Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Because Earth is flat, l

And yet. If you travel straight west you can literal travel AROUND the world.  End up where you started.

And you have to have the limited view the earth is the center of everything.  Of all existence.

 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.

You mean like how I can look at a hot air balloon or blimp that is silver because the sun is illuminating it.

And the phases of the moon are how much of the moon is facing the sun relative to a person viewing the moon.  The same for Venus that has phases when viewed by a good telescope. 

And the moon literally blocks the suns’s light during an eclipse.  And we can see the moon is shadowed in the darkness of the eclipse.

Now..




How is the sun illuminating the moon when you claim the sun and its light are too far to see.

Your model this means the moon has to make its own light, where its own light has to make moon phases.  Has no explanation why the moon or the sun for that matter don’t fall to earth.  But you claim it’s impossible for a man made satellite to orbit the earth.  The sun and moon have no consequences for traveling in earth’s atmosphere in your delusion.  The sun would have to be in the van Allen belts. You still have no explanation why man can’t travel space in your delusion in the path’s of comets.  You literally can travel straight west and end up where you started. Literally travel around the spherical earth.  The orbit of the sun in the northern hemisphere during summer is too small and would never cause the sun to set on the continental USA.  The sun would have to turn and visibility travel relative north after passing over California.  You still have no explanation why people never see the backside of the moon while I’m looking at the face of the moon.  You still have no working model for tides.  You still have no explanation why objects disappear bottom first when traveling over the horizon.  Why the North Star gets blocked by the horizon with no change in its brightness when far enough south of the equator.

 And you still have no explanation why people can look south in the southern hemisphere and see the same constellations.







You only have meaningless contradicting ad hoc delusions.  A model of creation at odds with itself. 

A spherical earth with a moon orbiting a sun explains everything acting in concert. Or like a giant solar clock.

Actually you claim the sun is further away than I do.

Which is entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The issue isn't what the actual distances are, but your claim regarding how these distances effect the sun.

We accept what all the evidence shows, that you can't see the sun at night because Earth blocks it from view.
So distance is not playing a role.
The time we appeal to distance is to point out how the distance to the sun does not vary by any significant amount over the course of a day.
When viewed through a solar filter to remove glare, it appears the same size, just like the moon does. Showing the distance doesn't vary.

How this relates to your claim, is your claim that the sun is magically too far away so it is too faint to be seen.
Even though there are times where it is clearly still bright enough to be seen, and much much much much brighter than the faintest objects we can see; while the bottom appears to be obscured by Earth.
And then when it is just a bit further away, it then magically all too dim to be seen, even though simple extrapolation should result it in remaining quite bright and easily visible.

But the real nail in the coffin is that the light from a source is much brighter than secondary light, i.e. light which has gone from the source to illuminate some object, scattering off that object before going to our eyes.

If that secondary light is bright enough to see, then the direct light from the sun should certainly be bright enough to see.

Again:



Do you understand this?
What you are claiming is like saying there is someone on the other end of an incredibly long (and flat) corridor. They have a torch which is incredibly powerful so at a great distance they shine it towards you and you can see the torch, as well as all the ceiling around you lit up.
But then they take a single step, and suddenly you can no longer see the torch, but can magically still see the ceiling around you lit up.

It makes no sense at all.
Back in reality, what would happen is the ceiling becomes fainter and fainter until you can't see that lit up, while you can still see the torch. (Not the body of the torch, the light from the torch directly to your eyes).

On an average day, I claim that anyone outside perspective is too faint to be seen, and some things are that way before perspective.

No, you don't. You repeatedly switch between contradictory claims or perspective making things too faint and a magical parabola which doesn't work at all.

You claim that ground has hills nobody can see

No, we accept that the ground is roughly spherical, consistent with all observations.
Including importantly the observation being discussed.
This can also be seen with the observations of the horizon being further away and at a lower angle of elevation as you increase in altitude.
Consistent with observations of objects disappearing from the bottom up as they go over the horizon.
Consistent with observations of the sun being above a point on Earth yet casting light upwards to something at a much lower altitude.
And consistent with photos from space clearly showing this round planet.

You object to that with all sorts of delusional BS, including your latest one of wanting to pretend there are a bunch of tiny hills instead of it being a large ball.

that water can bend in ways not seen in even the world's largest swimming pool

No, that it can bend in ways not measured in the world's largest swimming pools.
A standard Olympic size swimming pool is 100 m long.
That means from the centre to either side you would have a dip of roughly 0.8 mm.
That would require quite precise tools to measure.

And your sunlight reflection story depends on a wife's tale that the moon's light is from the sun.

You mean based upon mountains of evidence which demonstrates beyond any sane doubt that the moon is merely reflecting the light from the sun.
This includes the phases of the moon, clearly indicating it is a roughly spherical object, being illuminated by a distant object.
This includes lunar eclipses where Earth blocks the light of the sun reaching the moon, so only light scattered through the atmosphere (making it more red) illuminates it.
This also includes close up observations of craters on the moon, showing shadows consistent with the above.

There is NOTHING to suggest otherwise.

The sun's light is golden colored and stings human eyes. Even reflected off of seven objects

Pure BS.

The sun's light is white. Hence why white objects appear white when illuminated by the sun.
What you are appealing to is the atmosphere, which scatters that light, so light directly from the sun will have a slight yellow colour while the sky elsewhere will have a slight blue colour.

As for reflection, the sun can illuminate a white sheet of paper or a concrete slab, etc, and someone can look directly at that.

It is only if you have specular reflection that it is an issue.
And the moon is clearly not included in that.

What you are saying now is like saying that if I take a white sheet of paper out into the sun, then it isn't illuminated by the sun but instead magically casts its own light.
It is pure BS.

The moon's light on the other hand is silver, can be safely looked at

It is white. Just like a white sheet of paper.
And just like a white sheet of paper, it can be safely looked at.

we don't actually see any rays of sunlight go from on to another when both at out!

Why would we?
"rays of sunlight" are not literal rays of sunlight.
Instead they are regions where the sun is brightly illuminating some dust, while regions around it have something blocking the sun.

I don't see any "rays of light" going from the light in a room to objects being illuminated by it.

So why would expect to see that for the moon?

Some plants in fact bloom in moonlight rather than sunlight.

Really?
So during a quarter moon, they bloom as the moon rises during the day?
And it wont bloom during a new moon?

Or does it just bloom at night, regardless of the moon?

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)

The mountains of evidence supporting it, including observations from Earth, and space probes sent to other planets.

most of those blobs of color do not look like stars)

Probably because they are galaxies, not stars.

Looks like the moon is acting like a big 3D sphere reflecting sunlight to me?

Dover Cliffs Guide: Visiting the Famous White Cliffs

https://twotravelingtexans.com/dover-cliffs-guide-visiting-the-famous-white-cliffs/#google_vignette

Funny, this moon…



Can be magnified with a telescope just a little better than mid-grade this much.



Once magnified a specific amount, stays the same size in the eyepiece as the moon travels the night sky.  You don’t have to keep increasing magnification as the moon approaches setting. 

Until the moon becomes physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 27, 2023, 05:41:29 AM

Because Earth is flat, l

And yet. If you travel straight west you can literal travel AROUND the world.  End up where you started.

And you have to have the limited view the earth is the center of everything.  Of all existence.

Ohhhh! You're so brilliant! Man you've got me beat!

That was sarcasm.



I got this picture, ironically from "Six Problems With Flat Earth Model."

 Alright, look here you primitive screwhead, this is how flat Earth works!

See that red line? This is how the author thinks west works  on a flat Earth model. But the passing through the North Pole is a northern path (they don't pass directly through) Then they go south at another angle.

North is toward the center, south is away from the center. West/east is around. The reason the compass turns is not as people think, some sort of magnetic issue (though magnetism does arise from the North Pole being an imbalance point, magnetic North is elsewhere), but because the North Pole is a directional convergence point. In other words, if you are at center, all directions from you are South, and you need to pick up radio signals to figure out, "that's Russia south of me, and over there is Australia."

 West in thar map would be to go over miles and miles of water, resulting in fuel out, and having the ship be lost at sea. Even to goto China or Japan, ships tend not to use that route. There's a higher chance of survival crashing on land than water, because you don't tend to drown if you make it out of the plane. Permanent signals can be set up on land whereas somehow they are missing in the middle of the ocean (proving that there are no satellites). And most importantly, the big secret is that you can just follow latitude west.

Earth is disc shaped. None of that changes in a FE. Ask a flat Earth is you can boast about heading South around the world.

North is toward the center, south is away from the center.

What drives that for a magnetic compass on a flat earth.

It’s explained by a spherical earth with a spherical spinning iron core making north and south magnetic poles.

The whole visual thing of “south” doesn’t work for flat earth either.





Now.  If you’re done using lies to change the subject.

How is the sun lighting up the sky and moon while you claim the sun and its light are too far away. 

Why, if you think the moon gets too far to see, doesn’t the moon change size in the eyepiece of my telescope for specific magnification.  As in once I select the magnification I want to go with, the moon stays the same size all night in my eyepiece of the telescope.  I don’t have to keep increasing the magnification to keep the same apparent size as the moon approaches setting.   The moon when approaching setting doesn’t get smaller with the same magnification. 

By the way…

Magnetic north and south (orange line) are offset from geographic north and south (black line). Illustration via cyberphysics.co.uk.

https://earthsky.org/human-world/this-date-in-science-shackleton-expedition-discovered-magnetic-south-pole/

Excuse me. You changed the subject.

And the phases of the moon are how much of the moon is facing the sun relative to a person viewing the moon.  The same for Venus that has phases when viewed by a good telescope.

The light of the sun is prismatic, it breaks into ROYGBIV tones. But its wavelength can be said to be golden. UV radiation is also part of this, UV meaning radiant light (i.e. that is giving off radiation) beyond the spectrum.

When the sun sets, UV radiation goes out of view first, so you can see other colors of the spectrum, like violet, then indigo, green, and blue light (many of these aren't even seen except under certain cloud conditions), then the more common reds, oranges, yellows, and the occasional pink. The diminishing of UV radiation means you can look more directly at the sun than you can at a sunrise. It also means that all of these tones break down as they too move out of sight, and then you are left with blacks and grays.





And yes, even reflected, it is just as intense.

 The light of the moon is soft light, similar to a diffused lightbulb.



I don't think the moon even gives off radiation. At least, not toxic to human sight.

Yes, the phases of the moon we both agreed were based on angle to the sun. Until I said it, then you disagreed. Contrary bastard.

But angle to the sun casting light on the moon  does not invalidate the moon having its own light. It just means the sun while out illuminates the moon. After it sets? We'll get to that.

If it is truly sunlight that illuminates the moon, why is it that the sky changes? Shouldn't it look like dusk all the time? And if light is obstructed, you have invalidated your own theory! Oops... I'm afraid that if the sun goes around the curvature, you cannot have moon phases!

Since both of us are at a point of self-contradiction, allow me to help. All wavelength of light are not created equal. Traffic light designers know that red travels farther than green, and thus can be seen farther. The light still remaining from the sun moving out of view is non-UV (prismatic) light, then non-spectrum light known as far red light. While red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet are broken down, far red (not to be confused with infrared) persists, but you don't often see it outside cities. Instead, you see the light of the stars. But pollution and excess city lights causes it to show up.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 27, 2023, 01:31:56 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 27, 2023, 05:41:29 AM

Because Earth is flat, l

And yet. If you travel straight west you can literal travel AROUND the world.  End up where you started.

And you have to have the limited view the earth is the center of everything.  Of all existence.

Ohhhh! You're so brilliant! Man you've got me beat!

That was sarcasm.



I got this picture, ironically from "Six Problems With Flat Earth Model."

 Alright, look here you primitive screwhead, this is how flat Earth works!

See that red line? This is how the author thinks west works  on a flat Earth model. But the passing through the North Pole is a northern path (they don't pass directly through) Then they go south at another angle.

North is toward the center, south is away from the center. West/east is around. The reason the compass turns is not as people think, some sort of magnetic issue (though magnetism does arise from the North Pole being an imbalance point, magnetic North is elsewhere), but because the North Pole is a directional convergence point. In other words, if you are at center, all directions from you are South, and you need to pick up radio signals to figure out, "that's Russia south of me, and over there is Australia."

 West in thar map would be to go over miles and miles of water, resulting in fuel out, and having the ship be lost at sea. Even to goto China or Japan, ships tend not to use that route. There's a higher chance of survival crashing on land than water, because you don't tend to drown if you make it out of the plane. Permanent signals can be set up on land whereas somehow they are missing in the middle of the ocean (proving that there are no satellites). And most importantly, the big secret is that you can just follow latitude west.

Earth is disc shaped. None of that changes in a FE. Ask a flat Earth is you can boast about heading South around the world.

brilliant
BRILLIANT!

now take this disc where the land is spread out flat and compare the orientation of the land to mercator

how do the two maps work together in real life?

And yes, even reflected, it is just as intense.

 

Really.  Because we see the cliffs of  dover because of reflected sunlight

Cliffs of dover vs a big “rock” in space we call the moon..



No. The light off the moon that is rock and dust is not going to be as intense as the sun it’s self.

Just photographing the sun through glass makes the sun more manageable. Reduces a bit of the glare.



Vs no glass.  Pinhole camera.


The pinhole camera with no glass makes it harder see the actual disc of the sun.  Not a lot, but the glass starts knocking down some of the light.

You mean how the day time sky acts like a blue filter for the moon?  Blue tent from the way the sky scatters light directly from the sun. 
And I can see the jet just fine?  Because it reflects sunlight. 




If you truly believe the moon is in earth’s atmosphere. How is light traveling in your delusion through the atmosphere to the moon and bouncing off the moon in atmosphere going to be “it is just as intense.”

L

Vs an image of the moon from my 3 inch telescope.



Or in actual context of the moon in the sky..

Excuse me. You changed the subject.

You ready to get back on subject?

How is the sun lighting up the sky and moon while you claim the sun and its light are too far away after it sets below the horizon to see?

Really??

Stock Illustration ID: 2285921485

In a beautiful Moonlit night the light of a silver moon was glittering over the sky. And their hand in hand , on the edge of the sand, they danced by the light of the moon.

 bulmabriefs144, did you accidentally post something ment for JackB? 

You ready to get back on subject?

How is the sun lighting up the sky and moon while you claim the sun and its light are too far away after it sets below the horizon to see?

Mmmm, I see.

When the current subject becomes too hot for you, you change it back.

When I literally prove that this doesn't work...



"We need to get back on topic! We need to get back on topic!!!"

Too bad because I explained your main topic ON THAT VERY POST.

The light of the sun is prismatic, it breaks into ROYGBIV tones. But its wavelength can be said to be golden. UV radiation is also part of this, UV meaning radiant light (i.e. that is giving off radiation) beyond the spectrum.

When the sun sets, UV radiation goes out of view first, so you can see other colors of the spectrum, like violet, then indigo, green, and blue light (many of these aren't even seen except under certain cloud conditions), then the more common reds, oranges, yellows, and the occasional pink. The diminishing of UV radiation means you can look more directly at the sun than you can at a sunrise. It also means that all of these tones break down as they too move out of sight, and then you are left with blacks and grays.





And yes, even reflected, it is just as intense.

 The light of the moon is soft light, similar to a diffused lightbulb.



I don't think the moon even gives off radiation. At least, not toxic to human sight.

Yes, the phases of the moon we both agreed were based on angle to the sun. Until I said it, then you disagreed. Contrary bastard.

But angle to the sun casting light on the moon  does not invalidate the moon having its own light. It just means the sun while out illuminates the moon. After it sets? We'll get to that.

If it is truly sunlight that illuminates the moon, why is it that the sky changes? Shouldn't it look like dusk all the time? And if light is obstructed, you have invalidated your own theory! Oops... I'm afraid that if the sun goes around the curvature, you cannot have moon phases!

Since both of us are at a point of self-contradiction, allow me to help. All wavelength of light are not created equal. Traffic light designers know that red travels farther than green, and thus can be seen farther. The light still remaining from the sun moving out of view is non-UV (prismatic) light, then non-spectrum light known as far red light. While red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet are broken down, far red (not to be confused with infrared) persists, but you don't often see it outside cities. Instead, you see the light of the stars. But pollution and excess city lights causes it to show up.

Are you taking your Ritalin?

Literally, if you'd properly paid attention to that post, you'd understand that: UV disappears from view, then the spectrum of regular visible light disappears from view, leaving only far red light.

This is because all light doesn't register at the same wavelength. So, I not only disproved the "sun reflects light to the moon" fallacy but also your next question, as you yourself admitted that the sun is obstructed by the curvature, therefore it cannot under your own RE theory be in direct path of the moon. Either (1) light is in a straight line and breaks down over time EXACTLY as I've been saying, or (2) light is obstructed by curvature, and therefore the moon CANNOT have phases from the sun's sunlight.

You were so psyched to push me into a corner that you didn't realize you contradicted yourself. Meanwhile, I also explained exactly how light can persist on a flat Earth while other light disappears. It's wavelength. Far red has a lower wavelength and travels farther. Ultraviolet has a shorter wavelength and diminishes sooner, even though the energy is higher.



So, unless you'd like to create a new topic, I'm afraid the time has come to close this thread. If you do, I'll be happy to talk. But since you literally ignored your own question being answered, I think you need a rest.

Quote

You ready to get back on subject?

How is the sun lighting up the sky and moon while you claim the sun and its light are too far away after it sets below the horizon to see?

Mmmm, I see.

When the current subject becomes too hot for you, you change it back.

When I literally prove that this doesn't work...



"We need to get back on topic! We need to get back on topic!!!"

Too bad because I explained your main topic ON THAT VERY POST.

AMAZING

except... picture 2 is of a nonfull moon given the earth is blocking sun from moon.
cool
way to be copletely misrepresenting things and claiming victory.

Mmmm, I see.

When the current subject becomes too hot

No.  You make stupid claims like this marked with time ..



Of craters, rock, dust, frozen lava flows.

Is going to ack like this?





From glass and over exposed pictures.

When reality it’s going to act like this..

While trying to state the moon is like this..

Stock Illustration ID: 2285921485

In a beautiful Moonlit night the light of a silver moon was glittering over the sky. And their hand in hand , on the edge of the sand, they danced by the light of the moon.

While you try to get out of answering..

How is the sun lighting up the sky and moon while you claim the sun and its light are too far away after it sets below the horizon to see?

I not only disproved the "sun reflects light to the moon" fallacy

What?  I only claimed we see the moon because it reflects the sun’s light.

Then how do we see the rocks and minerals of the cliffs of dover?

Which act nothing like this.






Why wouldn’t the sun light up the rocks and minerals of the moon in a similar fashion as the cliffs of dover.

In your delusion you need a blatantly false narrative. 

You were so psyched to push me into a corner

You are pushed in a corner.  In the context the moon would have to “set” in the same manner as the sun. And it’s safer and takes less equipment to imagine the moon through a telescope than the sun.

Once I pick my magnification factor for observing the moon with my telescope.  Why does the moon stay the same size in the eyepiece of my telescope until physically blocked by the earth’s curvature.  When the moon approaches setting, it stays the same size.  It doesn’t get smaller and smaller.  I don’t need to zoom in increasingly / increase magnification to keep the moon the same size in the eyepiece.  The telescope moves down at the same speed to track the moon until the earth blocks its view if using the computerized tracking motor.  The telescope doesn’t increasingly slow down then stop just above the horizon to track a moon that would be increasingly moving “away” shrinking in size.  Where if the moon was too far away to “see” by eye.  The 8 inch telescope should still collect enough light to “see it”. 

Why would you compare the moon to a flat mirror. Or an over exposed picture of the sun looking directly through safety glass.  Glass sandwiching I think a layer of plastic. 

More like…

https://twitter.com/siberian_times/status/747379849124253696/photo/1

Vs..

(2) light is obstructed by curvature, and therefore the moon CANNOT have phases from the sun's sunlight.

The diagram shows a simplified view of the moon's orbit around the earth, seen from above the earth's North Pole, with the sun far off screen to the left. The numbered images at right show the appearance of the moon when it is at the corresponding positions on its orbit.

https://astro.unl.edu/naap/lps/lunarPage2.html

The top animation shows the Moon's orbit as it would be seen looking down on Earth from high above the North Pole, and it shows the Moon's phases as they would be seen from most places in the northern hemisphere.

http://moongazer.x10.mx/website/astronomy/moon-phases/

Added dude view for further clarification.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/An-illustration-of-the-Moons-orbital-plane-around-the-Earth-and-rotational-axes-of-the_fig2_233086230

Back to “(2) light is obstructed by curvature, and therefore the moon CANNOT have phases from the sun's sunlight.”? Which isn’t exactly the same as an object being physically blocked from view at a specific vantage point of an observer. 

guy
you really have a listening problem...


look at number 5.

guy
you really have a listening problem...


look at number 5.

If your replying to dataoverflow..

Which has what to do with anything with reality since the moon is illuminated by the sun.  And the sun doesn’t disappear solely because of distance.  Making any claims based on these false assertion worthless. 

If otherwise, I apologize.

why would you respond when clearly i posted BEFORE you've made the clarification edit showing the moon is offset by 5degrees.

you pretty dishonest.


yes
you shouldapologize.

why would you respond when clearly i posted BEFORE you've made the clarification edit showing the moon is offset by 5degrees.

you pretty dishonest.


yes
you shouldapologize.

Hmm.  I was supposed to get what from? 

guy
you really have a listening problem...


look at number 5.

And all of bulmabriefs144‘s gibberish. 

While it’s pretty obvious and known the moon doesn’t orbit perfectly in the ecliptic plane. I never claimed the moon was locked/perfectly stayed in the ecliptic plane. I was hoping to find an all inclusive gif.  But was disappointed. Posted what I found.  Then added the other quote when I settled on it. Make sure I had my concepts right.  Make sure I wasn’t quoting some totally crazy person(s). 

And still doesn’t have anything to do with..

Which has what to do with anything with reality since the moon is illuminated by the sun.  And the sun doesn’t disappear solely because of distance.  Making any claims based on these false assertion worthless. 

You can say even a broken clock is right twice a day.  But the clock is still worthless as a time keeping device.  Same with flat earth. 


You could be Joe Biden and Trump combined and still be more honest than bulmabriefs144‘s .  😂

See that red line? This is how the author thinks west works  on a flat Earth model. But the passing through the North Pole is a northern path (they don't pass directly through) Then they go south at another angle.

No, it isn't.
They think that would be the shortest route between those locations on a FE, at least the common NP centred one.
And even this shortest route is vastly longer than the route is in reality.

The light of the sun is prismatic, it breaks into ROYGBIV tones.

The light of the sun is white.
Any light can be broken apart into its individual wavelengths.

UV meaning radiant light

No, UV meaning ultra-violet, i.e. above violet.
Just like IR means infra-red, i.e. below red.

When the sun sets, UV radiation goes out of view first, so you can see other colors of the spectrum, like violet, then indigo, green, and blue light (many of these aren't even seen except under certain cloud conditions), then the more common reds, oranges, yellows, and the occasional pink.

This is pure fantasy.
You can watch the sun and it doesn't magically go through all the colours.

Instead, what happens is the atmosphere scatters the shorter wavelengths more. And as it sets, the light passes through more atmosphere, so more of the short wavelengths are scattered.

And yes, even reflected, it is just as intense.

Again, you are appealing to specular reflection, i.e. reflection of a mirror.
No one is claiming the moon is a mirror.

Try focusing on diffuse reflection.

The light of the moon is soft light, similar to a diffused lightbulb.

Just like a sheet of paper illuminated by the sun.

Yes, the phases of the moon we both agreed were based on angle to the sun. Until I said it, then you disagreed. Contrary bastard.

No, we pointed that that doesn't work in your FE fantasy.
This is because you need the sun and moon to be opposite each other, which would require one to be below Earth.
And you need them both very far away from Earth, or the phase would vary over Earth and over a day.

But angle to the sun casting light on the moon  does not invalidate the moon having its own light.

Yes, it does.
Unless you again want to appeal to nature conspiring to make the moon glow as if it was illuminated by the sun.

If it is truly sunlight that illuminates the moon, why is it that the sky changes? Shouldn't it look like dusk all the time?

No.
Why should it?
Again, you just assert whatever delusional BS you want, without any justification at all.

And if light is obstructed, you have invalidated your own theory! Oops... I'm afraid that if the sun goes around the curvature, you cannot have moon phases!

No, you have just yet again entirely ignored scale.

The only time Earth blocks the light from the sun going directly to the moon is during a lunar eclipse.

Since both of us are at a point of self-contradiction

Nope. Just you and your strawmen.
No contradiction in the RE model.

When I literally prove that this doesn't work...

Again, you are just proving your strawman doesn't work.

Again, try it to scale, or make a not to scale diagram and do the math.
If you need a hand, here:

This is because all light doesn't register at the same wavelength. So, I not only disproved the "sun reflects light to the moon" fallacy but also your next question, as you yourself admitted that the sun is obstructed by the curvature, therefore it cannot under your own RE theory be in direct path of the moon.

No, this is you again ignoring scale and height of the observer.
So no, in the RE model, the sun can be in the direct path of the moon.

Either (1) light is in a straight line and breaks down over time EXACTLY as I've been saying, or (2) light is obstructed by curvature, and therefore the moon CANNOT have phases from the sun's sunlight.

Or (3).
To an observer with an altitude of 2 m, the sun will be obstructed from view by a horizon roughly 5 km away. This means that roughly half the surface of Earth will be illuminated and they can see the sun if they were to stand in a location slightly larger than that half.
The moon, being much higher (at an altitude of roughly 400 000 km) will be much harder to have the path to the sun obstructed.

The only contradiction is you wanting to pretend that curvature magically blocks the view, regardless of altitude, which doesn't match anything in reality.

Meanwhile, I also explained exactly how light can persist on a flat Earth while other light disappears.

No, you didn't.
The wavelengths don't matter at all.
The issue is how the sun is magically to faint to be seen directly, such a short time after it was incredibly bright; yet diffuse reflections of the sun's light, which by necessity are dimmer, are magically still bright enough to be seen.
Again:

So, unless you'd like to create a new topic, I'm afraid the time has come to close this thread.

Why?
You have entirely failed to explain how the sun casts light upwards on an object below.
You have entirely failed to explain how the indirect light from the sun can be seen while direct light cannot.
You have entirely failed to address the massive flaws with your parabola delusion.

Instead, you just strawman the RE model to pretend there is a problem.

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 01:11:37 PM

why would you respond when clearly i posted BEFORE you've made the clarification edit showing the moon is offset by 5degrees.

you pretty dishonest.


yes
you shouldapologize.

Hmm.  I was supposed to get what from? 

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 28, 2023, 11:46:24 AM

guy
you really have a listening problem...


look at number 5.

And all of bulmabriefs144‘s gibberish. 

While it’s pretty obvious and known the moon doesn’t orbit perfectly in the ecliptic plane. I never claimed the moon was locked/perfectly stayed in the ecliptic plane. I was hoping to find an all inclusive gif.  But was disappointed. Posted what I found.  Then added the other quote when I settled on it. Make sure I had my concepts right.  Make sure I wasn’t quoting some totally crazy person(s). 

And still doesn’t have anything to do with..

Which has what to do with anything with reality since the moon is illuminated by the sun.  And the sun doesn’t disappear solely because of distance.  Making any claims based on these false assertion worthless. 

You can say even a broken clock is right twice a day.  But the clock is still worthless as a time keeping device.  Same with flat earth. 


You could be Joe Biden and Trump combined and still be more honest than bulmabriefs144‘s . 

let's lay it out in order.

1. bulmba puts up a stupidass picture showing his understanding that although the moon is "full", the earth will block the sun based on it being in between the moon-earth-sun.

2. you rebuttlal him with the same stupid but professionally drawn moon diagram and i note that item5 in said drawing is exactly what is causing his mental deficiency.

3. i tell you such.

4. you edit your post from 2 in include additional details, then have the gall to tell me in 3 asking what i'm on about when clearly, you had already realized the error of your ways and included said additional details.

5.  time for you to once again fuck off

3. i tell you such.

What, this?

guy
you really have a listening problem...


look at number 5.

Of what post?  Maybe you should have addressed someone specifically and took the time to actually quote.  Please quote what is labeled “at number 5.”


All honesty.  I had no idea what your were referring to with your f’n gibberish referring to bulmabriefs144‘s numerous post of gibberish. 

Sorry.  But keep lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 28, 2023, 08:19:29 AM

Quote

You ready to get back on subject?

How is the sun lighting up the sky and moon while you claim the sun and its light are too far away after it sets below the horizon to see?

Mmmm, I see.

When the current subject becomes too hot for you, you change it back.

When I literally prove that this doesn't work...



"We need to get back on topic! We need to get back on topic!!!"

Too bad because I explained your main topic ON THAT VERY POST.

AMAZING

except... picture 2 is of a nonfull moon given the earth is blocking sun from moon.
cool
way to be copletely misrepresenting things and claiming victory.

Actually, it's about if the sun is no longer in view (RE says because the Earth has rotated to face the opposite direction), but the moon can still cast light, it's kinda unclear how exactly that perfect angle that shines so brightly can work.

I admit it's a fucking dumb picture, with the scale of the sun and moon all weird.

But Data can't address this, so he pretends not to listen.

Actually, it's about if the sun is no longer in view (RE says because the Earth has rotated to face the opposite direction), but the moon can still cast light, it's kinda unclear how exactly that perfect angle that shines so brightly can work.

You skipped over the part the sun is physically blocked from view.  Shields direct light from the viewer, and no manner acts like shoving the sun in a can and putting a lid over it.


What’s it like? 

Oh yeah.

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.

So why would the moon not be illuminated by the sun in this manner?

The top animation shows the Moon's orbit as it would be seen looking down on Earth from high above the North Pole, and it shows the Moon's phases as they would be seen from most places in the northern hemisphere.

http://moongazer.x10.mx/website/astronomy/moon-phases/

So you claim “sets” because it gets to far away and it and it’s light are to faint to see in your delusion.  But it’s still illuminating the sky until astronomical twilight.  The sun still illuminates the moon on the days when it rises after sunset and astronomical twilight.  And the sun still illuminates the further away planets Jupiter and Saturn.