here’s an old list


Meteorite impact craters on earth.

Satellites tracked by radar.

Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun
If Zuma is still up there, these are the people who might spot it.

BY MARY BETH GRIGGS JANUARY 12, 2018

https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/

Lake Pontchartrain Power Transmission Lines: Evidence of Earth’s Curvature

https://flatearth.ws/pontchartrain

Math associated with right triangles proves it’s impossible for objects like the sun and North Star to appear to set beyond the horizon

Earth’s movement and gravity backed by the theory of relativity, and shown in how it measurably impacts time/clocks. And ring laser gyroscopes.

Parabolic Motion of Projectiles

The blast from the Tsar nuclear bomb resulted in seismic waves and atmospheric pressure waves that circled the earth three times.

Distance to the sun measured by parallax

The way comets pivot around the sun.
Solar and lunar eclipses.
Comets pulled into the sun or Jupiter.

Over the horizon radar
Skywaves
Why shortwave has greater broadcast areas than ground FM
Why increasing antenna hight increases broadcast area
The sun sets over the horizon
The seasons
Why certain constellations are only seen from specific hemispheres
Retrograde travel of planets in the sky
Equatorial mounts for telescopes
Why Mars is closer to the earth at times then farther away
Visible man made objects orbiting the earth that were not there in the sky 100 years ago
Satellite TV
You can actually sail around the world
Airplane flight paths in the Southern Hemisphere
Eratosthenes of Cyrene measures circumstance of the earth around 249 BC
Earth's Curvature and Battleship Gunnery
Phases of Venus
Third party verification of Sputnik
Third party verification of moon missions
Third party / amateur verification of satellites in the hundreds. If not thousands
Star parallax
Earth based photos of the International Space Station.
Map projection
Great Circle paths
Long bridges and tunnels need to take in account the earth is curved.
Geodetic Survey.
Bouguer anomaly/survey


——Only takes one item being true to demonstrate the reality of a spherical earth and destroy flat earth.  And they are all true—-

More stock pictures from flatearth.ws

Did you even post these yourself?

Are you trying to change to topic again…

Distortion? No. Until you get to the horizon,

As in these sets of towers literally on the horizon show no distortion from your none existent parabola that has to be powerful enough to hide the sun three miles to the horizon , for a sun that would never be physically blocked from view on a flat earth.


With theses set of photos being zoomed in views of towers on ridges across a river valley at least three miles away if not more. 

You keep calling them lies and BS, but it never occurs to you that I came by this information honestly.

I keep calling them lies and BS, because that is what they are.
This is quite clear when you spout it, and then flee from the refutation.

If you came about it honestly, you would stop spamming so much crap and fleeing as soon as it is refuted.
Instead you would stick to one topic, and deal with it; and when it is refuted, you would address that refutation.

Even now, instead of making any attempt at defending your BS, you just throw out insults.
And why do you do this? Because you know your claims are BS and are indefensible.

So it is quite clear they are lies and BS.

If you wish to claim otherwise, then try defending them.
Clearly describe exactly what adjustments need to be made for curvature for a road following the geography of Earth.
If you can't, then to demonstrate your honesty, admit your prior claim was wrong.

If you can't do either of those, then don't lie to us again by claiming you are being honest.

Prove these pictures are even real. Because when I look at telephone poles toward the horizon, they don't curve or warp. They do like so.

Because you are looking at a tiny distance, rather than using a high vantage point to let you see further, and a zoom lens to see the distant pylons, from a vantage point to easily show the curve.

And there is plenty to show the vanishing point is not the horizon.
The simplest is that the vanishing point is infinitely far away.

Prove these pictures are even real. Because when I look at telephone poles toward the horizon, they don't curve or warp. They do like so.

Is the arbitrarily generic and unamed road youre on flat, curved up, curved down?

Thats some pretty good fadedmike referencing there.





Yes
The photo of the real electrical towers on the sea are real.
In comparison more real than said road given the lack of... well anything useful except differentiating 'raod' from 'avenue/ boulevaird/ hwy'

Insomnia, watching sunrise.

Climbed stairs to get a jacket cuz it was cold outside.

Noticed it was alot brighter upstairs, rushed down back to dimmer.

FE says that I can see farther at higher elevations, so the sun as coming into view would be more in focus the higher up I get. RE has no explanation. You feel like explaining this? I'm going to bed after it rises.

FE says that I can see farther at higher elevations, so the sun as coming into view would be more in focus the higher up I get. RE has no explanation. You feel like explaining this? I'm going to bed after it rises.

Quite the opposite.
FE has no explanation at all for why you can see further the higher you are. You assert that you should, but that is just clinging to an observation.
Conversely, the RE explains it directly.
And that has been explained to you repeatedly. Even in this thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91587.msg2397840#msg2397840
Yet because you don't care about the truth, you happily repeat this lie of yours.

So what is left to explain?

Again, the higher you go, the further it is to the tangent point.

This is what I saw going up and down the stairs.



The sun lights the clouds. You can see more of it from a higher vantage point. It was higher in the sky in terms of perception when I went up and down the steps.

I'm able to analyze things, and I know that the sun can't actually rise to roof level and then fall back to nearly ground level. And I'm pretty damned sure that curvature can't explain a distance of less than a mile making a huge difference in my ability to see (well sorta, kinda hard to look at right now) the sun. So whatever crap you've come up with, I can safely say that doesn't look right. Yes the clouds might appear to curve away from the horizon. But the same thing can be explained by angles and perspective. What cannot is having the sun appear to rise to eye level whether I'm on a second floor or ground level, and in fact show more of itself the higher I go. But this model certainly can.

The red line is where the sun crosses perspective. The person on the roof can see through the person below's perception, but the idea is that the reverse isn't true. The sun appears lower at first floor, even when you're further forward.

Good night all. I have gotten any sleep, as I was busy uploading about five books. Oh, and here's a Zelda Timeline that actually works.


I'm out.

This is what I saw going up and down the stairs.

No, it isn't.
That is a crappy drawing, which lacks so much detail it isn't funny.

You can't even explain how your sun magic works.

The sun lights the clouds. You can see more of it from a higher vantage point.

Why?
For your FE fantasy, it shouldn't matter.

It was higher in the sky in terms of perception when I went up and down the steps.

Or to be honest, it was in basically the same direction which you interpreted as higher due to your higher elevation.

I'm able to analyze things, and I know that the sun can't actually rise to roof level and then fall back to nearly ground level.

Yet you still cling to delusional BS which would demand that, rather than accepting it is basically the same direction because the distance you travelled was insignificant compared to the distance to the sun.

Just like walking left and right a few m doesn't move a distant building or a mountain.

And I'm pretty damned sure that curvature can't explain a distance of less than a mile making a huge difference in my ability to see (well sorta, kinda hard to look at right now) the sun.

Just because you hate reality and are happy to lie to everyone.
Notice how you made no attempt to deal with the explanation of how it works with curvature, and instead just choose to dismiss it, saying it doesn't look right?
Because you don't care about the truth.

What cannot is having the sun appear to rise to eye level whether I'm on a second floor or ground level, and in fact show more of itself the higher I go. But this model certainly can.

The RE model, with the sun very far away, can explain it. Your nonsense can't, as you can't even explain why vision is limited, or why the sun should magically show up there.

Your diagram has the sun less than 5 km away. It's clearly nonsense.

This is what I saw going up and down the stairs.



The sun lights the clouds. You can see more of it from a higher vantage point. It was higher in the sky in terms of perception when I went up and down the steps.

I'm able to analyze things, and I know that the sun can't actually rise to roof level and then fall back to nearly ground level. And I'm pretty damned sure that curvature can't explain a distance of less than a mile making a huge difference in my ability to see (well sorta, kinda hard to look at right now) the sun. So whatever crap you've come up with, I can safely say that doesn't look right. Yes the clouds might appear to curve away from the horizon. But the same thing can be explained by angles and perspective. What cannot is having the sun appear to rise to eye level whether I'm on a second floor or ground level, and in fact show more of itself the higher I go. But this model certainly can.

The red line is where the sun crosses perspective. The person on the roof can see through the person below's perception, but the idea is that the reverse isn't true. The sun appears lower at first floor, even when you're further forward.

Good night all. I have gotten any sleep, as I was busy uploading about five books. Oh, and here's a Zelda Timeline that actually works.


I'm out.

Your parabola is a lie.

There is no delusional parabola.

From the way a laser range finder works, to radar.  And how they are accurate.

With no proof of anyone walking around with the equivalent of a stack exhaust plume above them distorting reality of your delusional flat earth to make it appear a spherical reality.  Trying to create some magical atmosphere hoodo to invoke that the curvature of the earth clearly physically blocks items from view.  Like the curvature of the earth physically blocks the single point light source we call the sun.  The curvature of the earth that blocks the sun’s light to create the shadow we call nightfall.



With no proof of any objects creating and no proof of any objects existing to create your delusional parabola.

Not in the way birds and aircraft fly freely about.

Not in the way the dust floats in the air and settles.

Not in the way the sun streams through clouds.


Not in the way mist can lay in a delusion where your parabola has to hide a shining sun three miles to the horizon at sunset…

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?

Same damned tired distortion thing. You don't get it at all.

We are not talking about a lens distortion. We are trying to impress upon you a distortion of distance.  I'm using the parabola to show you what the angle difference looks like at different altitudes. You still think there's some kind of barrel distortion or pincushion or whatever.

Also, this particular picture does appear to be distorted. Look at how the clouds kinda curve around. Unfortunate choice.
But again, we are talking about distortion of distance.



I made a ball and called it "Earth." It then proceeded to duplicate this layer and expand it by only 500% (5x).

Problem 1: As you can see, because of the square-cube law, it is large enough to completely swallow the Earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law
Earth is a little less than 1/5 of the size of the sun, according to all RE models.

It holds 99.8% of the solar system's mass and is roughly 109 times the diameter of the Earth — about one million Earths could fit inside the sun

Just a little.

GIMP won't allow expansion of pictures beyond like 9000 x 9000 or so without starting to freeze up, so we'll get to the limits in distance we can.



Short of shrinking the sun in order to get it to fit into the screen (invalidating the size difference by cheating), the only other thing I can do is move it mostly offscreen.

So let's use vanishing point to try to shrink it instead.

Problem 2: We quickly understand that even drawing straight lines the reason they call it vanishing point is that the angles intersect, and you sorta kinda can't see things anymore. To simply apply distance indefinitely so that a big object will be smaller violates laws of perspective.



You see, by the time that I got an object 5x times bigger to be the same size, it was almost gone. Care to wager if you can get a 109x object to shrink to what about 1/20 of the sky in one direction? I don't think that's possible. I think it disappears before getting close. You know how I know this? Because I've now watched a complete sunrise and sunset, and it seems the sun needs to only go a little off angle in order to disappear. Our eyes simply aren't able to see endlessly.

We had people with Nikon cameras zoom at objects that disappeared and they came back into frame. That's already the limits of our eyes. But then there is also the limits of angles.

But never you worry, I have yet another problem with this. Let's remove all but the sun that shrunk to equal size.



Now, I'm gonna use the Supernova feature to get this to shine like a motherf***er. I'm gonna make it shine all colors for rainbow sparkle princess magic.

Let's see how far it gets. I can't see well against white so we're invert the BG. Next, in order to not fill the whole entire picture with rainbow light, we composite RGB (perceptual). In other words the light you would actually be able to see in a pitch black setting, given the gradual diffusion of light, which real physics says happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion



As you can see, this sparkly rainbow sun only reaches about 3/4 the way before the light that would go to the Earth instead diffuses, leaving the Earth cold and dark even at midday. There would still be light, but not enough to keep plants warm, or have nice summer days of tanning and such. You'd have to move the sun closer... but that would make it too big and too bright to work with your huge-sun-made-tiny-by-distance model. 

Long Sun Paradox.

Sorry, you lose.

The sun can only appear that size and provide that amount of light and warmth, if it is actually that size, and the space is different from what you proposed.

Distance distortion. Not lens distortion.

You move out of angle range and the sun doesn't give off heat and light as much.  But because the sun is actually close, you aren't fucking freezing to death. Actual distant sun would kill you.



Now, about my picture. Am I on crack? 

No, actually, this is a light diffusion gradient model. In science class (horticulture, to be precise), I learned that from dusk onward, you have something called far red light. Such light normally looks black until enough pollution or light shines on it. During the day, you get more blue tones. It is simply a matter of the sun being in range. Meanwhile, the overly convoluted idea that the sun is big but appears small due to distance simply doesn't pan out. Light diffusion alone would freeze you to death no matter how bright or hot the sun is, and then there's the matter of even seeing such a distant sun.

I hope you're happy. GIMP stalled on me, and an art project that should have taken 30 minutes took nearly 3 hours.

to show that scale is wrong, youve chosen to use a nonscaled image.


Coool

I'm using the parabola to show you what the angle difference looks like at different altitudes.

Except you aren't, as you still have no explanation of how any of it works.

Problem 1: As you can see, because of the square-cube law, it is large enough to completely swallow the Earth.

This is not a problem.

Again, the sun is far away, which makes it look small.
The fact you need to continually contradict yourself, switching between the sun being so large it would take up your entire FOV; and the sun being so small it shouldn't be visible, should highlight this blatant dishonesty.
Yet here you are, happy to keep up this lie.

So let's use vanishing point to try to shrink it instead.
Problem 2: We quickly understand that even drawing straight lines the reason they call it vanishing point is that the angles intersect, and you sorta kinda can't see things anymore. To simply apply distance indefinitely so that a big object will be smaller violates laws of perspective.

WRONG!
The entire point of the vanishing point is that it is where PARALLEL lines intersect.
They do not do this after any finite distance. It takes an infinite distance to do this.
There is no beyond the vanishing point as that would require more than infinite distance.

Again, it truly is quite simple, if you have an object a height of h above a straight line, passing through your eyes, and it is a distance of d away along that line, then the angle to it will be atan(h/d).
This angle gets smaller and smaller and smaller, never reaching 0, but approaching 0.
It would require an infinite distance for that to reach 0. And at that infinite distance, it doesn't matter what the height is, the angle will be 0.
That is the vanishing point.

There is nothing that violates perspective (reality perspective, not your dishonest, delusional BS) about having a far away object appear smaller, with more distance making it smaller.

So still no problem for the RE, just more pathetic dishonesty from you.

You see, by the time that I got an object 5x times bigger to be the same size, it was almost gone.

By arbitrarily drawing in lines, however you like.
But even using that, you can make it any arbitrarily small size (including one right near the vanishing point where you need to zoom in quite a lot to see).


See how it is really tiny as it approaches the vanishing point?

And if done honestly you also need to note that the distance in this image represents a greater distance the closer you are to the vanishing point (which is why the thing appears smaller).

I think it disappears before getting close. You know how I know this?

You don't.
You falsely believe it, as it pure BS.
And you believe this because you need it to prop up your fantasy and pretend there is a problem with the RE.

Because I've now watched a complete sunrise and sunset, and it seems the sun needs to only go a little off angle in order to disappear. Our eyes simply aren't able to see endlessly.

And how does it disappear?
Does it just vanish, high in the sky, still quite large?
Does it shrink to a point and vanish?
Or does it get blocked by Earth?

Every time I have seen it, it is getting blocked by Earth, showing the curvature is making it disappear.
That is NOTHING to do with your eyes (other than their position).

But never you worry, I have yet another problem with this. Let's remove all but the sun that shrunk to equal size.

You are yet to demonstrate any problem, so you can't possible have another.

Now, I'm gonna use the Supernova feature to get this to shine like a motherf***er. I'm gonna make it shine all colors for rainbow sparkle princess magic.

You mean you will apply a crappy effect, which has nothing to do with how light works in reality.
You wont use the actual brightness of the sun, as observed by someone directly adjacent to it, nor will you even attempt to model how that should vary with distance.
Instead you will just a crappy effect which tells you nothing, and then blatantly lie about. So yet again, NOT AN ACTUAL PROBLEM, just more dishonest BS from you.

If you want an alternative to your dishonest BS, how about this:

In this one it looks like the light from the sun reaches Earth just fine, and even goes past it.
Now why should we accept your garbage rather than this garbage?

Yet again, you just making up BS to pretend there is a problem.

And don't, worry, I can even do the same dishonesty for your later BS (I made 2):

Looks like your sun is too far away to illuminate Earth at all. It must be only a few m above Earth, and only illuminate an area a few km wide.

Looks like your sun is too close, and causes all of Earth to be illuminated.



If you want to try modelling this honestly and accurately, you need to work out how much light the sun would be producing.
If you want, you can get an idea of that, by heating an object to 6000 K (roughly the temperature of the surface of the sun).
This is likely going to be a significant limitation, as it is quite difficult to heat an object to 6000 K, without it vaporising.
Your best bet is a flame or other plasma, and even that will be hard, as most flames don't burn that hot.

Then you need to note that the energy given off is based upon area.
And the way it appears to diminish with distance is also based upon area.
This is because the light spreads out in a sphere.

This means you need to scale that brightness for the brightness of the sun, based upon the surface area of the sun, and the surface area of your hot object. And you need to scale it based upon your distance from the object (or otherwise obtain the total energy given off).

Long Sun Paradox.

Already demonstrated to be pure BS, which you just ignored because it shows you are wrong.

So no, you lose.
And are just further demonstrating your dishonesty and desperation.

The sun can only appear that size and provide that amount of light and warmth, if it is actually that size, and the space is different from what you proposed.

Or if it is the size the mainstream model has it as, the distance the mainstream model has it as, and the brightness the mainstream model has it as.
Again, you are yet to demonstrate any problem.
Instead you just whatever dishonest BS you can, to blatantly lie to everyone and pretend there is a problem.

You move out of angle range and the sun doesn't give off heat and light as much.

No, you move to a position where Earth blocks the view, and you can't see the sun.

Meanwhile, the overly convoluted idea that the sun is big but appears small due to distance simply doesn't pan out.

There is nothing convoluted about it.
You are not standing next to the sun, so it is clearly distant and appears smaller than it would if standing right next to it. The only question is how small, and how far away.

I hope you're happy. GIMP stalled on me, and an art project that should have taken 30 minutes took nearly 3 hours.

The art project should have taken no time at all, as you shouldn't have even attempted it, as it is dishonest BS.
If you had any sense of integrity you would have known that before you started it and decided not to.

Quote

Same damned tired distortion thing. You don't get it at all.

We are not talking about a lens distortion. We are trying to impress upon you a distortion of distance.  I'm using the parabola to show you what the angle difference looks like at different altitudes. You still think there's some kind of barrel distortion or pincushion or whatever.

If the “distortion” is effecting how you view the object to make the sun disappear at the horizon.  Then how are these two sets of towers on the horizon, or just a little beyond the horizon since the bases are beyond the horizon by trees, parallel and visible?  And not distorted.


(Funny physical objects are blocking the views of the tower bases like trees.  Not your parabola.  Just like the curvature of the earthy physical blocks the radiation of the sun.)






The answer is your parabola is a lie, and not distorting anything since it doesn’t exist.

Thus why laser range finders and radar are accurate.  And why the sets of towers are visible, undistorted, and parallel. 

Said Flat Earth has no atmosphere. Everyone dies.

YOU KILLED EVERYONE.

Otherwise, those pics are kinda cool, but even if you had a point about the sunlight, you know what?

You still lose. Why? Well, before I adjusted for diffusion, I got it also extending all the way past. The problem with that? Instead of the Earth freezing, it instead is consumed in light.

We get about 4 msV a year from just natural radiation like sunlight. But at the intensity you propose... let's raise it to about 250 sV. Note that the fatal dose even with treatment is 8sV. But yeah, UV rays intense enough to give you terminal cancer in a single day. Enough to fry you instantly with pretty rainbow sparkle light. In the real world though, diffusion is a thing. Which is why Earth isn't consumed by shiny rainbow flares of destruction like Sailor Moon as a creepypasta.

So, let's repeat. YOU KILLED EVERYONE.

If the “distortion” is effecting how you view the object to make the sun disappear at the horizon.  Then how are these two sets of towers on the horizon, or just a little beyond the horizon since the bases are beyond the horizon by trees, parallel and visible?  And not distorted.

Affecting not effecting. I affect something. It has effects. 

They are distorted actually. Even though parallel, one appears taller than the other.



This is called perspective. Once you properly learn perspective, you stop bothering people with the same tired pictures, because you realize that all perspective upon the Flat Earth has some distortion in distance.

Quote

Said Flat Earth has no atmosphere. Everyone dies.
YOU KILLED EVERYONE.

Flat Earth has no way to keep the atmosphere there. So the FE kills people.

Otherwise, those pics are kinda cool, but even if you had a point about the sunlight, you know what?
You still lose. Why? Well, before I adjusted for diffusion, I got it also extending all the way past. The problem with that? Instead of the Earth freezing, it instead is consumed in light.

No, I don't. You lose. Big time.
The point is that you can set it to be whatever value you want.
You can have it so your crappy has the sun only illuminating directly around it, or casting out light for the entire image, or anywhere in between.

That means you can go to a point between freezing and consumed.

Just like before where you switch between claiming the sun is so large it should cover our entire FOV, and saying the sun is so far it shouldn't be visible at all.

You just switch back and forth between extremes, making up numbers as you go.

You are not demonstrating any problem.

But at the intensity you propose... let's raise it to about 250 sV.

NO!
Lets leave it at what it actually is, instead of making up numbers like dishonest scum trying to con people.

So, let's repeat. YOU KILLED EVERYONE.

I killed your argument nothing more.

If you were honest you would admit you were just making shit up and have no argument at all.

Again, to do it honestly, you need some idea of what the sun should be right next to it, and then use the inverse square law to see what it should be out at Earth.

They are distorted actually. Even though parallel, one appears taller than the other.

Because.

It was built not as tall.

And or is farther in the distance.

Liar.

In the first picture, one is "taller" then the other. Then the other, you can clearly see how they "swap" heights.

They are the same height, and they appear parallel in distance (making both "explanations" wrong). But the distortion of distance is such that even when apparently equidistant one of these just slightly curves closer and winds up looking 50% taller. This is an observable phenomenon, yet you are so completely in denial that you convince yourself when your own eyes tell you differently.

When something is clearly a lie, and the other person can see it, doubling down on a lie is of the worst form. I don't care what NDA forms you've signed. At least have the decency to say, "I can't tell you that it is." Then I know to move on, because are obviously bound by contract. When you can't even admit that much, you're a disgusting liar or someone so deep in denial that I could show you a picture of the sun, and you would literally try to tell me that it's the moon.

 Jesus said, "Blessed are those who do not see, and yet believe." But what kind of curse must you be under to deny the evidence of what you do see?

Liar.

What the fuck dude?





Four different towers, with variants in design, built on four different sites, with no need for them to reach the same altitude above sea level.  With them in no way having a special circular placement to ensure from the single spot I took both pictures where each tower was exactly the same distance away from me.

By looking at the basses of each tower, or where they meet the horizon, each tower was a different distance from the single spot I took the photos.