Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

 Ahhh. Now I understand why you are so stupid.

Why.  Because there is no evidence of your parabola.  And the only rules that govern you delusion are out of convenience.  And your delusion is only ad hoc.  And has to ignore the entirety of the post.

Again..



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

Not in the way birds and aircraft fly freely about.

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

Not in the way the sun streams through clouds.


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

Wrong.

Parabola theory says that objects only appear to curve,

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





With no sign /indication of these distortions:


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

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

And you still haven’t addressed…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 20, 2023, 04:57:06 PM

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.

 
 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 why is the light from the background traveling straight through the tent to the camera. Only blurred a bit. 

🤣

Sigh....

So ummm this is a picture of a tent which is supposed to help you visualize.

There is a difference between a tent that is opaque (all light reflected), translucent (some light passes through) , transparent (most light passes through). This is a clear tent yes, but for a tent to work like a tent, it has to be at least somewhat able to keep out light. I don't think a tent exists that is so clear that you can't tell it's there. Yet this is precisely what I'm saying is going on here.

Remove the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth. I can shine a flashlight at a tent and get a similar climbing effect to what actually happens.
Or I can try to move this same flashlight around a fat person rolling around on the ground (to similate rotate and orbit of a round object), and I quickly realize that he doesn't remotely see the same sunrise and sunset picture I have laid out, that flat ground actually is flat ground (and not "secretly curved" ), and that I have given said person a reason to hate me as he now has chiggers and sinus congestion.

Your model doesn't work! So yes, as ridiculous as this model sounds to you, it's sizably better than imagining a sky and earth that curves when you can see it's a dome. Were the Earth to match that shape, we would have pineapple-shaped Earth (loads of small bumps), not a globe. That's impossible. Personal zones of domed reality? Seems unlikely... but far more possible than pineapple Earth (PE) or deciding that flat terrain you can set a level to is really REALLY curved, and when you see the sun go around the Earth, you're looking at things backward.

I'll be sure to assign twelve kids to run around you while you sit in place and eat burgers, and you can tell me how you are not gonna become obese because you're the one running around. Don't you think maybe sane people can tell the difference between an object pushing itself ahead, and an object being pulled? Oh and btw. If you turn an object while pulling it, it tends to spiral not arc.

So ummm this is a picture of a tent which is supposed to help you visualize.

Why “visualize” if you had an actual working model than a delusion.

Since you going to ignore my posts, photos, and videos in their context.  And you keep changing the subject.  And you will not answer how a sun brighter than any of the stars that are more distant ever gets too faint to see. 

And why the sun is illuminating the sky and making shadows before sunrise in your delusion when the sun’s light is “broke down” and too distant to see.

Jaco put it the simplest…

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.

Your model doesn't work! M

And yet this proves you wrong…

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.

Now I understand why you are so stupid. You're imagining a glass jar

You mean you are looking for an excuse to insult people.
Switching from a glass jar to a tent will not make any significant difference.
You still face all the same problems.

I'm imagining something more like a tent.

Which still doesn't help you at all.
The sun shining through that doesn't allow it to cast light upwards without you being able to see it.

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.

As if it is circling the tent vertically.

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.

Why don't you see the flashlight?

And why cling to a flashlight.
Just use a lantern.
That is far more representative of the sun.

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.

Again, your distance to the tent is changing. You remaining the same height doesn't mean the distance doesn't change. It means the height doesn't change. But height is only 1 part of distance.

But again, try it with a lantern.
And what do the observers in the tents see?
You moving around, staying high above the ground.
Never appearing near the bottom of the tent, and never casting light upwards.
And when you are dishonestly using a flashlight instead and intentionally point it at particular locations, with the body of the flashlight obscuring the direct line of sight to the light (which you have no explanation at all for how your sun magically does this, especially with how it is shining a different light to different observers) the observers can at times see the flash light directly and a second light from where you are shining it on the tent, which is much dimmer. They even get to observe the flashlight vanish high in the sky rather than setting.

And as hinted above, where the flashlight idea really dies is how you try to illuminate the tents for long enough, while doing multiple tents.
You can just shine it straight down at the ground, but that would mean for Earth the sun would only be visible when it is above a point within roughly 5-10 km for a standard altitude observation. That means the majority of the world would be in darkness. You can even simulate that with your campground.
Have 40 tents arranged in a circle (I know, it isn't too scale, you should have closer to 4000 tents in this circle, but I'm keeping it simple).
Then have another circle of tents inside, and another circle outside.

Now shine your flashlight (which we will assume has a size of 1 tent to keep you from seeing the light when it is meant to be "setting", but also keep the math simple) down at the tents, where you go directly above the circle of 40.
Your flashlight shines down and illuminates one tent, as you move along, there is a period where you illuminate both tents next to each other at the same time, before just illuminating the next tent along.
For an observer in one of these 40 tents, they can see some light from the point the torch is above the centre of the previous tent, to the point it is above the centre of the next tent. That would be a total distance of 2 tents. That means they will see the "sun" for one twentieth of the sun's cycle.
For a 24 hour day, that would correspond to 72 minutes.
The inner and outer rows don't see the light at all. They just have darkness.

This doesn't match reality at all. In reality, over the equator and everywhere (excluding near the poles) on the equinox, they get roughly 12 hours of daylight.
And unless you are in the arctic or Antarctic circle and it is the peak of winter, you will get some light that day.

And it gets even worse if we scale it down to match what your parabola needs to be.
If your parabola has a radius of 5 km, and the sun illuminates an area with a radius of 5 km, that means the sun needs to be above a point with 10 km, or a total span of 20 km.
The sun's path is 40 000 km. This means you can see it for 20/40000=1/2000 parts of the sun's path.
Or it corresponds to 4000 tents, and you can see it for 2 of those, which again is 1/2000 parts of the sun's path.
Given the sun takes 24 hours to complete that cycle, that means you get it for 43.2 seconds.

In your fantasy, with the light pointing straight down, the majority of the world would be in complete darkness.
Those blessed to be along the sun-solar point, would get less than 1 minute of daylight each day.

That is why this picture of yours is complete BS:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/816868397836926996/1137807915038818456/Cloud_Gradient_Expanded.png


You need a separate spotlight for every single parabola, which magically goes to that magical parabola and only interacts with it, rather than just going directly to the light person or interacting with every parabola along the way.
It is pure garbage.
You are appealing to magic to pretend your fantasy can work.

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.

Or you aren't explaining anything, you are just coming up with excuses which demonstrably don't work and ignoring the refutation of all your BS.

It has been explained to you why you are wrong, and you just ignore and keep on going.
So you are either too stupid to read and understand what is said, or you are too dishonest to engage in any form on honest debate, as you simply ignore points which show you are wrong.

Notice how yet again you are fleeing from the topic, because you cannot justify your delusional BS.
You cannot show how it could EVER be possible.
So instead you jump straight back to blatantly lying about the RE to try to ridicule it and pretend there are problems when there are none.

Remove the impossible and whatever remains, no matter how unlikely, must be the truth.

And your delusional BS, and the FE in general, is impossible.
So that leaves the RE, which you are yet to show a fault with.

Again, it is a choice between the RE model.
A model which works to describe what is observed in reality.
A model which FEers need to repeatedly lie about to pretend there is a problem.
A model which is supported by mountains of evidence.

Or, the mutlitude of FE models, where FEers need to repeatedly switch between them to pretend they work.
Models where FEers need to lie to pretend they work.
Models which do not match reality at all.
Models which are not supported by any evidence which can actually distinguish between these models and a RE model.

There is no reason to pick the FE models.

I can shine a flashlight at a tent and get a similar climbing effect to what actually happens.

No, you can't, as explained. And even using the flashlight shows your dishoensty.

But do you know what you can do? Set up a simple experiment to show what it would be like on a RE.
And that does match.

Get something that looks kind of like this:


If you are happy turning the system sideways, this can be a large cylinder (as that is much easier to deal with than a sphere), with a translucent glass wall (representing the atmosphere or cloud layer) around it.
And then have a light (flash light or omnidirectional light source, either works) shining towards it from far away.
Then you can either rotate that cylinder, or move a camera around it. But importantly note that because this is sideways compared to Earth, the direction of "up" is outwards.
So you mount the camera sideways, so the top of it is pointing away from the central cylinder. And note that this has to be inside the translucent glass wall.

Now the sun starts in region C.
You cannot see the light.
You cannot see any indirect light either.
That is because the view is blocked.
Then after rotating (or moving the light source) the sun enters region B.
You still can't see it, because the cylinder blocks the view. But now, the sun is illuminating part of the outer wall, which you can see start to be illuminated.
If you were to place an object near it to cast a shadow, you would see the shadow going upwards.
As you continue, the sun eventually reaches region A, where you can now see it directly.

This matches what is observed in reality.

So again, the RE model works and matches what is seen in reality.
The FE model doesn't work at all.

Or I can try to move this same flashlight around a fat person rolling around on the ground (to simulate rotate and orbit of a round object) and I quickly realize that he doesn't remotely see the same sunrise and sunset picture I have laid out, that flat ground actually is flat ground (and not "secretly curved" ), and that I have given said person a reason to hate me as he now has chiggers and sinus congestion.

So instead of even attempt to simulate the RE model in an honest fashion, you go straight to ridicule.
You don't even attempt to explain what they see and how it varies from reality.
Your fat person is meant to be representing Earth in this model, yet you appeal to the ground showing just how pathetic your claims are.

Your model doesn't work!

Based upon what?
Your bold, worthless assertions?
You have nothing to show the RE model doesn't work.
You just blatantly lie and claim it doesn't work.

Meanwhile, it has been explained to you why your BS doesn't work.

So yes, as ridiculous as this model sounds to you, it's sizably better

No, it isn't.
It is vastly inferior.
The RE model works, your garbage does not.

Were the Earth to match that shape, we would have pineapple-shaped Earth (loads of small bumps), not a globe.

Why?
Again you assert delusional BS with no justification at all.

Again, these "bumps" for Earth are not small.
They are large, with a radius of roughly 6371 km.
You can combine all these "bumps" together into 1 roughly spherical object.
Anywhere you stand on this roughly spherical object, you are on top of a "bump" which is merely the roughly spherical Earth.
That is nothing like the dishonest BS you present it as.

Personal zones of domed reality?

Clearly pure BS.
No where near as likely as a roughly spherical Earth.

deciding that flat terrain you can set a level to is really REALLY curved

You mean obviously curved terrain is curved.
As if it was flat, you wouldn't have a horizon.
We have been over this.
When I stand above a flat surface, I can see all the way to the edge.
If it is large enough, objects small enough far enough away can be too small to resolve, but a telescope can easily bring them back into view.

But for a round surface, that doesn't happen as the surface curves away and obstructs the view to itself. And an object obstructed from view by the surface cannot be brought back into view, except by moving away from the surface or moving towards the object.

and when you see the sun go around the Earth, you're looking at things backward.

Do we see the sun go around Earth?
When you are sitting on a merry go round, do you see the Earth go around the merry go round?

Don't you think maybe sane people can tell the difference between an object pushing itself ahead, and an object being pulled?

So now you jump to a completely different situation?
The question is how do you tell which object is moving?
Visually, they are the same.
You get the same result with Earth rotating and the sun stationary, as with the sun circling Earth with Earth stationary.
You can do this for both the orbit and the rotation.

You need something sensitive enough to measure the motion, like a laser ring gyroscope, which clearly indicates Earth is moving.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 21, 2023, 06:44:36 AM

Your model doesn't work! M

And yet this proves you wrong…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 20, 2023, 04:57:06 PM

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.

Nope, I'm not, and I won't.

But I imagine you'd like me to give up.

Let's see here...

You have a blurry video, a picture of the sky that I've already debated, a video of a fish-eye lens shot, a snap from the video of a fish-eye lens shot, and a really off-angle blurry shot.

No further questions, your honor (these people have already shown their case is shabby).



Also, I too can use GIMP to add curve to straight lines.

There's an option called Curve Bend



And another called Spherize



How did that farm get to be on a hill? Look at that curvature.

Here's Tinkerbell flying by with a flashlight hitting a tent. The light starts at the bottom, climbs the side to the top and then works toward the other side.



Even as silly as this looks, it still satisfies the perspective bottom-up perspective for an object overhead... and what's competing with it is apparently blurry pictures. Excellent work, btw. You tell me I make FE look foolish while showing blurred out crap.

No you.

You have a blurry video, a picture of the sky that I've already debated, a video of a fish-eye lens shot, a snap from the video of a fish-eye lens shot, and a really off-angle blurry shot.

And the most important thing you keep leaving out.
Rational arguments and simple questions which trivially show you are wrong; which you need to repeatedly flee from because you cannot address them.

Conversely, what do you have?
Baseless claims which are trivially shown to be wrong, including a combination of outright empty assertions backed by literally nothing, or outright lies about the RE.

Here's Tinkerbell flying by with a flashlight hitting a tent. The light starts at the bottom, climbs the side to the top and then works toward the other side.

WHY?

Even as silly as this looks, it still satisfies the perspective bottom-up perspective for an object overhead

No it doesn't, for the reasons already raised.
You need the light to magically only shine towards where each tent needs it to, without interacting with the other tents at all.
If you take a more honest approach, and have an omnidirectional light source, you can just forget the tent.

How did that farm get to be on a hill?

You mean the stand of trees around a small depression?

Or something you added?

From your own screenshot




Anyway.

My picture doesn’t contain distortions like this as in your example from manipulation.



So thank you for showing my original picture was shot in reality with no after manipulating of the horizon.

You need to stop.  You’re embarrassing yourself again.  From not being able to see to just blatant false allegations.

And leaves shafts of light straight.

 

The original post.  Added picture sizing.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 29, 2022, 03:22:38 AM

The parabola is not a delusion. You are delusional, seeing hills where there are none. We can clearly see that horizon domes around us in all directions.



To answer the question, the parabola extends to your horizon

You didn’t actually answer any of my concerns of lunar eclipses.  Let’s put a pin in that…

So.   Then there should be a parabola “bubble” 360 degrees around you?  Like this. 



And it has to distort the reality of the flat earth delusion to the extreme to make the sun look like sets at three miles in your delusion?

Funny.  I went parabola hunting this morning.  I saw no evidence of your parabola delusion in the relatively flat layers of mist.  I didn’t see it in the relatively straight tree lines.   I didn’t see it in the straight shafts of light.  I didn’t see it in the runs of power lines.  No evidence of your parabola delusion.  And no evidence of any objects or forces present to create your delusion from the way the birds flew freely, to the way the mist swirled, to how the dust the car kicked up from the roads floated and coated everything present.

Here's Tinkerbell flying by with a flashlight hitting a tent. The light starts at the bottom, climbs the side to the top and then works toward the other side.

So your parabola is a Disney delusion.  Ok. 

Yuu mean this?


(Plus some comment once again about magic)

You're using magic here to distort the original picture.

So, here, I'm gonna recreate the original picture, with some notes.



We see the sun at various angles. But the sun isn't actually at various angles. The sun travels on a flat (albeit 3D) path from inside the dome to outside back inside, every day. It moves up and down the sky like so.

Before sunrise? You still have some glare move ahead of the sun.

So seriously, enough magic tricks. Regardless of the angle of the sun you see, all of these things are consistent.

So your parabola is a Disney delusion.  Ok.

Well, since Disney is in with globalism full-stop, I highly doubt that.

I used Tinkerbell because I can fully imagine her flying from tent to tent blasting people with light.

Yuu mean this?


(Plus some comment once again about magic)

You're using magic here to distort the original picture.

So, here, I'm gonna recreate the original picture, with some notes.



We see the sun at various angles. But the sun isn't actually at various angles. The sun travels on a flat (albeit 3D) path from inside the dome to outside back inside, every day. It moves up and down the sky like so.

Before sunrise? You still have some glare move ahead of the sun.

So seriously, enough magic tricks. Regardless of the angle of the sun you see, all of these things are consistent.

Quote

So your parabola is a Disney delusion.  Ok.

Well, since Disney is in with globalism full-stop, I highly doubt that.

I used Tinkerbell because I can fully imagine her flying from tent to tent blasting people with light.

Which doesn’t answer to…

You claim the sun disappears at sunset because it becomes too
faint to see.  Then reappears at the time of sunrise when the light of the sun gets close enough to a person where the person is no longer at a distance where the light breaks down.

But that is not how sunrise works.  Starting with I think astronomical twilight the sky starts to illuminate with indirect light in the upper atmosphere.  The sky grows brighter until nautical twilight is reached. While growing bright until civil twilight is reach.  Growing brighter until the sun actually breaches the horizon by rising above it. 

So back to this very lovely picture.


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. 

Why can’t I zoom in to see the sun while I can see it’s light.  And it’s 20 or 30 minutes before sun rise.  Your explanation even requires the lamp itself to be physically blocked from view. The sun can’t be seen or bright into view with zoom because like your lamp example the sun is blocked from view.  In this case the “wall” is the curvature of the earth.

You're using magic here to distort the original picture.

Funny.

My pictures of the natural world untouched other than normal processing for up loading show no evidence of your parabola.








For you to make your case for your delusion, you have to distort my pictures this much?

You need the light to magically only shine l

Went looking for your parabola again.  No magic light.  No Parabola.

Not in the angle of light though the clouds.  Straight, not distorted.





Just sight from a source of light in the sky.


No evidence of your parabola in the tree lines where your parabola has to distort reality at 3 miles to hide the sun before sunrise.

Found what I believe is the same stand of trees.














Again…

For you to make your case for your delusion, you have to distort my pictures this much?

Here's Tinkerbell flying by with a flashlight hitting a tent. The light starts at the bottom, climbs the side to the top and then works toward the other side.

Funny.  Your delusion vs something near parabolic shape that can bend light…




So your imaginary parable can not only bend light, not reflect light, but has to also wick light for lack of a better term like fiber optic cables? 

You're using magic here to distort the original picture.

No. I'm pointing out how your garbage doesn't work at all.

So, here, I'm gonna recreate the original picture, with some notes.

i.e. you are going to appeal to already refuted BS.
Where you entirely ignored that refutation. I wonder why? Was it because you have no rational response?

Remember, this parabola you are appealing to is meant to be what causes objects to disappear at the horizon.
That means its distance is limited to the horizon, which is roughly 5 km away under "standard" conditions.

That means you sun would be visible for less than 1 minute each day, and only for a select few people.
Only those close to the path of the sub-solar point would ever see the sun.
Those outside the tropics (and a bit of a margin) would be in complete darkness, FOREVER.
They would never see the sun.
Those inside the tropics will see less than a minute for a short period of the year.

And it still needs magic, as you have no explanation for your magic parabola at all, nor why the sun magically only shines downwards, how how it manages to produce glare which goes ahead of the sun.

So you appeal to pure magic, and still get a model which doesn't work at all.

And this would also distort the sun, as it is shining on an angled surface.
And you have no justification for why it should be the same size.

Your model also in no way explains why there is glare which casts light upwards.
Or what, does the cloud get its own parabola which then causes the light to shine upwards on it, which then causes us to see it illuminated?

And does that mean you fully accept all your BS about light being too dim to see the sun is pure BS and doesn't explain any of it?

Which doesn’t answer to…

You claim the sun disappears at sunset because it becomes too
faint to see.  Then reappears at the time of sunrise when the light of the sun gets close enough to a person where the person is no longer at a distance where the light breaks down.

But that is not how sunrise works.  Starting with I think astronomical twilight the sky starts to illuminate with indirect light in the upper atmosphere.  The sky grows brighter until nautical twilight is reached. While growing bright until civil twilight is reach.  Growing brighter until the sun actually breaches the horizon by rising above it. 

Starting with (you think), you say. In other words, you don't know.

Yes, I accounted for twilight/dusk. Or as it is also known, golden hour. The light of the sun is not the main body of the sun, any more than you can see a flashlight in pitch darkness while being able to see light.  The  sun gives off light for a straight up hour before it can actually be seen.   





You can see the light from the flashlight but not the main body of it. Is it around an obstruction? A curvature? No, in either case, it's just not bright enough to see yet.

So back to this very lovely picture.

Your picture is ugly. So is your personality. You and your pals bully people who already have a shitty life, and don't apologize.  What does it matter whether I believe as you do?
But it does matter to you.  Everyone must conform or be bullied into doing so.

Quote

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

The words of a pompous asshole who feels like everyone who doesn't go along with their opinion needs to be made an example of.

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. 

Actually, it's because blowing it up just results in this.



"Zooming in" is just focusing in on a smaller point. It doesn't move the camera's field of vision. This is magnification not zoom. So no, the zoom nor the focal length doesn't change when an object is magnified, and FOV is the same. With a standard camera, the you can see the lens shift. That is zoom. Widening out the picture is magnification, but it's not any farther. This isn't "curvature", this is sloppy methodology or outright tricks.

https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/54190/how-do-zoom-magnification-and-focal-length-relate

Widened the light of the sun for effect to explain better.  Until you get to the deep orange part, the sun cannot be seen. In same way as a flashlight can't be seen until the room is bright enough. 

This

is this.

You can accept it or not. Unlike SOME PEOPLE, I don't try to browbeat people to agree with me. And I don't call my followers (maybe because I have none) to insist they give up. I may call them idiots, but that is because they are idiots. I don't "make examples" of people.

You can see the light from the flashlight but not the main body of it.

And more pathetic dishonesty from you.
Seeing that light would be equivalent to seeing the sun.
Seeing the body is an irrelevant distraction, as we NEVER see a body around the sun which blocks the light.
Especially as there is no evidence of any such body existing, nor any light source to illuminate it.

The issue is seeing what the torch is illuminating without seeing the torch (i.e. the light directly from the torch) itself.

e.g. using this picture of yours:


The only way is if there is something obstructing the view. Like curvature.

No, in either case, it's just not bright enough to see yet.

Now try it honestly.
The light we are appealing to being missing is BRIGHTER than the light which is visible.

HOW?

Widened the light of the sun for effect to explain better.  Until you get to the deep orange part, the sun cannot be seen. In same way as a flashlight can't be seen until the room is bright enough.

And it still entirely fails as you still get less than 1 minute of daylight.
And no, this is far more like your dome is magical obstruction which prevents the light from reaching you.

But it doesn't address the issue at all.
What you have is light from the sun on the parabola.
Why doesn't this look like the sun?
If this doesn't look like the sun, why does the orange spot hitting your BS parabola look like the sun?

Actually, it's because blowing it up

Not what this post shows.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 21, 2023, 06:44:36 AM

Your model doesn't work! M

And yet this proves you wrong…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 20, 2023, 04:57:06 PM

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.

I already showed the sun can be “zoomed” in if not physically blocked by the curvature of the earth.

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.

Funny, you claim the sun isn’t blocked from view by the horizon.  You claim the sun is too far away so it’s light and itself cannot be seen.

Yet.  I can see the moon because it’s illuminated by the much farther away sun after sunset.




Interesting, the east sky after sunset.


Moon visible because of the sun after sunset.




Or how the sun illuminates the much farther Mars, Jupiter, Saturn with its light.  Along with different moons of other planets in the solar system. 


Flat earth is stupid.

Just thought this bit




Was interesting from this video

That is a fucking shitty picture of the moon.



Now I'm sorry, but the moon is clearly within the atmosphere. Perspective-wise, you can see it in front of the sky, whereas stars are obscured by the sky outside of night hours.

Or how the sun illuminates the much farther Mars, Jupiter, Saturn with its light.  Along with different moons of other planets in the solar system.

Flat earth is stupid.

Simple question. Prove the solar system exists.

No NASA-funded pictures. No fancy photos from magazines. Prove even ONE planet besides Earth actually exists.

Why are there nine planets? Because THIS has nine worlds.



Pluto is Muspelheim. It was removed cuz nobody likes to talk about Muspelheim (inspiration for Hell).

The solar system is not "scientific." It is nothing more than a smuggled together pagan worldview. The pagans were displaced by Christianity, so they wound up being atheists after generations of having no gods to worship. Dude, at least be fucking honest and be a pagan. Stop lying to us all about everything.

If you're not on board with Christianity, by all means be Norse, Greek/Roman, or Egyptian. Just stop posing as a damned science type when you aren't. You're not kidding anyone who understands how things really work.

Now I'm sorry, but the moon is clearly within the atmosphere. Perspective-wise, you can see it in front of the sky, whereas stars are obscured by the sky outside of night hours.

In what way do you see it in front of the sky?
Because you can see it during the day?
If so, you are yet again just spouting delusional BS.

The stars aren't blocked out by the sky, they simply aren't bright enough.
But the  moon is brighter than the stars, so it can be seen through the atmosphere, even when it is scattering the light of the sun.

No NASA-funded pictures. No fancy photos from magazines. Prove even ONE planet besides Earth actually exists.

If you are just going to reject the evidence that you already know exists; then why should anyone bother getting you any other evidence you will likewise dismiss?

Why are there nine planets?

There aren't.
There are 8.

Dude, at least be fucking honest and be a pagan. Stop lying to us all about everything.

That's rich coming from you when almost every post of yours contains a blatant lie.

You don't like reality, so you just spout whatever delusional BS you can think of.
You can't rationally attack science, so you just pretend it is pagansim.
Pathetic.

How about you try to explain how the sun casts light upwards from below?
Or admit your many failed attempts at using your parabola are a complete failure which do not work to describe reality at all?

Now I'm sorry, but the moon is clearly within the atmosphere.

Ok.  It’s not.

But that’s not what I asked.


Can you stop changing the subject.

The question was.

Funny, you claim the sun isn’t blocked from view by the horizon.  You claim the sun is too far away so it’s light and itself cannot be seen.

Yet.  I can see the moon because it’s illuminated by the much farther away sun after sunset.

t everything.

If you're not on board with Christianity, by all means be Norse, Greek/Roman, or Egyptian.

Again.

Your god’s creation you box your god into..




I don’t put limits on my creator and creation.

That is a fucking shitty picture of the moon.

An actual picture of the moon to show context, its relationship to the earth and the sun as the sun is physically blocked from view by the horizon.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 26, 2023, 08:48:50 PM

Now I'm sorry, but the moon is clearly within the atmosphere.

Ok.  It’s not.

But that’s not what I asked.


Can you stop changing the subject.

The question was.

Funny, you claim the sun isn’t blocked from view by the horizon.  You claim the sun is too far away so it’s light and itself cannot be seen.

Yet.  I can see the moon because it’s illuminated by the much farther away sun after sunset.

Actually you claim the sun is further away than I do. On an average day, I claim that anyone outside perspective is too faint to be seen, and some things are that way before perspective. You claim that ground has hills nobody can see, that water can bend in ways not seen in even the world's largest swimming pool, and other funny stories. And your sunlight reflection story depends on a wife's tale that the moon's light is from the sun. But that doesn't track! Here's why. The sun's light is golden colored and stings human eyes. Even reflected off of seven objects, if I put myself directly in the end path of those, my eyes would hurt the next day. The moon's light on the other hand is silver, can be safely looked at, and we don't actually see any rays of sunlight go from on to another when both at out! Some plants in fact bloom in moonlight rather than sunlight.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 26, 2023, 08:48:50 PM

t everything.

If you're not on board with Christianity, by all means be Norse, Greek/Roman, or Egyptian.

Again.

Your god’s creation you box your god into..




I don’t put limits on my creator and creation.

ACTUALLY, if we're being totally honest, your depiction of universe if far smaller than mine. Because Earth is flat, it could theoretically spread out like an endless table. Yours has a size limit, bound by the south pole. I never denied that there are nine worlds, just that there are nine planets. Different dimensions are fine in my book, but sphericity limits the size of objects. Next there is what's outside the Earth/other worlds. Because even if Earth spread endlessly, there's beyond reality. Outside the fishbowl, no matter how endless, is orders of magnitude larger of a world with God.

And your notion of thing has no afterlife, so however big you make your drawing (which is actually pathetic because it's a large universe that only points out how alone we are), it's not big enough.

Like a politician, you also dodged the question. How do we actually know there are other planets? (And that's a terrible picture, most of those blobs of color do not look like stars)