Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

The limit of your eyes doesn't make things curve, nor does it hide the bottom of objects. It makes things appear to shrink to an unresolvable point.

I think one of the best arguments one can make against that claim "Ships disappear bottom first due to the limitations of the human eye." is "How it is then that if you climb higher, you see that ship whole once again? You realize that the angle at which you see the ship when you climb higher is even smaller, right?". Or perhaps "How it is then that you can see stars, which are much further away than the horizon is?".
I realize there are anecdotal reports of bottoms of the ships reappearing once you look at them via a telescope, however, unless Flat-Earthers have some coherent mathematical model which predicts that, that's not evidence of the Earth being flat. For something to be evidence of the Earth being flat, it's not enough for it to be difficult to explain if you assume the Earth is round. It also needs to be easy to explain if you assume the Earth is flat.

You didnt explain in the original post what is impossible about this sunrise. i think if you consider that the earth is flat due to missing curvature witnessed by an observer at ground level, and that we still see what we see - ie your pic of a normal looking sunrise, you will see the truth while contemplating why do we see such and such and the earth considering the earth is flat . i Think this could lead to a huge step in your understanding.

You didnt explain in the original post what is impossible about this sunrise. i think if you consider that the earth is flat due to missing curvature witnessed by an observer at ground level, and that we still see what we see - ie your pic of a normal looking sunrise, you will see the truth while contemplating why do we see such and such and the earth considering the earth is flat . i Think this could lead to a huge step in your understanding.

The original post.

The last photo was at 7:47 am.

The actual sunrise time was 8:00 am.

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

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

From the way the clouds are illuminated bottom up.  To the way the lower clouds cast shadows upward.  Just don’t get how a sunrise as seen is a product of FE.  It shows the reality of spherical earth.













************************

As in the only way the sun can illuminate the clouds bottom up is if the sun is relatively below the cloud.  This is possible by the curvature and rotation of the earth.


If you think this is possible on a flat earth please illustrate

***********************

Additional postings



The shadows of the lower clouds show the sun is relatively below the horizon.

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280




Quick cartoon sketch of spherical earth clouds illuminated bottom up




You…

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics. 👍

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

Now…

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

Something like this for FE,


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

You didnt explain in the original post what is impossible about this sunrise. i think if you consider that the earth is flat due to missing curvature witnessed by an observer at ground level, and that we still see what we see - ie your pic of a normal looking sunrise, you will see the truth while contemplating why do we see such and such and the earth considering the earth is flat . i Think this could lead to a huge step in your understanding.

It is quite simple, the sun, which is always quite high above Earth, appears to be below the clouds casting light upwards.

For a FE, this requires the sun to drop below the clouds.

Stop just claiming there is missing curvature. You have done so repeatedly and been entirely incapable of justifying it.
So instead, how about we examine it honestly, were we see plenty of things which indicate Earth can't be flat.

I realize there are anecdotal reports of bottoms of the ships reappearing once you look at them via a telescope, however, unless Flat-Earthers have some coherent mathematical model which predicts that, that's not evidence of the Earth being flat. For something to be evidence of the Earth being flat, it's not enough for it to be difficult to explain if you assume the Earth is round. It also needs to be easy to explain if you assume the Earth is flat.

Why is this difficult to understand? This is what I've said with the parabola. Over and over, people like DataDoesntCompute tell me something about how laser pointers shouldn't work, because they don't understand the idea of a model, instead trying to take the idea literally. The model of a parabola is that the sky arches ahead the higher the elevation, in exactly the same way as if you were trying to lift a parasol over your head from a standing position vs a squatting position. The lower your body is, the lower to the ground you are, the more obstructed your vision ahead, the less you can see. I draw a parabola to indicate the principle of widening angles. But if it's easier to understand, you need to understand the concept that the higher your elevation, the wider the angle. This concept is not real on a curved Earth. You need only to enter a curved hallway to understand how horizontal curvature occludes vision to grasp how a hill on top of another curve doesn't work.

Why is this difficult to understand?

Because you have just drawn in a bunch of lines, with no explanation at all; which doesn't seem to make any sense at all.

Nice and simple question:
What is blocking the view for the person at the bottom to the bottom of the boat?
NOTHING.
So the bottom of the boat should be seen.

The lower your body is, the lower to the ground you are, the more obstructed your vision ahead, the less you can see.

And again, the question is WHY?
What magic is obstructing the view?
That is what you can't explain.
You just appeal to pure magic magically hiding the bottom of objects.

This concept is not real on a curved Earth. You need only to enter a curved hallway to understand how horizontal curvature occludes vision to grasp how a hill on top of another curve doesn't work.

This concept most certainly IS real on a curved Earth. And moving around in a curved hallway makes this incredibly apparent.
If you are standing in a curved hallway, right against the wall, your vision is very much obstructed.
But moving away from the wall allows you to see further.

This is quite basic geometry.

But instead of accepting this fact, you keep on repeating the same pathetic lies.

Quote from: faded mike on July 11, 2023, 07:59:15 PM

You didnt explain in the original post what is impossible about this sunrise. i think if you consider that the earth is flat due to missing curvature witnessed by an observer at ground level, and that we still see what we see - ie your pic of a normal looking sunrise, you will see the truth while contemplating why do we see such and such and the earth considering the earth is flat . i Think this could lead to a huge step in your understanding.

The original post.

The last photo was at 7:47 am.

The actual sunrise time was 8:00 am.

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

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

From the way the clouds are illuminated bottom up.  To the way the lower clouds cast shadows upward.  Just don’t get how a sunrise as seen is a product of FE.  It shows the reality of spherical earth.













************************

As in the only way the sun can illuminate the clouds bottom up is if the sun is relatively below the cloud.  This is possible by the curvature and rotation of the earth.


If you think this is possible on a flat earth please illustrate

***********************

Additional postings



The shadows of the lower clouds show the sun is relatively below the horizon.

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280




Quick cartoon sketch of spherical earth clouds illuminated bottom up




You…

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

DataOverFlow2022 even validated phew physics. 👍

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

Now…

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

Something like this for FE,


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

I appologize if you did indeed explain this i only have a second to type right now.

You want context, huh.

Okay. Figure 1 is a person's perspective at dead ground level, like some of Data's pictures where he leaves a camera on the ground to take a shot. As I have already seen, this is fucking stupid as visibility at ground level reduces to under a mile. Basically like lying down and taking a picture with an umbrella over your head.

Figure 2 is a standard eye level shot, roughly 3 to 5 miles. On a clear day, maybe you can see as much as 10 miles. All of this can be looked up online, btw. So you trying to go into denial mode, that kinda shows your "real world" is built on layers upon layers of denial. But then, I knew that.

Figure 3 is view from altitude. From a great altitude, a human being can potentially see hundreds of miles away.

Let's compare. 



Jives up with this model.

What about converting it to a parabola? So let's try.





Works very well, in fact. Squatting on the ground like an idiot (1), you can't even see a distant tree, much less the sailboat in the distance. Standing upright (2), you can see a distant tree but not the entire forest, nor past the forest to the sailboat. But if you were atop the mountain in this picture (3) you would be able to see everything.

Oh yea, and given sufficiently high objects, this model works in reverse. You can see tall mountains from a distance.  But if it were purely a matter of curvature, it'd be like this...



https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/66661-longest-line-of-sight-on-earth

Yet the Guinness Book of Records records a photograph from 275 miles away.

The longest line of sight on earth photographed is 443 km (275 miles), achieved by Mark Bret Gumá (Spain), from Pic de Finestrelles, Spain, to Pic Gaspard, France, on 13 July 2016.

The photograph was taken using a Panasonic Lumix FZ72, following lengthy preparations in selecting the optimal date and location. The image was captured when the sun was rising behind Tête de Chabrières and Puy de la Sèche, to help increase the visibility of this peaks on the horizon.

The picture was taken from Pic de Finestrelles, in the Pyrenees mountains. Pic Gaspard, of the Alps, can be seen in the centre of the photo, 443 km away.

There are very few places on earth where it is possible to extend the line of sight so far. Due to the curvature of earth, both the observer and object must be at sufficiently high altitudes for the object to be visible at long range. The higher an observer is, the further they may see before the point where the earth curves out of sight, otherwise known as the horizon. If the earth had a uniform radius with no mountains and valleys, an individual six feet in height would view the horizon to be 5 km away from them.

The article makes the batshit crazy assumption that this proves curvature. In actuality, because our eyes don't work around corners, it proves the exact opposite.

The more pronounced the curvature, the more thoroughly it obstructs vision.

But this is only the world record for photographs. The farthest distance seen is from Dankova, Kyrgyzstan to Hindu Tagh, China. They say this is about 334 miles away. 

https://brilliantmaps.com/see-from-everest/

A farmer went out to sow his seed. 4 As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. 5 Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. 6 But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. 7 Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. 8 Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. 9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.

So it is with you. You are like the one on the path where bird(brain)s gobble up any new ideas, before anything can take root. Other people can understand these theories but are afraid of being burned by popular opinion. Still others get it, but they have a full-time job, and it just isn't important enough to devote time to it.

Forget a hundred, sixty, or thirty. Can I convince even one of you? Probably not.

Yet the Guinness Book of Records records a photograph from 275 miles away.

Because of refraction. It’s been gone over a thousand times..

Used this in another thread.

Let’s get to the point..

Quote from: sandokhan on June 27, 2023, 02:08:14 PM

It might surprise you to find out that there is no curvature across the English Channel, lake Ontario, lake Michigan.

See post above for the details. Or below..

But why would you have to stand on a 250 foot hill to even see the Chicago Skyline across Lake Michigan if the earth was flat?

Quote

The distance from Warren Dunes state park is about 53 miles across the lake to Chicago. Someone that’s six feet tall standing on the lake shore can only see about three miles to the horizon. If you climb to the top of Tower Hill (250ft) you can see almost 20 miles to the horizon

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

sandokhan Playing the old FE lies. 

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

If the earth was flat, Chicago would be seen from the shoreline at the water’s edge across Lake Michigan everyday weather permitting.  Not the normal having to climb to the top of a 200 foot hill to usually see the upper most tops of the buildings of Chicago.

On a normal sunny day, say in summer you can only see a dozen or so of Chicago’s tallest buildings from southwest Michigan. Yes, you can see Chicago, just not all of it.

“Anything more than that, especially when you get above 10 or 12, something's happening, because that's not usually there," Nowicki said.

That something is a strong temperature inversion, warmer air above colder air, that causes light to bend.

“A mirage is just a case of atmospheric refraction, it’s caused by the fact you have temperature variations in the atmosphere and these cause density variations.”  says Doctor Mark Rennie, an associate professor in areo-optics at the University of Notre Dame. “So literally the speed of light varies within the air. And this variation of the speed of light has the effect of bending light rays."

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

To those that doubt affects of refraction. The full Chicago skyline should be visible all the time if it weren't the case, barring clouds, rain or fog. However that’s not the case, it is always changing. I encourage anyone to go look for themselves.

https://www.abc57.com/news/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage

You want context, huh.

You’re posting like you have any credibility. 

bulmabriefs144 you done fucked up.

You utterly destroyed what credibility you had with this post.

Upon zooming, the area straightens out completely and you can see further. It is the limit of your eyes and vanishing point. The curve doesn't actually exist.

Explain “straightens” out. When you’re narrowing the field of view.

And if it takes the whole horizon to see the dip.  What does zooming in to narrow the field of view do for you.  So we are back to you not understanding a smaller/narrower frame of reference.

Again..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 21, 2023, 08:49:25 PM

A sphere is by definition three-dimensional. A ball can't be flat.

You really have no concept of how big the earth is to an individual’s frame of reference.


Just like this large tank and using this small straight edge on this level as a frame of reference.



Looks flat with a small frame of reference?

But the tank is clearly curved.






What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?



https://flatearth.ws/horizon-dip

If you’re “zooming” in.  You’re changing the frame of reference just like with this basketball.

Behind the Scenes: Flat Basketball Proof

https://imgur.io/gallery/nSGtPtz

Thanks bulmabriefs144 for validating that zooming in on a curved surface like a basketball to a small enough frame of reference will make it look flat.


bulmabriefs144, anyone with any care for the human race wants you to stop posting.  You make all of humanity look stupid.

I can make mistakes out of genuine care.  You bulmabriefs144 blatantly lie, or are so ignorant to the point you can’t tell a flat surface from a con.  All concerned want you to be more than this stupid thing you have become.  Please show humans have some redeeming qualities. 

And no, it has nothing to do with that you question.  You’re just completely nuts at this point. 

You want context, huh.

I said explanation, not context.
A bunch of crappy pictures of umbrellas doesn't help, as that is NOT how vision works.
We can see objects which are higher much further.
Your parabola BS simply doesn't work at all.

As I have already seen, this is fucking stupid as visibility at ground level reduces to under a mile.

And the question is WHY?
What magic is blocking the view.
It certainly is NOTHING like lying down with an umbrella over your head, because you can still see heaps far up, and see high up objects a long distance away.
It is only things close to the ground which are obstructed from view at that 1 mile mark.

So no, it is NOTHING like having an umbrella over you.
Instead, it is like standing on a ball/hill.

So you trying to go into denial mode, that kinda shows your "real world" is built on layers upon layers of denial. But then, I knew that.

I'm not going into denial mode. I am clearly explaining why your nonsense doesn't work.
You have no explanation for what magic is blocking the view, or why it produces almost the exact opposite of what is observed.

Likewise, you have no refutation of the RE model which does work to explain this.

What about converting it to a parabola? So let's try.

And it fails miserably. All it takes is to watch a plane take off, and see that you can see it far further than your parabola allows.
Also, notice the key part your parabola shows?
That the bottom of the boat is visible, while the top is cut off.

That doesn't match reality at all.
When we observe a boat in the distance disappear, it disappears from the bottom up, not the top down like your delusional BS suggests.

This has all been pointed out to you before, and you just ignore it.

So no, your delusional garbage doesn't work at all.

Conversely, the RE model matches wonderfully, with you unable to show a fault, and instead just resorting to the same pathetic lies again and again; even after they have been refuted countless times.

Here, I even fixed your BS image:


Contrary to your blatant lie, curvature works. Your delusional BS doesn't.

Yet the Guinness Book of Records records a photograph from 275 miles away.

And what is that?
A picture of a mountain, taken from another mountain, to get the maximal possible distance allowed by the curve.

Even notice what it says?

There are very few places on earth where it is possible to extend the line of sight so far. Due to the curvature of earth, both the observer and object must be at sufficiently high altitudes for the object to be visible at long range. The higher an observer is, the further they may see before the point where the earth curves out of sight, otherwise known as the horizon. If the earth had a uniform radius with no mountains and valleys, an individual six feet in height would view the horizon to be 5 km away from them.

So there the article goes, explaining why your BS is wrong.

The more pronounced the curvature, the more thoroughly it obstructs vision.

And it doesn't just magically obstruct vision permanently.
The further you are from the curve, the more you can see around  it.
This isn't your eyes magically seeing around the curve, it is just the point on the curve and on the line from your eyes tangent to the curve is further away.
Likewise, the further away an object is, the further it can be seen from, as the line from the object tangent to curve meets the curve further away.

This is basic geometry.

Even a child can understand this, yet here you are playing dumb.
All it does is further demonstrate your dishonesty.

So it is with you.

You sure do love projecting don't you?
I'm not the one so afraid of reality, they need to invent a delusional fantasy land which doesn't match reality at all, clinging to it and spouting all sorts of dishonest BS, plenty of which is refuted by basic geometry a child can understand.

Can I convince even one of you? Probably not.

Why would you expect to convince anyone when you are literally lying to us, with such basic things that a child could refute.
If you want to convince us, stop lying about the RE, admit that the RE does produce the expected results, and then try explaining how your model produces the expected results instead of just continually asserting it does, and explain why it is a better model.

Because so far, you are like a kid throwing a temper tantrum boldly claiming that 1+1=5.

Works very well, in fact. Squatting on the ground like an idiot (1), you can't even see a distant tree, much less the sailboat in the distance. Standing upright (2), you can see a distant tree but not the entire forest, nor past the forest to the sailboat. But if you were atop the mountain in this picture (3) you would be able to see everything.

Oh yea, and given sufficiently high objects, this model works in reverse. You can see tall mountains from a distance.  But if it were purely a matter of curvature, it'd be like this...

amazing
parabolas are parabolas - curved lines.
straight lines are straight lines - straight lines.

so if you rainbowed and layered out your stupid man curled up under a single parabola, you'll note that vision is distored EXPONENTIALLY.
that classic railway track or tall building will be skewed by oyur model.


CN tower seen from a distance would progressively get squished, not cutoff at the knees.










ref stick man and sailboat and mountain -
why'd you draw such a tiny earth?
if you want to disprove it, draw to scale.

What is the difference between perspective and reality? Between a model and reality?


The problem with your RE globalist explanation of events, is that you depict curves as reality.
The parabola on the other hand, is a model based on perspective.

A model is a theory. A mockup. You pick whatever model works best, but you are well within the limits of humility, that is, knowing that you do not know because you didn't actually build the thing. To claim RE is reality is to say that you are narcissistic enough to think that you, not God, know best.

Models are not real. But neither is what we call "reality". In Platonic mathematics, we see this all the time. There is no such thing as a "real" triangle nor a "real" circle nor a "real" square. We draw Platonic objects like this all the time, but 2D objects don't actually exist. Platonic philosophy, in turn, gives way to theology. We understand that this world of three dimensional objects is simply a world of shadows projected on a cave wall.

It is spirit that exists and not these base forms of ours. We are inside the largest model of all, a moving Truman Show-style dome.

Or the set on a movie stage like Godzilla films or the NASA launches.

Models are symbols. You (should) know a disc behaves, a triangle behaves, and a sphere behaves, and instinctively be able to tell me why a pyramid is definitely not the Earth, but curiously you cannot do the same for a sphere Earth. You are programmed. So back to your idea.

so if you rainbowed and layered out your stupid man curled up under a single parabola, you'll note that vision is distored EXPONENTIALLY. that classic railway track or tall building will be skewed by oyur model.

 
Distorted*. Your*.  Would it though?



Aerial view of Jamestown.



Jamestown from water. Lower elevation and closer.





In the third picture, nothing appears to be obstructing the monument's tip from view, but I noticed I could not see it.



In this picture, we're assuming these objects are not in each other's way. So the person can look around and see trees, a ship where there is a gap in the trees, and and the monument, but they cannot see the monument's tip.

Perspective cuts it right off. We also only have 2.5D vision rather than 3D, for we can't usually see the backs of objects, just their front and side. Our eyes cannot look around corners.
Oh look! The "point" (using a pointed monument, I just made a small pun), it's back!



As you get closer to something, perspective begins to cut it off slightly and make it blend with the sky, and sometimes cuts off the tops of objects particular ones with pointed tips.

What is the difference between perspective and reality? Between a model and reality?

The answer is there is nothing to explain why things like the sun, stars, moon become physically blocked from view in FE.  What actually physical blocks the light.  Especially for something like the sun that is a projector of light.

Again.. as debated here.

Horizon did not block duck from view

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

The answer isn’t a flat earth where the observer and the sun are both above the same plane. 

The answer is a curved earth where night fall is the literal shadow of earth’s curvature casting a shadow.


Now.  Stop changing the subject.

How is the sun relatively below the clouds illuminating them bottom up.

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280

Aerial view of Jamestown.

Why do flat earther’s post something like it’s never been debunked?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 15, 2022, 06:08:45 AM

@DataOverflow

Thanks for that tired old drawing

Actually.  You proved things “disappear” because of the plane you are standing on when they go below the plane.



Because they become physically blocked from view.  And has nothing to do with prospective as proven by my thread I linked to.

Quote

where you only prove that you still have no idea what I am talking about.

Because it has nothing based in reality.

Quote

So let's refresh.

Your the one the keeps rebranding.

Quote

1. At close distances, high objects angle in, to the point from you can't see their peaks.

Because your so damn close to the side, the side physically blocks your line of sight to the top.  Nothing to do with this definition of perspective.

“Perspective: .
the art of drawing solid objects on a two-dimensional surface so as to give the right impression of their height, width, depth, and position in relation to each other when viewed from a particular point.
"a perspective drawing"“

Definitions from Oxford Languages

Quote

2. At long distances, high objects angle out, with their lower half blending with nearby objects (case in point, the obelisk's lower half appeared surrounded by trees when the trees were at least twenty feet from it when we saw it on land)

Has nothing to do that your were so close the sides physically blocked the top from view.

Are you really this dense?  Is this some sort of joke?

Quote

3. Neither of these are explainable by your crudely drawn hill that is supposed to represent curvature.

Because this has nothing to do with the earth’s actual horizon.  But your example does show how the “plane” you stand on / up against physical blocks something from view because that something is below the plane your standing on / up against.

Quote

What is actually happening is not an object "sinking into the horizon".

No.  Your line of sight is actually being blocked by a solid object.

Quote

It's blending.

No.  Your line of sight is physically being blocked so the light reflecting off the top is not reaching your eyes.  And no amount of zoom will bring it back into view👀.

Quote

Like how the obelisk got cut off by the surrounding forest when I was at sea from Jamestown to Surry.

Because the trees physically block it from view like the curvature of the earth physical blocks a boat from view.


Seriously.  Your argument is so dense it has to be a joke.  You just proved the earth is round to make things physically disappear when beyond the horizon.

From this thread..
Boats Over The Horizon
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90862.msg2373102#msg2373102

Gee.  Another thread totally derailed and brought off topic because bulmabriefs144 is a nuts self absorbed individual that can’t stick to the topic because it totally destroys FE. 

Parabola is the bridge.
Not light.

You cant see the back side of the bridge because the bridge.

Cars are appearing top first as they rise pver thebhump, not because some bulma parabola umbrella light effect.

What is the difference between perspective and reality? Between a model and reality?

Depends on the model.
With your BS model, almost everything. It simply doesn't work.
With the RE model, one is a model, while reality is reality, but they match.

The problem with your RE globalist explanation of events, is that you depict curves as reality.

Because that is what all the evidence demonstrates.
It shows that Earth is round.
You are yet to show a fault with that explanation, or provide a viable alternative.

The parabola on the other hand, is a model based on perspective.

No it isn't. It has nothing to do with perspective.
It is just things magically ceasing to be seen for no reason at all, in a manner either inconsistent with reality, or inconsistent with a parabola.

To claim RE is reality is to say that you are narcissistic enough to think that you, not God, know best.

You can keep your imaginary fiend out of this.
But if your cult contradicts reality, your cult is wrong, not reality.

Earth is round; that is the reality; that is what all the evidence points to.
The RE model, is a model of reality.

It is spirit that exists and not these base forms of ours.

This delusional BS of yours, is based upon no evidence at all, and has nothing to do with the subject.

How about you try sticking to the subject?
Either admitting your blatant lies are blatant lies, as demonstrated above; or going back to the OP and explaining how the sun illuminates the cloud from below when it is above?

You (should) know a disc behaves, a triangle behaves, and a sphere behaves, and instinctively be able to tell me why a pyramid is definitely not the Earth, but curiously you cannot do the same for a sphere Earth. You are programmed. So back to your idea.

There you go projecting again.
We do know how such objects should behave.
That is how we know Earth isn't a flat disc, because it doesn't behave like one at all.
Instead, it acts like a sphere.
With objects disappearing from the bottom up as they are obstructed by the curve; and higher objects being visible from further as they stick over that curve more, and gaining altitude allowing you to see further because it allows you to see over more of the curve.

Yet here you are playing dumb.
Spouting pure lies, lies which basic geometry clearly demonstrate are lies, lies which a child can refute.
And when refuted, you don't bother defending them, you just flee, only to spout the same dishonest, delusional BS again later.

You even demonstrate your extreme dishonesty by providing the exact same refuted image.

In the third picture, nothing appears to be obstructing the monument's tip from view, but I noticed I could not see it.

Haven't we been over this delusional BS of yours already?
Here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90952.msg2376325#msg2376325
And here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90862.msg2373629#msg2373629

Why bring up the same refuted BS as if it hasn't already been refuted?
Do you just want to make sure everyone you are a compulsive liar, with no sense of integrity at all?
Willing to blatantly lie to everyone to prop up your failed fantasy?

The side of the monument is obstructing the view.
This is not difficult to understand.


Stop playing dumb, and stop with all the dishonest BS.

Perspective cuts it right off. We also only have 2.5D vision rather than 3D, for we can't usually see the backs of objects, just their front and side. Our eyes cannot look around corners.

That isn't perspective cutting it off.
That is the front of the object blocking the view.
Just like a RE blocks the view.

This is just you admitting your prior claim is pure BS.
The side of the monument ("front") is obstructing the view to the tip ("back").

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 17, 2023, 05:11:16 PM

Aerial view of Jamestown.

Why do flat earther’s post something like it’s never been debunked?

Because fiat ("because I said so") debunking isn't debunking. 

You can say it's been "debunked" all day and all night, but if logic doesn't bear out, it's not real.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 15, 2022, 06:08:45 AM

@DataOverflow

Thanks for that tired old drawing

Actually.  You proved things “disappear” because of the plane you are standing on when they go below the plane.



Because they become physically blocked from view.  And has nothing to do with prospective as proven by my thread I linked to.

Okay, first of all, you are an idiot or a liar, second of all, there is a visual difference between these three things:



Complete Obstruction (as we are assuming this is the Tower of Babel, and it reaches all the way to block the clouds)



Partial Obstruction (assuming a tall hill high enough to obscure some of the horizon)



And Distance. In your picture, you have conflated distance and curvature. If I sat at the bottom of a hill and watched a car drive over it, I would have a discernibly different perspective than having a boat moving out of sight. A boat appears to shrink until it can no longer be seen, reaching what is known as a vanishing point. A car going over the hill, by contrast, reaches a point of complete obstruction. For the exact same reason that your eyes cannot see around corners, objects going over a hill abruptly disappear. If the Earth was curved, you would not be able to see mountains or trees past the curve!

Now... those distant mountains that I've referred to in two posts and you're tried to sidestep (while accusing me of changing the subject), as you move farther from them, they shrink into the horizon. Painters understand this.



Every painting ever is able to accurately create perspective by distance. Every landscape painter (subconsciously) knows the Earth is flat. Yet, I can tell you failed not only geometry but also landscape painting in school.

From this thread..
Boats Over The Horizon
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90862.msg2373102#msg2373102

Gee.  Another thread totally derailed and brought off topic because bulmabriefs144 is a nuts self absorbed individual that can’t stick to the topic because it totally destroys FE. 

Yes, it is from that thread. You guys made a new thread, so I started posting there.  You accuse me of "fleeing" or "changing the subject" but the only one making new threads in this section is typically kinda sorta you guys. I just post where there's a topic active.

And while we're one the subject of debunking, I believe I found a video on exactly that angled shadow thing. I could probably find it again if you need to remember, because you seem to have CSTML (Convenient Short Term Memory Loss) and have completely forgotten the part where the guy moved a light back from the diorama until it cast precisely those shadows.

What part of your totally asinine topic "completely destroys FE"? Also, I am on topic. The topic is how the sun coming up in the sky can't happen in FE. On page 1 and 2, I debunked that (if you get to debunk by fiat, so do I), and I continued on topic to talk about how real perspective works and why such a sunrise is completely in line with FE. I further talked about how distance is both horizontal and frontal, and two telephone poles that are exactly the same height will appear taller or shorter based on which one you are horizontally closer to. I talked about how the sun, were it the size and distance RE ppl say, would not only be too far (too cold to function) but too big ("long", I said) to look as it does realistically. All of this is about very basic perspective. In case you missed it, in order to claim that sunrise is impossible, you have to explain why perspective prevents it from being possible. It's not, and my posts have been on topic.

But I imagine me forcing you to answer your own question about why that's impossible will strangely cause another new topic thread to be posted. It must be me running away and changing topics. Projecting much?

Okay, first of all, you are an idiot or a liar, second of all, there is a visual difference between these three things:

Crowd looks at nutty bulmabriefs144 in disbelief and silence.

One person stands up and points out the common sense and obvious answer.







You can’t see the top because you are close enough the point the geometry changes hides the very short three layer top with the extreme inward tilt.  The tip is physically blocked from view.

Every painting ever is able to accurately create perspective by distance.

It’s literally a 2D image using illusion to intimidate the real world on a flat canvas.

Why does the sun become physical blocked from view at sunset so the light and radiation from the sun physically becomes blocked from view.  Because the curvature of the earth literally shields or blocks the light of the sun from the observer.  Night fall is literally the shadow of the earths’s curvature.

 I am on topic.

Then it should be easy for you to stick to the this topic below.

What is the difference between perspective and reality? Between a model and reality?

The answer is there is nothing to explain why things like the sun, stars, moon become physically blocked from view in FE.  What actually physical blocks the light.  Especially for something like the sun that is a projector of light.

Again.. as debated here.

Horizon did not block duck from view

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=90722.0

The answer isn’t a flat earth where the observer and the sun are both above the same plane. 

The answer is a curved earth where night fall is the literal shadow of earth’s curvature casting a shadow.


Now.  Stop changing the subject.

How is the sun relatively below the clouds illuminating them bottom up.

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280

What part of your totally asinine topic "completely destroys FE"? Also, I am on topic. The topic is how the sun coming up in the sky can't happen in FE.

Where is “The topic is how the sun coming up in the sky can't happen in FE.” listed in the opening post.

See you’re blatantly lying again.  Here.  I’ll quote the opening post for you.

The last photo was at 7:47 am.

The actual sunrise time was 8:00 am.

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

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

From the way the clouds are illuminated bottom up.  To the way the lower clouds cast shadows upward.  Just don’t get how a sunrise as seen is a product of FE.  It shows the reality of spherical earth.

The actual opening post argument, “From the way the clouds are illuminated bottom up.  To the way the lower clouds cast shadows upward. Just don’t get how a sunrise as seen is a product of FE.  It shows the reality of spherical earth.“   

Is not the same as your blatant lie of claiming, “The topic is how the sun coming up in the sky can't happen in FE.”

Because fiat ("because I said so") debunking isn't debunking.
You can say it's been "debunked" all day and all night, but if logic doesn't bear out, it's not real.

Which is why you are yet to debunk the RE at all.
But that doesn't tell us why you keep posting the same refuted BS.
We don't simply tell you that you are wrong.
We explain why.
As we have done yet again, only for you to ignore it and repeat the same lies.

Okay, first of all, you are an idiot or a liar

Projecting again I see, with even more lies in this post.

In your picture, you have conflated distance and curvature.

No, they haven't, because distance doesn't magically make things disappear from the bottom up and appear to be obstructed by things in front.

A boat appears to shrink until it can no longer be seen, reaching what is known as a vanishing point. A car going over the hill, by contrast, reaches a point of complete obstruction. For the exact same reason that your eyes cannot see around corners, objects going over a hill abruptly disappear.

Wrong again. Boats never reach the vanishing point, as it is infinitely far away.
A boat can disappear in one of 3 ways.
One is by moving away until it is too small to resolve. This most closely matches what you are describing.
But then it can be brought back into view with a telescope, or other magnifying device.
Another is by fog making it fade to a blur.
But the final way is what most (honest) people focus on, and what happens with the car as well.
It goes to the horizon, the point at which a line from your eye is tangent to the surface. Then as it goes beyond this, it appears to sink, disappearing from the bottom up.
It also doesn't just instantly switch from being non-obstructed to completely obstructed.
It is gradual, with the object (boat or car) disappearing from the bottom up.
And the taller the object, the further away it needs to be to disappear entirely.

So again, what is observed in reality matches a RE.

If the Earth was curved, you would not be able to see mountains or trees past the curve!

Why?
You just keep repeating this same dishonest BS, even though it has been refuted countless times.
For a RE, your ability to see a distant object depends upon your elevation and the height of the object.

Every painting ever is able to accurately create perspective by distance.

And in doing so, they do NOT model reality.
Instead, if they want to model reality, they need to include things in addition to perspective.

So no, they don't "know" Earth is flat. It is just pretending Earth is flat makes painting/drawing easier.

I can tell you failed not only geometry

Why?
Because you are the one continually spouting pure BS which indicates a complete failure to grasp simple geometry.

You accuse me of "fleeing" or "changing the subject"

Because you are.
Remember, this thread is about how the sun can cast light upwards from below a cloud when it is above it.
Something that quite clearly demonstrates Earth isn't flat.

Because you can't actually defend the FE, you resort to pathetic lies about the RE.

And while we're one the subject of debunking, I believe I found a video on exactly that angled shadow thing.

And the faults with it where highlighted and you just ignored them.

What part of your totally asinine topic "completely destroys FE"?

It destroys the common FE models, with the sun always above.
The only way out is to have nature itself conspire by bending light to produce the results expected for a RE.

You have even helped out refuting the FE with your statements here.
If it was perspective, the sun should shrink to a point and vanish, while still high in the sky.
It should NOT appear to be obstructed by Earth. But it is.
The sun doesn't vanish, it sets.

On page 1 and 2, I debunked that (if you get to debunk by fiat, so do I)

No, on page 1 and 2, you used whatever dishonest BS you can to pretend it isn't a problem.
You using this dishonest BS doesn't mean we are.

We have explained why your BS is wrong.

I further talked about how distance is both horizontal and frontal

Yes, you further clung to dishonest garbage like this. What matters is the distance to the object. You don't need to try to separate that out into separate components.

I talked about how the sun, were it the size and distance RE ppl say, would not only be too far (too cold to function) but too big ("long", I said) to look as it does realistically.

You mean you spouted all sorts of delusional BS with no justification at all.
You have no basis at all for it being too far or too cold or too big.
You just spout whatever dishonest BS you can think of to pretend there must be a problem with the RE.

You had all that refuted, and just fled from the refutations to move on to more dishonest, delusional BS.

In case you missed it, in order to claim that sunrise is impossible, you have to explain why perspective prevents it from being possible. It's not, and my posts have been on topic.

And that has been done, repeatedly.
If it was perspective, it would shrink to a point, still high in the sky.
It would also appear to slow down.

Instead, its size remains roughly constant, as it appears to sink into Earth.

The angular size remaining the same means the distance has as well, so it wont appear to sink due to distance.

Projecting much?

Yes, you are. Projecting all your inadequacies onto us, and projecting the inadequacies of the FE onto the RE.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 18, 2023, 05:16:58 PM

What part of your totally asinine topic "completely destroys FE"? Also, I am on topic. The topic is how the sun coming up in the sky can't happen in FE.

Where is “The topic is how the sun coming up in the sky can't happen in FE.” listed in the opening post.

See you’re blatantly lying again.  Here.  I’ll quote the opening post for you.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 16, 2023, 03:49:41 PM

The last photo was at 7:47 am.

The actual sunrise time was 8:00 am.

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

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

From the way the clouds are illuminated bottom up.  To the way the lower clouds cast shadows upward.  Just don’t get how a sunrise as seen is a product of FE.  It shows the reality of spherical earth.

The actual opening post argument, “From the way the clouds are illuminated bottom up.  To the way the lower clouds cast shadows upward. Just don’t get how a sunrise as seen is a product of FE.  It shows the reality of spherical earth.“   

Is not the same as your blatant lie of claiming, “The topic is how the sun coming up in the sky can't happen in FE.”

Yes, that's your claim.

But it's already shown up in this video.



He even talks about how the sun casts a shadow upward.

So again. Why is this impossible? Answer: it's not. It's not because the laws of perspective are simply not in favor of RE. It's not because the sun's shadow can be explained. And it's not because if you want the truth, as far away as you say the sun is, it should leave half the planet ice cold as it rotates.

Oh and btw. I found the mountain shadows video.



You don't watch of somehow deny it anyway, and two pages later, you tell me you've debunked something or other. So I'm gonna post this to my signature. And every time you say that vertical shadows prove globe, I'll just tell you "see my signature please."

He even talks about how the sun casts a shadow upward.

Use this example



One.  Cite how or paraphrase how it is possible on a flat earth for the sun to relatively below the clouds to cast a shadow up before sunrise.


Two.  Cite how or paraphrase how the individual provides any support for your parabola delusion.

Three.  Explain how the sun is relatively below the clouds to shine light from the bottoms of the clouds, to filter up from the clouds to be seen from the airplane.  Especially if the sun for flat earth is always 300 to 3000 miles above the clouds.

Sun rise under the clouds at FL280

So again. Why is this impossible?

Getting you to cite evidence your parabola exists.

Answer: it's not. It's not because the laws of perspective

Definition of vanishing point and perspective in art.

A vanishing point is a point on the image plane of a perspective rendering where the two-dimensional perspective projections of mutually parallel lines in three-dimensional space appear to converge. When the set of parallel lines is perpendicular to a picture plane, the construction is known as one-point perspective, and their vanishing point corresponds to the oculus, or "eye point", from which the image should be viewed for correct perspective geometry.[1] Traditional linear drawings use objects with one to three sets of parallels, defining one to three vanishing points.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanishing_point#:~:text=A%20vanishing%20point%20is%20a,dimensional%20space%20appear%20to%20converge.

Notice the doorway at the end never becomes blocked from view.



https://www.prompthunt.com/prompt/cl90ha6h25983029tqyo0b6iwyv?selectedAsset=cl90haie86224259tqyp32jqw1y

That’s because perspective has no way to physically block light.


The reason the sun is blocked from view in the picture is because of the curvature of the earth and the sun being relatively below that curvature.



Not only does vanishing point and perspective not have the means to block sunlight.  vanishing point and perspective when used makes things seem to rise up to a point above the horizon.  They have no means to make the sun appear to physically move down into the earth below the horizon at sun set to literally block the light and radiation from the sun. 

Yes, I do believe I can tell you to watch the videos on my signature.

Video 2 shows how a high object can nonetheless appear to sink as it moves into distance. So does video 1, to some extent.

The "parabola delusion" as you put it, is a model that I myself have made because the Earth is a locally flat dome (and completely flat, tbh). You won't see him mention the word "parabola" but video 1 does mention the local flatness.

Three, why the hell do I need to humor your delusions? Just as the sun is above us but appears below the clouds (realistically, if you think the sun actually IS below the clouds, you have worse problems than me), when you get into any kind of altitude, you see the truth.

Suppose you were to invest in the world's best chopper (one capable of flying as high as that plane and as fast). The sun begins to set, and appears lower. You take off immediately, as only a helicopter can do.



The sun is setting "below" the clouds on the beach. But what happens if you gain altitude?



Hmmmm. This is awkward.

Almost as if the sun actually is moving above the clouds and distance makes it appear to sink.

Yes, I do believe I can tell you to watch the videos on my signature.

 What are you babbling about.  I haven’t watched any of your videos?

I don’t have to because you can’t address what is actually posted.

Not only does vanishing point and perspective not have the means to block sunlight.  vanishing point and perspective when used makes things seem to rise up to a point above the horizon.  They have no means to make the sun appear to physically move down into the earth below the horizon at sun set to literally block the light and radiation from the sun.

Hmmmm. This is awkward.

That you post some random picture of a sun above the clouds with no context.

Again.  The act of sunrise gives this video context.



Sun rise under the clouds at FL280





Explain how the sun is relatively below the clouds to shine light from the bottoms of the clouds, to filter up from the clouds to be seen from the airplane.  Especially if the sun for flat earth is always 300 to 3000 miles above the clouds.

You shiuld watch his videos if you want to understand why he doesnt listen to your posts

You shiuld watch his videos if you want to understand why he doesnt listen to your posts

If they can’t take the time to quote or paraphrase the cited material, why would I link to and watch propaganda?  I’m here for debate, not to be a pawn in foot traffic for FE propaganda.

I think some of this crap is just advertising and to try and generate foot traffic for crazy FE channels. 

understanding his view point so you can counter...

"know your enemy"

understanding his view point so you can counter...

"know your enemy"

Other than the parabola delusion that bulmabriefs144 uses to detail threads and change the subject, that has generated little interest, even less traction, and zero evidence of existing.

What hasn’t be repeated thousands of times in many threads in various forum sites.


It’s not about “mindset”.  It’s about honest observation, documenting reality, experimenting, and data collection.  And how it leads to the best modeling and predicting outcomes in reality.

One aspect of reality is perspective and vanishing point in no way explains sunsets and sunrise. Where the sun is visible then slowly is obstructed from view.  Or why the sun is literally blocked from view, and slowly is revealed as it claims over the horizon.  Changes from a relative position below the horizon to above the horizon.  FE the sun is literally always above the horizon

Think about it this way.  It’s not practical to think everting is possible and hidden by a lie.


It’s better to understand why something seems impossible to overcome that impossibility.