Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 08, 2023, 05:53:18 PM

Yes, I know. It was from Data.

This has to be one of your most desperate and stupid lies…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on July 29, 2023, 05:55:29 AM

To answer your question, what proof do I have that this is the sky?

Zazzle, a purveyor of cheap junk, has a blue poster.

Someone launches a model rocket 1000 feet up in the air years before the thread and you don’t like the real sky in the video so you have to make false allegations of a “cheap poster”.

I'm pretty certain I can make an incredibly lame shot of a space ship layered over a blue background. Even without buying a poster from Zazzle. The one thing I can't do is good smoke/flame effects, but this is certainly not proof all this is real. Btw genius, wrong thread. You're looking for the one about "Why Flat Earth Equates No Space Travel." It's in the Debate section.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 08, 2023, 05:53:18 PM

Stop doing it, mkay?

Do you mean stop breaking your post into smaller pieces to refute each bit of BS?

Refute. Haha. Hahahaha. Hahahahahahaha! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Actually what you're doing is called splitting hairs. You take some small detail out of context and say, "See? The shirt he was wearing was green not red! It can't just be that you missed a detail (or are colorblind), this means your whole argument is refuted." No, it means you like to nitpick and have lost the larger point.

Other people seem to have no difficulty with it. But if you want, keep your post to something short, rather than trying to spam out as much BS as possible.

The way I'm typing now more resembles spam. The stuff I was typing before is called a rant.

And notice how yet again, you have had your dishonest BS entirely refuted, and how do you respond? Entirely ignore the refutation and cling to other BS.

Refuted how? What I've seen is nitpick that doesn't actually refute anything.

Are you going to be honest for once and admit what you provided before is dishonest BS and that your objection was entirely incorrect?

Can you prove it was incorrect? Or all you have is your word against mine? The dishonest BS here is when I demonstrate how the sun can move out of sight and I am told that a rubber ducky can disappear from view without obstruction but then the sun needs obstruction to disappear from view.

About the time of sunrise or any of the countless things you have lied about?

What have I lied about? Name one.
Keep in mind, for every one you pick, I get to pick two lies of yours.

If not, care to try explaining how the sun is illuminating the cloud from below?

 I did.

It's loads of fun, isn't it? Having to look at quotes and little snippet responses. Makes you really feel like someone is giving you their full attention, doesn't it?

 Btw genius, wrong thread.

You’re the one that further killed you credibility with false accusations over a video of actual real sky. 

Refuted how? What I've seen is nitpick that doesn't actually refute anything.

You’re changing the subject again.  In your delusion where the sun doesn’t get blocked by the curvature of the earth, and the sun gets too faint to see.  How does the too faint to see sun and sunlight illuminate clouds bottom up 20 minutes before sunrise. And the sun can’t be brought into view with a light gathering device like a telescope that can make much dimmer stars visible until the sun starts to physically rise above the horizon.  Where even a sliver of the sun above the horizon can physically damage your vision, especially if a telescope is improperly used.  It’s like the curvature of the earth is shielding the sun’s radiation until the sun starts to physically rise relatively above the horizon.  Or to be more technically, your location spins toward the sun. 

Refute.

Yes, refute.
Apparently done so well that you have no way to respond, and instead just need to flee as the post was never made.

This is not merely splitting hairs. It is demonstrating that your claims are pure BS.
You claimed the time of sunrise doesn't vary significantly at all, yet a simple search showed that to be pure BS and your method to try to support your dishonest BS to be fundamentally flawed at best, and a blatant con at worst.
And how do you respond? Just entirely ignore it.

This is also not taking details out of context.

If I was actually doing that, you would be able to quote where I have allegedly done that and provide the context and show I was doing so.
But instead, like so often you just assert dishonest BS with no justification at all.

Now again, care to try being honest for once and admitting you were wrong, or do the impossible and defend your dishonest BS?

Refuted how? What I've seen is nitpick that doesn't actually refute anything.

Your dishonesty truly knows no bounds.

Again, above you dismissed a photo as being before sunrise because it was taken after 7 am.
You falsely claimed that the time of sunrise only varies with latitude, and that longitude has no effect, and that other than extreme cases sunrise is before 7 am on that date.

I provided pages from your own source demonstrating that claim is pure BS.
Here are the links again:
https://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/united-states/dothan/2021/november
https://www.sunrise-and-sunset.com/en/sun/united-states/fort-davis/2021/november
2 cities, with roughly the same latitude, both in Texas, where thje time of sunrise varies from 6:10 am to 7:23 am.
Clearly demonstrating that the time of sunrise will vary by over an hour due to changes in longitude, within a single timezone.
Clearly demonstrating your claim that it is magically at the same time, is pure BS.

And how do you try to respond now?
Just blatantly lie by claiming I haven't refuted anything.

Why don't you try defending your dishonest BS and explaining how both of these locations somehow have sunrise at the same time, with both being before 7 am.

Then you can deal with Farwell vs Texico, and how these 2 locations, in 2 different timezone, but spatially right next to each other have sunrise times based upon their local time being off by an hour; but based upon UTC being basically the same time.

Can you prove it was incorrect? Or all you have is your word against mine?

Yes, I can, and did. Both in the previous post, and in this one.
And how do you respond? Just ignore everything that shows you are wrong.

The dishonest BS here is when I demonstrate how the sun can move out of sight and I am told that a rubber ducky can disappear from view without obstruction but then the sun needs obstruction to disappear from view.

Again, already explained. Your dishonesty is pretending that the sun, while still being clearly resolvable and very bright is magically hidden from view with nothing to do so, and nothing to bring it back except getting higher.
Quite different to a duck getting too small to resolve with the naked eye but being visible with the use of a pair of binoculars.

What have I lied about? Name one.
Keep in mind, for every one you pick, I get to pick two lies of yours.

I already provided one there, which you just ignored.
Here it is again, complete with a quote:

I got to latitudes of London or higher (all the way up to Alaska and such), there was virtually no incidence of sunrise at later than 7am, with the majority at that day being closer to 6am.
...
For reference, Jerusalem in Israel. Nearly the same as the Northern Neck. Longitude does not matter! Only latitude makes any great difference.

Here you are claiming latitude is what matters and longitude does not matter. Yet as shown above, it clearly does matter and shows your claim is a lie.
Likewise, related to that is this:

Because I wasn't content to just an assumption, I kept following the facts, until I was sure.

But you didn't follow the facts. You cherry picked a few key points, to ignore the facts to pretend your dishonest BS was correct.
And there is this:

15°? No, the number of degrees from my general location in Virginia to California is about 39°, yet there is a difference of only 20 minutes or so.  That should be an hour different, based on what you say but it's not.

Where you failed at basic math (39 degrees corresponds to roughly 2.5 hours, not 1), and you entirely ignored time zones.

And I'll even just use this latest pile of crap of yours:

Refuted how? What I've seen is nitpick that doesn't actually refute anything.

As explained above, I have refuted you. That is not merely nitpicking.
Longitude clearly plays a very significant effect.

And there are plenty more lies of yours.
Good like trying to find any of mine.

I did.

No, you didn't.
You repeatedly failed to provide any explanation of how the sun magically illuminates an object from below when it is above.
So there is another lie of yours.

Your crappy little picture, showing the sun above and then a random with no explanation drawn down to an arbitrary curve to try to force it to match IS NOT AN EXPLANATION!

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 09, 2023, 07:21:38 AM

Refuted how? What I've seen is nitpick that doesn't actually refute anything.

You’re changing the subject again.  In your delusion where the sun doesn’t get blocked by the curvature of the earth, and the sun gets too faint to see.  How does the too faint to see sun and sunlight illuminate clouds bottom up 20 minutes before sunrise. And the sun can’t be brought into view with a light gathering device like a telescope that can make much dimmer stars visible until the sun starts to physically rise above the horizon.  Where even a sliver of the sun above the horizon can physically damage your vision, especially if a telescope is improperly used.  It’s like the curvature of the earth is shielding the sun’s radiation until the sun starts to physically rise relatively above the horizon.  Or to be more technically, your location spins toward the sun.

Let us assume without knowing too much about you that you believe in aliens. Let us also assume that light never scatters, and thus unless the Earth is round as you say, it should always be visible.

If both of these are true (you'd better stop believing in aliens quick), then all it should take to attract their attention is to shine a light that goes up in the sky. This light should travel endlessly through space, creating a trail for any would-be aliens to head to our doorstep.



Yet even traffic personnel can tell you that's crap.

Why was red chosen for stop?

Red is the color with the longest wavelength; that means that as it travels through air molecules, it gets diffused less than other colors, so it can be seen from a greater distance. For a real-world example, think about how the light turns red as the sun sets. Even though the human eye is most sensitive to a yellow-green highlighter color (hence the shade of high-visibility safety vests), it can see red from further away.

Yellow has a shorter wavelength than red but a longer wavelength than green. This means that red is visible the furthest away, yellow in the middle and green the least distance away—a helpful advanced warning for needing to slow or stop

Why can you see different color lights at different distances?  Hmmmm, maybe because light breaks down over distance?

Yesterday, at church (funny how that works, inspiration cones from time with God) the windows were open so you could see cars out in the parking lot. One was giving such glare that it hurt my eyes. You think this light is so intense that it must be able to go on forever. Yet if I said to this church, "Move" and it did,

He said to them, “Because of your little faith. For truly, I say to you, if you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move, and nothing will be impossible for you.”

and it managed to move back a mere 500ft from that parking lot, the glare from that car would not have been bright enough to hurt my eyes. Even 200 ft would be less intense.

You need my location to spin because it helps validate your concept of infinite motion of light. But I can tell you that no amount of genetic acclimation would keep us from constantly puking until we die were the motion sickness that is Earth rotating, orbiting, and tilting a reality.

The sun is not what you think it is. Like the car, it is a mere object. It's a disc giving off glare from the light of God, in the same way as the car gives off glare from the sun. This is why I refuse to capitalize the word sun. To do so is to venerate it. It's just a phenomenon.

Let us assume without knowing too much about you that you believe in aliens. Let us also assume that light never scatters, and thus unless the Earth is round as you say, it should always be visible.

If both of these are true (you'd better stop believing in aliens quick), then all it should take to attract their attention is to shine a light that goes up in the sky. This light should travel endlessly through space, creating a trail for any would-be aliens to head to our doorstep.

What you would need is a high enough energy bust to be clearly noticed by aliens against the background, which also requires aliens to be paying attention and looking for it; and with enough "artificialness" to it so they can tell it is artificial rather than natural.

But again, this is just more pathetic deflection from the real issue.

Again, the sun disappears while still incredibly bright and resolvable, and a telescope can't magically bring it back into view.
This shows us 2 key things:
1 - It is not perspective making it too small to see.
2 - It is not distance making it too dim.

If that was going to make the sun vanish you would observe the sun shrink to a point and then fade into the background.
But that isn't what happens at all.

Even though the human eye is most sensitive to a yellow-green highlighter color (hence the shade of high-visibility safety vests), it can see red from further away.

Wrong again.
Instead, when light is scattered, the indirect light appears blue when far away from the sun and redder closer to the sun.

That doesn't actually mean we can see red from further away.

Why can you see different color lights at different distances?

You can't.

You need my location to spin because it helps validate your concept of infinite motion of light. But I can tell you that no amount of genetic acclimation would keep us from constantly puking until we die were the motion sickness that is Earth rotating, orbiting, and tilting a reality.

Yet you cannot justify that motion sickness at all.
Instead, you just pathetically assert it must exist, because you are desperate to reject reality.

Again, how does the sun illuminate an object below it from below, especially while the sun is not visible?

Hello sunrise. 





Hmmm



Up from beyond the horizon when supposedly the sun and its light are too far away and too faint to see.

Tried to do a normal sunrise video, but the video was 30 minutes long, and YouTube didn’t like it was over 2 gigs in size.

So got this cheap go-pro time lapse video camera.

Started recording around 6:32. The sky was already starting to illuminate.  The ball of the sun breached the horizon or was first visible around 7:04.



The time stamp on the bottom right was clear and readable when the video was uploaded on my phone. After going from my phone to YouTube, it’s became hard to read.  So.  Yes.  Data is compressed or lost when uploaded to YouTube.


Zoomed in short video of the sun from edited from same video.



How does the sun illuminate the sky when supposedly the sun is too far away to see, and see its light.  How does it light up the sky 40 minutes before the sun and its light is supposedly close enough to become seen.

Why does the sun go up from the horizon.  With no indication it’s changing distance by coming straight at the horizon.


Why does the light and shadows lead straight back to the sun throughout the day.

Hello sunrise. 



Hmmm



Up from beyond the horizon when supposedly the sun and its light are too far away and too faint to see.

Same stupid theory pages later. I've already answered this, but you remain ignorant.

Since I don't want to repeat myself when about to go to bed, let's ask a simple question.

What about shadows?

You focus on how this light lasts "after the sunset/before the sunrise" which you think is impossible.
Before I elaborate on my previous question, let us demonstrate just how big of nonsense this is with three adjoining rooms. We have a small lamp, like so.



They are in a straight line so no obstruction (btw, we have exactly this setup in our house: kitchen, pantry, then living room).  I have enough light to be seen two rooms over (though in even bigger rooms light can blend or disperse). But for now, we're not talking about ability to see light from two rooms over. Between a lit and unlit room, the middle room is dark. The overheads light much of the room they occupy but not the adjoining room.

You go on and on about how "the sun's not up yet but I can see this light! Impossibiru!" but literally nothing about how you CAN'T see it an hour before that. So ummm if Flat Earth is able to see this all day long because the sun has a straight path, and I live on a flat Earth, why is it the we have bright sun then this golden or other afterglow and after the afterglow, the light simply fades? Your only explanation is rounding a curve, yet such a perspective would be abrupt. This afterglow (or beforeglow) lasts quite awhile.

If I were to slide a downward pointed lamp from room A to room B very slowly, before I saw the full circle of light, I would see... one line of light, then two, then gradually a semicircle, then the  full circle. If we added some sort of angled mat to transpose the ground light to a shadow, it would appear to rise upward until we had a circle.

But this is not the shadows that I am talking about.

https://www.infoplease.com/askeds/how-big-time-zone

So the answer to your question depends on how far north or south you are. If you in any city near the equator, like Nairobi, Kenya, each time zone is about 1,035 miles wide. But if you're at somewhere more north like Winnepeg, Canada, the time zone would only be about 675 miles wide.

You see, at roughly 10am, all around a timezone, you have very specific shadows. In fact, so specific that sundials work at the correct angle of shadow all through a timezone. Trees, sleeping bears, fake NASA shuttles, all of these cast the correct shadow by either nature or fabrication at that time, and the opposite at 2pm.

But simple logic is all we need to dismantle this. That and my shiny Kindle at 12:32 am. My Kindle shines a light in a circle when facing down, outside which is darkness. I shine on my right leg, and see a shadow come from it. I then proceed to move it. Problem: the other leg, even within the light of the Kindle is casting shadow from another direction.

...So why is it that all objects are casting the same shadow? Forget FE and RE. Under normal ways of seeing the sun, this shouldn't work under ANY model! The sun, despite having timezones from 1035 to 675 miles casts shadows not as an object with actual location (as RE ppl say, some distant object that the Earth moves around) but casa sort of omnipresent object. No matter where you are within the timezone, you aren't on the "left leg" of the shadow.

They are in a straight line so no obstruction (btw, we have exactly this setup in our house: kitchen, pantry, then living room).  I have enough light to be seen two rooms over (though in even bigger rooms light can blend or disperse). But for now, we're not talking about ability to see light from two rooms over. Between a lit and unlit room, the middle room is dark. The overheads light much of the room they occupy but not the adjoining room.

I had to double check who was posting this, because here you are, clearly putting forward an argument in favour of a RE.

Again, with a RE, the direct light from the sun is blocked, by Earth, but the indirect light is not because we can see what the light is illuminating.

Again, this matches when the sun is in region B:

The sun is illuminating the clouds/sky, which we can see.

If Earth was flat, we should still be able to see the sun.
It clearly is still bright enough to be casting light to scatter off another object and us seeing that much weaker light. If we can see that, we should certainly be able to see the much brighter direct light.

You go on and on about how "the sun's not up yet but I can see this light! Impossibiru!" but literally nothing about how you CAN'T see it an hour before that. So ummm if Flat Earth is able to see this all day long because the sun has a straight path, and I live on a flat Earth, why is it the we have bright sun then this golden or other afterglow and after the afterglow, the light simply fades? Your only explanation is rounding a curve, yet such a perspective would be abrupt. This afterglow (or beforeglow) lasts quite awhile.

Why would it be abrupt?
Because you say so?

With a RE, the sun setting will be abrupt, as it is cut off by the horizon.
But the exact time will depend on latitude and time of year.

But then after that, the sun is still illuminating the sky, and the intensity of that will diminish until the sun is no longer illuminating any of the sky, or you need multiple reflections (i.e. the sun illuminating the sky which in turn illuminates the sky).

So this matches what is expected for a RE.

You see, at roughly 10am, all around a timezone, you have very specific shadows.

You have already had this shown to be pure BS.
Why repeat it?

Again, all it takes to realise this is pure BS is to consider the border between 2 timezones.
According to your delusional BS, merely stepping over the border would require the position of the sun and shadows to dramatically change. Instead of the far more logical, tiny insignificant change.

Shadows will vary across a timezone.

That is why you can't just get any old sundial, slap it on the ground, and have it work.

The closest you get is an equatorial sundial, which then needs to be adjusted for the offset between solar noon and noon based upon a clock.

But if you want a horizontal (i.e. along the ground) or vertical one, and want it to be a good one (i.e. one which can reasonably show time) you need the spike on it to match your latitude.

But simple logic is all we need to dismantle this.

And wilful ignorance. If you don't have that, you see straight through it.

...So why is it that all objects are casting the same shadow? Forget FE and RE. Under normal ways of seeing the sun, this shouldn't work under ANY model! The sun, despite having timezones from 1035 to 675 miles casts shadows not as an object with actual location (as RE ppl say, some distant object that the Earth moves around) but casa sort of omnipresent object. No matter where you are within the timezone, you aren't on the "left leg" of the shadow.

And that is the wilful ignorance I am talking about.

The sun is incredibly far away. So moving around on Earth will not significantly change the direction of the shadow, but the change in geometry of Earth will make the shadow appear to be in a different direction.

In what way does that not work?
In what way does the sun not cast a shadow as an actual object?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 15, 2023, 05:34:10 AM

Hello sunrise. 



Hmmm



Up from beyond the horizon when supposedly the sun and its light are too far away and too faint to see.

Same stupid theory pages later. I've already answered this, but you remain ignorant.

The problem is you’re changing the subject.

Why is this occurring while you claim the sun and it’s light should be too faint to see a whole half hour before sunrise.  A whole half hour before the sun breaches the horizon.  Where the sun rises above the horizon. Where the sun isn’t coming straight at the horizon.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 15, 2023, 05:34:10 AM

Hello sunrise. 



Hmmm



Up from beyond the horizon when supposedly the sun and its light are too far away and too faint to see.

They are in a straight line so no obstruction

Quote where I posted light waves that are different than sound waves wouldn’t travel in a straight line on a flat earth. You’re the one that claims they should bend because of your nonexistent parabola. And quote where I posted clouds wouldn’t make shadows on a flat earth.

The question you’re avoiding is why the angle up while you claim the sun and it’s light are to faint to see.


In fact….

For a sun always 300 to 3000 miles above a flat earth and its clouds.  Where you claim the sun can be too far to see and it’s light.

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? 

Wow, Jura that was profound. But I guess with a signature marking you as a literal nihilist, it's a stretch to expect too much. If live has no meaning and you die, why aren't you doing it now? Obviously, even a purpose of spreading negativity is a purpose.





This is, you can can use a sundial anywhere in a timezone, absolutely huge area. But if you were to teleport all up and down the map in that same timezone (I live in EST so that's Newfoundland to Canada to New York to Virginia to Florida to South America back to Newfoundland), you'd notice minor adjustments in sunrise and sunset time. But this makes no sense.

Large stationary objects no matter how large or distant, should drop out of sight when you move far enough away from them. The highest land point (latitude not elevation) still in EST is in Alert, Nunavut. The lowest land point is in Peru, looks like). The trip is 6500 miles, a distance that passes all physical objects. Travel by teleportation is travel at light speed.

Yet the sun would not be "around curvature" and thus out out of sight. Even though there is horizontal and vertical curvature in RE, for some reason, when it comes to real world distance of 6500 miles, horizontally (basically Virginia to China) instant travel might make a difference between the sun dropping out of sight or not, but vertically, we see only difference in an hour or two of sunrise lateness. Isn't that interesting?

 Almost as though the sun is simultaneously present everywhere in the same latitude, not because of curvature, but because it is a projection on the screen we call the sky. Trying to claim the sun is here or there is absurd. It would take up an impossibly long portion of the sky if it were just about light being cast. Instead, the same shadows are present throughout much of the eastern timezone.

Your changing the subject.

Why a shadow up into the sky 30 minutes before you claim the sun and its light should ever be visible?






And still doesn’t address…

For a sun always 300 to 3000 miles above a flat earth and its clouds.  Where you claim the sun can be too far to see and it’s light.

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?

Notice how yet again, you ignore the issue, and just spout dishonest BS to attack the RE?
Why?
Is it because you know the FE is pure BS and you stand no chance at all of defending it?
Is it because you know the only way to pretend there is a problem with the RE is by blatantly lying about it?

This is, you can can use a sundial anywhere in a timezone, absolutely huge area.

Not without adjusting it.
You can even have 2 sundials right next to each other, but in different timezones, quite visibly offset.

But if you were to teleport all up and down the map in that same timezone (I live in EST so that's Newfoundland to Canada to New York to Virginia to Florida to South America back to Newfoundland), you'd notice minor adjustments in sunrise and sunset time. But this makes no sense.

Why do you think it makes no sense?
Do you even understand the model you want to reject?
Even for the FE model, you would expect sunrise times to vary.

The real question is how you would expect it to vary.
For the common FE BS, with it magically caused by distance to the sun, you would expect it to rise earlier the further north you are.
For the RE model, it will depend on the time of the year. During the southern summer, the further south you go the earlier it will rise and the later it will set.
During the northern summer, the further north you go the earlier it will rise and the later it will set.

Large stationary objects no matter how large or distant, should drop out of sight when you move far enough away from them.

Are you saying for a RE, or a FE?
Because for a RE, if the distance to the point on Earth directly below the object is far enough away, then it will be out of sight.
For a FE, no, it shouldn't. Instead at best you have it shrink to a point.

Yet the sun would not be "around curvature" and thus out out of sight. Even though there is horizontal and vertical curvature in RE, for some reason, when it comes to real world distance of 6500 miles, horizontally (basically Virginia to China) instant travel might make a difference between the sun dropping out of sight or not, but vertically, we see only difference in an hour or two of sunrise lateness. Isn't that interesting?

No, it isn't interesting.
It is just more dishonest BS.

If you go roughly 10 000 km from the subsolar point, regardless of direction, you go to sunset.

But for the difference in time, that is based upon the time of solar noon, which is based upon the rotation of Earth. So no, it isn't interesting at all.

Almost as though the sun is simultaneously present everywhere in the same latitude

No, as if the sun is very far away, so it can be seen by roughly half of Earth.

Trying to claim the sun is here or there is absurd.

There is nothing absurd about it at all.
Why?
If you calculate the angle of the sun based upon the latitude and longitude of the observer, it works as the sun being very far away, in a particular location.

It would take up an impossibly long portion of the sky if it were just about light being cast.

No, it wouldn't.
It works just like a light source very far away.

Instead, the same shadows are present throughout much of the eastern timezone.

No, they aren't.
During the equinox, at solar noon, a shadow at the equator is straight down. A shadow at either pole is horizontal.
It will vary as you change latitude.

Not without adjusting it.
You can even have 2 sundials right next to each other, but in different timezones, quite visibly offset.

Are you serious? Timezones aren't magic.

They're a construct devised by humans.

Awhile back, there were minor differences in each location, due to the natural shifts in longitude. Each town had a public clock that people could use (typically found at railway stations), where the offset of a few minutes could be adjusted a little at a time, or all at once. Rather than suck it up and just put up with trains being a bit off from town to town, they artificially adjusted the time using certain zones. No, two timezones twenty feet away won't have sundials in dramatically different spots, any more than it would have the sun shift to a different spot! Get real!

And for the record, if the timezones were based on accurate zones of time, we wouldn't have this crazy earlier or later sunrise. Someone would have figured out the actual sunrise and sunset for each zone, and adjusted this to coordinate. The arbitrary zones become all the more obvious how artificial they are through the complete failure to synchronize sunrise and sunset throughout the Earth. It's nearly perfect in terms of longitude, having almost no variation, but in terms of latitude, the time is so off.

What is true is that in a similar area, the sun's shadow (which is based on ACTUAL position of the sun) will do the following.



They are all being cast in (generally) the same direction. This is why you can use sundials all across America with minor variations. If two trees can make parallel shadows, then you can reliably place sundials wherever they are (1) level, (2) not obstructed by trees, and (3) not in a weird zone constantly covered by clouds.





You can even make a sundial with cheap parts, as above.

Are you serious? Timezones aren't magic.

That's right, but you want to pretend they are.
You want to pretend that all throughout a timezone, the shadows are magically the same.
Then step over to the next (which can literally be just stepping over a line) the shadows should magically switch.
It is delusional nonsense.

They're a construct devised by humans.

And for the record, if the timezones were based on accurate zones of time, we wouldn't have this crazy earlier or later sunrise. Someone would have figured out the actual sunrise and sunset for each zone, and adjusted this to coordinate.

Sunrise and sunset is not constant accross a timezone.
If you use 1 hour wide time zones, then going east to west you would expect the time of sunrise to vary by roughly 1 hour.
And then on top of that you have the effect from going north-south.

But they aren't aiming to synchronise sunrise and sunset. They are aiming to synchronise solar noon.
At the equator you have roughly 12 hours of daylight regardless of time of year.
But as you go towards the poles, you get more daylight during summer and less during winter.
Inside the Arctic or Antarctic circle, at the peak of summer the sun doesn't set, and at the peak of winter, it doesn't rise.

Just how are you planning on having the be pure magic, so sunrise and sunset are both the same time, while the period of daylight varies?
e.g. have the sun rise at 6 am, solar noon at 12 pm, and sunset at 6 pm on the equator, with 12 hours of daylight.
But then magically have the same happen much further north/south during summer, with 18 hours of daylight.
It is not possible.

Look at how much solar noon varies with latitude.

It's nearly perfect in terms of longitude, having almost no variation, but in terms of latitude, the time is so off.

No, it isn't.
Stop repeating the same lie.
Again, ideally it varies by 1 hour. But with most places they aren't perfectly aligned. So some are more than 1 hour and some are less.
More importantly, solar noon varies by longitude. While with latitude, it doesn't.

You can even make a sundial with cheap parts, as above.

And notice a key thing it has? The latitude it is for. because different latitudes require a different angle, due to the inclination of Earth's surface.
Because the shadows are NOT the same throughout the time zone like you falsely claimed.

And notice how yet again you flee from the issue at hand?

What magic makes it so we can't see the sun, but can see objects the sun is illuminating?
Again, the RE can explain it trivially. But you don't seem to be able to explain it at all.

Are you serious?

You’re changing the subject again.

Why is the light of the sun visible a whole half hour before sunrise.  Why are shadows from clouds being cast upwards?

Why does the sun rise above the horizon.  Not come straight at the horizon.

For flat earth to work.  A person under a cloud seeing it illuminated top down making a shadow on the ground would have to simultaneously occur where at sun rise for a more distant person sees the same cloud illuminated bottom up casting upward shadows? 

Here's how debate works.

People talk about a subject. They relate points, facts, and data to that subject which help prove or disprove it.

People like you, who have an inability to think about more than one topic at once, have an inability to make analogies. This is to this, therefore that works like that. Nope, totally lost on you. "You're changing the subject," and cry foul.

 If the basic state of the sky is such that regardless of where you are, shadows line up to the real time of day (not the artificial timezones, not whatever leap year, daylight savings or other artificial adjustments we have made... we don't actually know ANYTHING about time apart from the systems we have made to adjust it), then you have issues with the perspective you see the sun at. "The sun hasn't risen yet" you say. Or "A person under a cloud seeing it illuminated top down making a shadow on the ground would have to simultaneously occur where at sun rise for a more distant person sees the same cloud illuminated bottom up casting upward shadows?"

Or, "You're changing the subject, what does this

have to do at all with this?"


Try... Everything?

Look at at how light in one place pushes shadow to a distinct point in another place. You some don't believe that light itself can be knocked to a different direction, even knowing about diffusion, reflection, refraction, and all sorts of light behavior. What do you think shadows are? Light hits those trees, and is reflected. A shadow is the trail of light in the opposite direction Light hits the ground and mountains, and we get that cool upward shadow that you like to rant and rave about. And lastly, light hits a domed atmosphere, and makes a bell curve effect, lighting the distant-most area bottom up and not top down. As the sun moves across the sky, it "rises" then "sets". It actually never changes elevation.


(several posts ago)

And before you ask, yes, there can be light before we see the actual sun, in the same way as there can be light from a lamp in an adjoining room (two of my posts ago) can be seen before the lamp is dragged into the room.



I've been speaking on this same topic for 18 pages, but because you don't have the ability to juxtaposition ideas in your mind, you accuse me of changing the subject.

Here's how debate works.

People talk about a subject. They relate points, facts, and data to that subject which help prove or disprove it.

Too bad you make false accusations of posters in videos.  Make false allegations how you are “credited” to “analyze” video to enable you to make false and unfounded allegations.

Too bad you make up crap like light waves are just sound waves.  Or appealing to your nonexistent parabola.

People like you,

Who leave the house to actually look at the real word and document it.



 

If the basic state of the sky

Which has nothing to do with why the sun’s light is visible 30 or 40 minutes before sunrise while you claim the sun is too far away to be seen.

 

"The sun hasn't risen yet" you say.

If the sun isn’t above the horizon in my time lapse videos or photos, it literally isn’t risen yet.

Or "A person under a cloud seeing

On a flat earth for a cloud over the continental USA, there is always the possibility of someone under a cloud with that cloud casting a shadow down.  The means someone watching a sunrise in California seeing clouds illuminated bottom up, somewhere in the east the cloud would also have to be casting a shadow on the ground from being illuminated top down.

Look at at how light in one place pushes shadow to a distinct point in another place.

Light doesn’t “push” shadows.  Shadows are created by objects that block light from a light source to some degree, and the angle of the light source to that object results in what direction the shadow will cast.

You some don't believe that light itself can be knocked to a different direction,

Quote where I posted such a thing.

And I have asked how a landscape of ground could create such a “reflection”.

But.  Again.  You’re trying to change the subject.

For this picture 20 / 30 minutes before sunrise.  20 / 30 minutes you claim the sun and its light are too “faint” to be seen.



Why is there even a shadow while you assert the sun and it’s light should be too faint to be seen.

The shadow is cast by the cloud in relationship to the position of the sun.
 
You want to claim “reflection”.  To the east about 1,500 miles of tree lines, forests, and fields.  And the Appalachian mountain range.  And the mountain range isn’t silhouetted during sunrise at my location.  Isn’t that strange for a flat earth.

Where there is no indication the land on the horizon is being illuminated.

So where is this reflection of light  supposedly creating light rays strong enough to cast cloud shadows upward off a landscape of trees, hills, fields, fields, cities, mountains during a time you claim the sun is too far away and faint to be seen.

Which still doesn’t explain why the sun rises above the horizon, stays the same apparent size, with nothing that looks like the sun coming straight in at the horizon. 

And before you ask, yes, there can be light before we see the actual sun, in the same way as there can be light from a lamp in an adjoining room (two of my posts ago) can be seen before the lamp is dragged into the room.

Which isn’t the same as..

Even if we do not understand that the sun's light travels to at angles (if I were to shine a stage light at you, and you suddenly moved off stage, there would be a point at where you are surrounded by light, where you can see light, and where you cannot see light). Light breaks down over distance.

Why would the sun make shadows and “reflect” light in your delusion where per-sunrise sun is too far to see it and it’s light.  It’s too “broke down”.

Now. 

Like the lamp is physically blocked from view by the wall.  So you can still see the indirect/scattered light.  Like you can see the scattered light in the upper atmosphere while the sun is physically blocked from view by the earther’s curvature.

Thanks for proving spherical earth again.  Thanks for proving the only way to not see the lamp is to physically block it from view by something like a wall. Like the curvature physically blocks the sun from view. 

So bulmabriefs144 walk us through how nautical, astronomical, civil twilight and actual sunrise works in your delusion. 

Here's how debate works.

People talk about a subject. They relate points, facts, and data to that subject which help prove or disprove it.

And here is how "debate" usually "works" with FEers:

Claims are made by REers which demonstrate that the FE is wrong and cannot work.
FEers, being unable to refute it, instead resort to spouting pathetic lies about the RE.
Instead of attempting to defend the FE (which they know is impossible) they lash out and try to attack the RE, using whatever dishonest strawmen they can come up with; often entirely contradicting themselves.

It's a shame FEers like you refuse to think and engage in honest debate.

People like you, who have an inability to think about more than one topic at once

The issue isn't thinking about multiple topics at once.
It is you continually jumping topics to continually bring up the same refuted BS only to flee from it when it is refuted, only to bring it up again later as if it wasn't already refuted.

If the basic state of the sky is such that regardless of where you are, shadows line up to the real time of day

There is no shadow for a certain time of day.
Without a reference (e.g. true north), or an understanding of where you are, there is no magical shadow for a certain time of day.

Shadows line up with where you are on a RE, and where the sun is above.

So what issues are there?

Look at at how light in one place pushes shadow to a distinct point in another place.

As if there is a light source, with light coming from it and casting shadows when blocked by objects which don't let the light through.
Nothing at all to do with your BS parabola which you refuse to explain.

What do you think shadows are?

Regions where the light doesn't reach, regardless of if that is caused by reflection (specular or diffuse), or absorption, or even diffraction and refraction.

Light hits the ground and mountains, and we get that cool upward shadow that you like to rant and rave about.

Notice how you jump between entirely different ideas.
In one, you want to pretend your magic parabola will magically cause the sun to shine upwards.
In another you pretend it is a reflection from the ground.

But as already raised, this light from this reflection is much weaker than the direct light from the sun.
Notice how in your picture of the trees, we see the shadows pointing away from the sun.
We don't see shadows pointing away from other trees where the light has been reflected, because that light is too dim.

So that wouldn't work for your FE.
You would still need some magic to hide the sun.

And lastly, light hits a domed atmosphere, and makes a bell curve effect, lighting the distant-most area bottom up and not top down. As the sun moves across the sky, it "rises" then "sets". It actually never changes elevation.

Yet you still have no explanation for what magic causes this, and when taken with the rest of your BS, it should mean that the sun sets when above a point roughly 5 km away, and once set it is unable to illuminate the clouds.

So you are just coming up with whatever BS you can think of to pretend to solve the problem, without even thinking about what it would mean.

And before you ask, yes, there can be light before we see the actual sun

How?
Try drawing it in your crappy diagram.

in the same way as there can be light from a lamp in an adjoining room (two of my posts ago) can be seen before the lamp is dragged into the room.

You mean because the wall blocks the view?
i.e. how the curvature of Earth blocks the view?
Try doing it without an obstruction in the way.

I've been speaking on this same topic for 18 pages, but because you don't have the ability to juxtaposition ideas in your mind, you accuse me of changing the subject.

No, you haven't.
You have been repeatedly jumping around between topics and ignoring what is said; and trivial questions asked of you.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 20, 2023, 04:42:44 AM

Here's how debate works.

People talk about a subject. They relate points, facts, and data to that subject which help prove or disprove it.

Too bad you make false accusations of posters in videos.  Make false allegations how you are “credited” to “analyze” video to enable you to make false and unfounded allegations.

Too bad you make up crap like light waves are just sound waves.  Or appealing to your nonexistent parabola.

I see. So you make unfounded and false accusations about what I said. I never said light waves are just sound waves.

I said (and you will doubtless dig up the quote) that all waves are in the electromagnetic spectrum. Waves are matter/energy in motion. If energy is matter (squared) at the speed of light as Einstein put it, then the only difference between matter and energy is the shorter wavelength of motion creating higher speed. 

But Einstein never actually proved that all energy even is traveling at the speed of light, rather than slower. He just rode on the coattails of previous scientists, who declared this notion by fiat. He was a big fraud that globalists call a genius. Classic Emperor's New Clothes ploy. "You're too stupid to see Einstein's brilliance." No, the emperor has no clothes. Einstein's teacher called him an idiot and he was right.

https://brnoregion.com/en/news/ernst-mach-the-great-teacher-of-albert-einstein

He criticised Newton and rejected atomic theory, which he considered merely a product of theoretical physics. He recognized only things that could be proven in a practical experiment.

The only things that are real are those proven in a practical experiment. 

There is no proof that energy can't move at below light speed. Nor is there any proof that certain types of energy cannot travel faster than the speed of light. In fact, this is precisely what tachyons are.

We can say that light moves at light speed. That's the only energy logically required to move at light speed.

Look at the model on my signature. It's simple. Shorter wavelength equals increasing energy. So the closer and object is to energy, and the faster it travels. The longer the wavelength, the more it resembles matter.

"You're changing the subject! You're changing the subject!!!"

No, you changed the subject. I just cooperated.

So you claim to not be jumping to different topics, but look at what you are doing now.
You ignore the topic and instead just cling to BS not related to the topic.

I never said light waves are just sound waves.

You did, repeatedly, just claiming they are a different frequency.
In reality, they are fundamentally different.

For starters, you can't polarise a sound wave travelling through air.

If energy is matter (squared) at the speed of light as Einstein put it, then the only difference between matter and energy is the shorter wavelength of motion creating higher speed.

Great job entirely misunderstanding it.
This is mass energy equivalence.
i.e. you can create matter from energy in the form of pair production. You can also have those pairs annihilate to produce energy.

This is also important in things like nuclear physics, where the nuclear binding energy causes the masses to vary than what would otherwise be expected.

e.g. if you look at the most abundant nucleus of some of the common elements, carbon has 6 protons and 6 neutrons, nitrogen is 7 and 7, oxygen is 8 and 8, sulphur is 16 and 16. This should mean their masses should scale as a ratio of 6:7:8:16. But it doesn't.
Carbon was chosen as the reference, with an atomic mass of 12 g/mol. But sulfur, instead of being the 32 you would expect, is actually 31.97.
The different nuclear binding energy results in a different mass.

In fact, this is precisely what tachyons are.

A hypothetical particle which no one has been able to show exists?
What did you say about only accepting things shown by experiment?

Look at the model on my signature.

It is dishonest BS which has been refuted countless times.
Electromagnetic waves travel at the speed of light.
All the evidence shows they do.
Sound does not.

No, you changed the subject. I just cooperated.

No, you took a single statement calling out your blatant dishonesty, and ran with it; while entirely ignoring the actual topic.

The point was that you aren't debating. You aren't bringing up facts or data.
You are just spouting delusional BS and fleeing from the topic.

Again, your own argument supports a RE.
You need something blocking the view to light to see what the light is illuminating and not the light.
That would the curvature of the RE.

Your parabola BS doesn't work.

Like the lamp is physically blocked from view by the wall.  So you can still see the indirect/scattered light.  Like you can see the scattered light in the upper atmosphere while the sun is physically blocked from view by the earther’s curvature.

Thanks for proving spherical earth again.  Thanks for proving the only way to not see the lamp is to physically block it from view by something like a wall. Like the curvature physically blocks the sun from view. 

Light from 100 ft away. A tiny speck. Zoomed in, we can see it much more bright and intense. You can even see the glare around it, whereas in the distant spot you cannot. 

If you turn off all lights in a football field, and shine an extremely sucky flashlight, you wanna test whether you can see the light on the opposite endzone? Even if you can see the light itself, having it continue is another matter.





Flashlights have different lengths and spreads.  So, light either scatters outward, which causes light to go no further after a certain point, or light is fixed, and follows the rules of vanishing point.

Scatter



Vanishing Point



Notice that while you can see the light itself can be seen, not only does the area in close proximity cut off (limited range) but perhaps more interesting, you can see behind the flashlight. Now the lines in this pictures. Yellow lines for light lines, green lines for the ground lines, red lines behind which there shouldn't be light (but there is). What does this tell us? Well, probably that the actual light of the flashlight is hitting another light, specifically the light of the camera flash. Similar to two cars with high beams, this flashlight... well, sucks, but it is made more intense due to the addition of a second light shining in the opposite direction.  So how about that light in the opposite direction?

Well hmmmm, it kinda tapers off, doesn't it? Like the sucky flashlight, it doesn't continue forever.

Light from 100 ft away.

You posted this.

Even if we do not understand that the sun's light travels to at angles (if I were to shine a stage light at you, and you suddenly moved off stage, there would be a point at where you are surrounded by light, where you can see light, and where you cannot see light). Light breaks down over distance.

Which in no way addresses you use right lies and falsehoods concerning other peoples post.

Your post no way addresses…

One.  The sun rises above the horizon and arcs through the sky, not changing size.  Not changing In brightness. No evidence the sun is coming at the horizon actually getting closer at sun rise.

Two.  If you non-existent parabola was actually “reflecting” light, you should get multiple “suns” off you parabola.  Something like this.



Three.  You still have no explanation why a much brighter sun in your delusion has light that is “broken down” so you can’t see it, but much dimmer stars can be seen. 

Four.  Related to three.  You have no explanation why a much brighter sun in your delusion supposedly cannot be seen because its light is too far and broken down at sunset.  But I can use a telescope to gather more light to see stars too dim to see with the unaided eye.  You have no explanation why the much brighter sun after sunset can’t be brought  back into view with a telescope.  Spherical earth does.  It’s physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.

Five.  Sun blocked from view after sunset by the curvature of the earth.  Similar to one traveling south across the equator where the North Star stays the same magnitude in brightness, but keeps getting lower on the horizon.  Until one travels far enough south the star is physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.  Where dimmer stars in the night sky above the horizon can be seen with the aid of a device that gathers more light than our eyes like a telescope.  Where the North Star not seen when far enough down into the southern hemisphere cannot be brought back into view because it is physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

Six.  You ignore in your delusion that stars show light sources are still very much visible even if they cause negligible light scattering in the atmosphere.


Seven.  Still no explanation why the sun in your delusion cannot be seen before sunrise while it’s light starts to illuminate the upper atmosphere after astronomical twilight


Eight.  You claim the sun isn’t physically visible before it breaches the horizon because it’s light is too far away to be seen.  Yet it lights up the sky before sunrise.  Stars show you have it backwards. Light sources themselves are very visible even if the ability to light up an atmosphere is negligible due to their distance.  You.  Yourself have to apply to physically blocking the lamp from view to explain why indirect light can be seen while its source cannot.  Confirming a similar phenomenon where the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun from direct view while it lights up the sky with indirect lighting.  Confirming why a telescope cannot bring it into view before sunrise.  It is physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.


So bulmabriefs144, keep using you false allegations that other posters are using 1000 foot posters, your false allegations of fake videos, keep making “analyses” where it’s shows things like you don’t understand video of the sky.  bulmabriefs144 Keep butchering science.   


bulmabriefs144 You put the lies, stupid, the brainwashed into flat earth. 

Notice that while you can see the light itself can be seen

And notice I can zoom in and bring the light into better view?





Now. Zoom in and bring the sun into view.



Oh.  You can’t in the picture 20 to 30 minutes before sunrise because the sun is physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth. During a time you claim the sun and its light cannot be seen because it is too far off.  So the sky shouldn’t be illuminated at all in your delusion. 


Video of the same sunrise.




It’s very apparent when the sun isn’t blocked any longer by the horizon when it rises above it.







Give up bulmabriefs144, the only thing you’re accomplishing is making flat earth look stupid. 

Light from 100 ft away.

Still clearly visible.

Notice how no where in that did you present an image where the light is not visible because it not bright enough or hidden by magic; while what it is illuminating is still visible?

Instead, you show the light is still clearly visible, just like we would expect the sun to be if Earth was flat.

A tiny speck. Zoomed in, we can see it much more bright and intense. You can even see the glare around it, whereas in the distant spot you cannot.

Again, can you make a single post without a lie?
The not zoomed in one still has glare.
In fact, the more zoomed in appears to have less glare.
Probably because the range is moved up.

If you turn off all lights in a football field, and shine an extremely sucky flashlight, you wanna test whether you can see the light on the opposite endzone?

Again, the issue is how can you see what the light is illuminating, without also seeing the light?
If you have that sucky flashlight shining towards the ground, do you think you can see the ground illuminated from the opposite endzone? No.

So, light either scatters outward, which causes light to go no further after a certain point, or light is fixed, and follows the rules of vanishing point.

Again, the vanishing point is infinitely far away.
Do you mean it follows the rules of perspective, where it appears smaller? If so, if something is bright enough, it can still be seen, even when it is too small to resolve.

Notice that while you can see the light itself can be seen

It means you aren't explaining the sunrise that is the issue here.

you can see behind the flashlight.

As if there is another light behind it, that we can't see directly because the person is blocking the view.

red lines behind which there shouldn't be light (but there is).

You mean red lines which you have arbitrarily drawn in which mean nothing.

What does this tell us?

That there is probably another light behind that person.

Now again, care to try to address the issue at hand, rather than continuing to deflect?

We have light being cast upwards to illuminate clouds from below while the sun is not visible at all.

This makes perfect sense on a RE, where Earth blocks the view to the sun.
But it makes no sense at all on a FE.
If the sun is too far to see, because the distance means it is too faint, then the multiple reflections required for the light to reach us from the clouds means the path is going to be longer and the light will be much dimmer; which means the sun will be too distant to illuminate it.

One.  The sun rises above the horizon and arcs through the sky, not changing size.  Not changing In brightness. No evidence the sun is coming at the horizon actually getting closer at sun rise.

Two.  If you non-existent parabola was actually “reflecting” light, you should get multiple “suns” off you parabola.  Something like this.

. Ahhh. Now I understand why you are so stupid. You're imagining a glass jar, which obviously isn't the case because we humans get to breathe. I'm imagining something more like a tent. If I were to come to a campground (this is gonna move into creepy territory) while strapped to a harness like a bad play Tinkerbell at night and shine a flashlight into each tent starting at the side edge of the tent (where it meets the bottom) and moving around the tent until I get past, would you say that light is reflected this way? Because that's not an accurate picture of what is happening. What's actually happening is that light is hitting the bottom edge of the tent, then traveling up the side edge of the tent until it reaches the top, then it travels down the other side's edge until it hits where the side joins the bottom of the tent. Before I get the light on the tent, there is some vague light from the flashlight but we don't see the center of the flashlight. Meanwhile, traveling along like a fairy on a rope in this campground suspended by harness, I visit the rest of the camp, creeping all of them out. The rope remains level the whole time (it's on a track) meaning the flashlight never gets closer or farther, it just goes along at an angle.

Give up bulmabriefs144, the only thing you’re accomplishing is making flat earth look stupid.

Maybe so, but you're also looking dense for being explained this for 18 pages and not getting it. Either I really am that horrible at explanation or you are just that bad at understanding things.