Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

The sun directly illuminates the moon unless the shadow of the earth falls on the moon.  We see the moon because it reflects the light of the sun like we see the cliffs of dover because the cliffs reflect the sun’s light.  That’s not quite the same as “reflects light to the moon.” 

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

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”.

Sun is no longer visible because it has set. Moon is still visible. You're all like "aha, I trapped you! The sun has to be behind an obstruction!" like two pages ago or whatever. But you clearly tell me that (1) the sun must cast light on the moon, (2) sunlight doesn't diminish ever but just continues infinitely if there's a straight line, but (3) the sun cannot be seen because of an obstruction in curvature.

Therefore, the angle of the moon would naturally also be obstructed, at least from being a perfect full moon.

You're trapped in your own logic.

The sun directly illuminates the moon unless the shadow of the earth falls on the moon.  We see the moon because it reflects the light of the sun like we see the cliffs of dover because the cliffs reflect the sun’s light.  That’s not quite the same as “reflects light to the moon.” 

That is the lamest thing I've ever heard.

Full moon is supposed to be because the moon is in a direct angle to have full sun. Not only is this impossible for any length of time with the Earth rotating (the Earth literally must be flat, because even if the sun and moon move instead of the Earth, they would never be in perfect angle except in a flat plane due to having to be viewed straight across from each other on a moving curve), but now you give some copout answer about shadows.  You also told us previous pages that a mountain casting shadow upward is impossible because light doesn't reflect in unexpected ways, but now that I call you out on a light behaving in just such an unexpected way, you talk about how it's suddenly okay.

5. time for you to once again fuck off

I agree with point 5. Even though I don't always agree with kabool, point 5 here seems very sound.

Sun is no longer visible because it has set.

In you delusion, why is the sun no longer visible after sunset.  The time that marks the sun is completely below the horizon. 

Therefore, the angle of the moon would naturally also be obstructed, at least from being a perfect full moon.

Why for a spherical earth?  The closest you get is more often lunar eclipses if the moon didn’t orbit the earth at a tilt. 

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

Last night’s sunset







Now why would the clouds go from being illuminated in the east at 8:36 to being in shadow at 8:41 on a flat earth?




While the unseen sun is still illuminating the clouds in the west.  What changed in the east in 5 minutes.  With the sun still illuminating the sky.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 28, 2023, 05:23:15 PM

Sun is no longer visible because it has set.

In you delusion, why is the sun no longer visible after sunset.  The time that marks the sun is completely below the horizon.

I bet that is literally all you read.

Sentences are parts of paragraphs. This is what the paragraph says.

Sun is no longer visible because it has set. Moon is still visible. You're all like "aha, I trapped you! The sun has to be behind an obstruction!" like two pages ago or whatever. But you clearly tell me that (1) the sun must cast light on the moon, (2) sunlight doesn't diminish ever but just continues infinitely if there's a straight line, but (3) the sun cannot be seen because of an obstruction in curvature.

And yes, this is true. It's a fact. Sun is the disc. The afterglow might be visible, but once you can no longer see the sun, you can no longer see the sun. The sen is not below the horizon, it is beyond the horizon.



When I talk about the parabola, I'm not talking about actual atmospheric distortion. I'm talking about your own visuals. If you were to go up to a tree, it would be 90° from your erotic hug to the top. But she (the tree) says, "Back off!" and that becomes 85° or so. Then she says, "I'd like some space to see others." Top of the tree is 45° up. You're told it's over, and the top of the tree is at a mere 15°. As you continue to walk away, the tree fades into the landscape. 

Draw this 180 degree angle wherever you go. Objects and people enter sight, get close enough to hug, then one of you passes the other. Does a person who passes you set? Do they sink into the ground like some swamp critter? No, it's all angles.

To say the sun goes behind the curvature or below the horizon means you really do not understand either! When the sun has set, it is not visible. This is accurate. If you will pick my words apart, so too for you.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on August 29, 2023, 01:35:10 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 28, 2023, 05:23:15 PM

Sun is no longer visible because it has set.

In you delusion, why is the sun no longer visible after sunset.  The time that marks the sun is completely below the horizon.

I bet that is literally all you read.

Sentences are parts of paragraphs. This is what the paragraph says.

Quote

Sun is no longer visible because it has set. Moon is still visible. You're all like "aha, I trapped you! The sun has to be behind an obstruction!" like two pages ago or whatever. But you clearly tell me that (1) the sun must cast light on the moon, (2) sunlight doesn't diminish ever but just continues infinitely if there's a straight line, but (3) the sun cannot be seen because of an obstruction in curvature.

And yes, this is true. It's a fact. Sun is the disc. The afterglow might be visible, but once you can no longer see the sun, you can no longer see the sun. The sen is not below the horizon, it is beyond the horizon.



When I talk about the parabola, I'm not talking about actual atmospheric distortion. I'm talking about your own visuals. If you were to go up to a tree, it would be 90° from your erotic hug to the top. But she (the tree) says, "Back off!" and that becomes 85° or so. Then she says, "I'd like some space to see others." Top of the tree is 45° up. You're told it's over, and the top of the tree is at a mere 15°. As you continue to walk away, the tree fades into the landscape. 

Draw this 180 degree angle wherever you go. Objects and people enter sight, get close enough to hug, then one of you passes the other. Does a person who passes you set? Do they sink into the ground like some swamp critter? No, it's all angles.

To say the sun goes behind the curvature or below the horizon means you really do not understand either! When the sun has set, it is not visible. This is accurate. If you will pick my words apart, so too for you.

That in no way answers the question. 

Why is the sun itself as an object not visible after sunset.  Let me be a little more precise.  Why is the sun physically blocked from view after sunset.  Blocked to the point a pair of binoculars or a telescope cannot bring it back into view. 

When I talk about the parabola,

Your magic parabola that is a delusion with no proof of existence which isn’t needed in anyway.



On a flat earth there is nothing to physically block the sun from view.  Sorry.  The sun going relatively below the curvature of the earth explains why the sun physically becomes blocked from view.  And the cone of darkness behind the earth that is night.

https://www.thoughtco.com/lunar-eclipse-and-the-blood-moon-4135955

Spherical earth coherently explains why the sun becomes physical blocked from view from something like a telescope. Phases of the moon.  Solar eclipses.  Lunar eclipses.  Why the sun and moon set without changing size because they are not getting father away from the viewer staying above a flat plane.

It explains why the clouds in the east are still illuminated after sunset.



And why five minutes later the same clouds are in shadow.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 29, 2023, 05:32:37 AM

When I talk about the parabola,

Your magic parabola that is a delusion with no proof of existence which isn’t needed in anyway.

We've been over this.



The longer the distance, the lower the angle at the same elevation. No pushing lamps under tables required.

At some point (called the vanishing point), angles simply get too long.

All of these angles combine to form our visible perspective.

Spherical earth coherently explains why the sun becomes physical blocked from view from something like a telescope.

What about that is coherent? You would have eclipses all the time!
Prolonged eclipses all the time, I might add, since all eclipse is based on light and not on overlap. 

On a flat Earth model, the orbits of the sun and moon must overlap over a specific region. The actual eclipse proper would only last a few minutes. As it does.

The longer the distance, the lower the angle at the same elevation.

And the smaller and smaller the sun should get as it goes farther away from the viewer in the FE model. 

The sun stays the same size as it travels the sky to when it sets.

The sun in your delusion stays above the earth.  So it will get smaller and smaller and never make it below the horizon.

Remember the hallway example.



The doorway is representing the sun.  How far back do I have to be before the floor touches the ceiling to make the door physically blocked from view where binoculars or a telescope will not bring the door representing the sun back into view.  Notice the ceiling would never touch the floor no matter how far back I move.  So why do high clouds appear to reach the ground /sea at the horizon.

What about that is coherent? You would have eclipses all the time!

Eclipses of what?

The time intervals are offset because the moon’s orbit is tilted in relation to the plane the sun and earth sit in.

Again..

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

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

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:

No mater the distance from the viewer in the FE delusion, the sun stays a specific distance above the horizon.  The sun can be 10,000 miles away from the viewer, but the FE model places it at a constant height above the ground.  The altitude usually quoted by flat earther’s is usually 300 to 3000 miles above the earth

The sun is the brightest object in the sky for earth. Even at an altitude of 300 miles.  The sun would never set on the continental USA during the summer months for its northern hemisphere orbits.

Back to this.

Let’s say it’s summer in the northern hemisphere.  Flat earth model.  I’m in Missouri.  I’m at a period of time the farthest the sun will be from me in its FE circuit for the northern hemisphere summer orbit is 6000 miles.  Let’s use a ridiculous low altitude for the sun of 300 miles.  Puts the sun in the van Allen belts. 



That means for me, the sun at its farthest distance from me will still be at an angle of 2.8 degrees off the horizon.  With no reason the brightest object in the sky should be physically blocked from view.

I wonder how much father the sun would be from me in the FE model if I’m in Missouri during the winter with the sun at its largest diameter circuit and I can still see the sun during the day? 

You're using math based on assumptions.

You're first of all assuming a horizontal space comparable to RE systems. Since FE ppl are not mainstream science, I will wager not one of them have given measurements of the Earth. But it should be wider in the southern hemisphere than the north. For example, do we know the horizontal distance of the arctic rim (i.e. the "South Pole)? No, we do not.

Do we know that the visible space ahead of us is based on the math you just did? No we do not.
We do not know even that there is not some sort of Truman-show screen all around us.

We do not know that we can actually see objects as high up as the Van Allen belt. It could actually be that the night sky is superimposed (in this case, projected by holograph).


Or whether there even is a Van Allen belt. For the sake of argument, I'll humor you.

In actual fact, we do not know much of anything, except that we cannot view trees, planes, mountains, rivers, or anything beyond certain horizontal distance. So again, you're extrapolating based on math in your head.

Have a pie. It's blueberry, I think. Could be blackberry tho. Or boysenberry. Or a mix of fruits.



Fact: from the tiny circle around yourself, using only math to extrapolate, you can be sure of... absolutely nothing. In much the same as blind people feeling an elephant can be sure only of the parts.

    It was six men of Indostan,
    To learning much inclined,
    Who went to see the Elephant
    (Though all of them were blind),
    That each by observation
    Might satisfy his mind.

    The First approach’d the Elephant,
    And happening to fall
    Against his broad and sturdy side,
    At once began to bawl:
    “God bless me! but the Elephant
    Is very like a wall!”

    The Second, feeling of the tusk,
    Cried, “Ho! what have we here
    So very round and smooth and sharp?
    To me ’tis mighty clear,
    This wonder of an Elephant
    Is very like a spear!”

    The Third approach’d the animal,
    And happening to take
    The squirming trunk within his hands,
    Thus boldly up and spake:
    “I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
    Is very like a snake!”

    The Fourth reached out an eager hand,
    And felt about the knee:
    “What most this wondrous beast is like
    Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
    “‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
    Is very like a tree!”

    The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
    Said— “E’en the blindest man
    Can tell what this resembles most;
    Deny the fact who can,
    This marvel of an Elephant
    Is very like a fan!”

    The Sixth no sooner had begun
    About the beast to grope,
    Then, seizing on the swinging tail
    That fell within his scope,
    “I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
    Is very like a rope!”

    And so these men of Indostan
    Disputed loud and long,
    Each in his own opinion
    Exceeding stiff and strong,
    Though each was partly in the right,
    And all were in the wrong!

    MORAL,

    So, oft in theologic wars
    The disputants, I ween,
    Rail on in utter ignorance
    Of what each other mean;
    And prate about an Elephant
    Not one of them has seen!

We are only sure of our own truth. We cannot be sure whether anyone else is right about their own observations.

However, it does look like you just threw numbers at a wall, hoping something would stick. Especially since you switched from miles to inches. We're gonna do this in reverse.

https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/right-triangle-side-angle

Here's an alternate theory. The furthest proven horizontal line of sight on record is 443 km (273 mi).

By plugging all this information into a computer and cross- referencing it to a map of the world, we can determine the line of sight from Mt. Dankova in Kyrgyzstan to Hindu Tagh in China, is the longest sightline on earth at a whopping 538 km.  Now that is only theoretical, as it has never been proven by photograph.  The furthest photographed sightline in the world is 443 km, from Pic de Finestrelles in the Spanish Pyrenees to Pic Gaspard in the French Alps, almost 100x further than what can be seen driving along the prairies and staring at the horizon.

But let's use timezones as the real indicator. We are able to see the sun across eight timezones (at least, which would make it absolutely huge). Alternate theory: we are actually only seeing within our own timezone, which is why multiple versions of the sun appear for roughly 12 hours and sun doesn't appear long or huge. Timezone is roughly 675 to 1035 miles wide.

I used b and angle alpha to calculate. We're solving for a, while c and the other angles are mostly irrelevant. Just how high up is the sun?



By this estimate, the sun is instead far below the Van Allen belt.

https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/atmosphere/layers-earths-atmosphere



Within the Karman Line.



Or it's just above where the stratosphere ends.  Considering no real aircrafts fly up that high, this is as good a guess as any (going with the Karman Line though). This is what I mean by it being impossible to extrapolate anything about the Earth from pure math. It's could be as much as 33 miles up to 50+ miles. It's unlikely that it's beyond the Karman Line though.

That pie is brilliant

That pie is literally you, taking your teenytiny field of view

And saying
The whole world is flat

You're using math based on assumptions.

No.  I’m using math and physics as a fact for the FE model.

The sun’s circuit of the FE model for the northern hemisphere summer places the sun in a position it would never set on the continental United States.

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.


Spherical earth explains how the sun stays the same size, travels the sky at a constant speed, and how the brightest object in the solar system becomes physically blocked from view where a telescope cannot bring it back into view.  A telescope that can bring stars into view many magnitude  dimmer than the sun which cannot be seen with the unaided eye.

up to 50+ miles. It's unlikely that it's beyond the Karman Line though.

One.  How many FE models have the sun less than 300 miles above the earth.


Two.  Most FE models claim the sun is at least 32 miles in diameter.


The northern hemisphere summer orbits.  Using 6,000 miles distance.  That might be overly generous for the smallest circuit of the sun in the norther hemisphere. 

And the sun at a ridiculous altitude of 60 miles.  For an object 32 miles in diameter?



The bottom of the sun would still be over an angle of .5 degrees off the horizon for the observer.  And that would just be the bottom of the sun, with another 32 miles of sun above that. What kind of night would that produce? 

FE is stupid.

That pie is brilliant

That pie is literally you, taking your teenytiny field of view

And saying
The whole world is flat

My extrapolation based on trips to China, South Africa, UK, and a road trip to as far west as Washington state. I have a pretty good idea that while the Earth has peaks and valleys, it appears to be flat.

One.  How many FE models have the sun less than 300 miles above the earth.


Two.  Most FE models claim the sun is at least 32 miles in diameter.

Yes, but...

1. I also believe in the non-distant sun model. Since outer space propulsion is increasingly improbable (see Why Flat Earth Equates No Space Travel foe my thoughts on this), the furthest distance the sun could conceivably be is beneath the Karman Line.
2. This is because I also accept that light only has a limited course in a vacuum before its own energy runs out. I also ascribe to a buoyant layer model, and since outside a certain zone there is practically no air, no medium means no motion, which also means no visible light. I have a theory abour stars too, but that's for another session.
3. Recall that we do not in fact know what we are seeing with regard to the sun. It appears to be asynchronous, since it appears for half the daily hours, yet somehow jumps across to the other side of the Earth from a visible 12 hour perception. Either the Earth is so elliptical as to be coin shaped (still being flat, but having an underside), with the actual hemisphere partition east to west instead of nort to south (but this doesn't match our view of the stars), or the sun is way closer and smaller, and it has to be because light doesn't extend as far as all that due to angle. We are not looking at something light years away, we are looking at something however that is roughly five times as distant as any other object except for the moon.
4. While it is certainly tempting to see the Earth as round, and I admit I've done it before, we have an orbit and size problem. You tell me that the sun and moon are completely different sizes and just so happen to look the same size because distance shrinks the sun to a manageable level. You then proceed to tell me that the moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the sun. But I have a problem with this. Sidelong rotation plus orbit view (the same sort of view you get from an observatory with a rotating deck like I saw when I visited Dallas, TX or that you get on a typical merry-go-round) looks quite different from an object moving around you. But even though their size is supposed to be completely different, it looks more or less exactly the same, give or take. And even though sidelong view of an object while you are in motion looks different from from an object in turn moving around you (the sun or moon should look strange in comparison to how the other moves, but it doesn't), their motion looks identical. So either the Earth orbits both the sun and moon (which contradicts your own gravity theory, as the Earth is supposed to be bigger than the moon) or they both orbit it. You can guess from my lack of capitalizing, which one seems to be subservient to the other. This concept better favors both of them being nearby, as the father away they are, the more clunky this concept is.
5. The sun is within the atmosphere because it reacts to the atmosphere, as seen in the pictures below. All of this puts it inside the Karman Line, not outside (along with the moon, I imagine).







Sorry, but... yeah, you're crazy.

Glare, clouds of different density, over exposure.




Like this…





Is the sun in front of the glass?




Vs this.


Or show where the sun is in front of clouds in the atmosphere from my own videos..







How would any clouds be around the sun without being vaporized?

So stupid.

Now if you’re done changing the subject.

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

Better example

https://flatearth.ws/clouds-behind-sun

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 06:32:20 AM

Glare, clouds of different density, over exposure.

Like this…

Aren't you a bottomless store of excuses.

In actual fact, just tonight, I saw a sunset. On the way over, we had clouds in front or behind the sun as we drove back, and even one line of clouds that literally split the sun in half by a vertical line.  Then on the way back, we had a post-sunset sky of red. It was beautiful.



Clouds blocking the sun.



Clouds behind the sun.



Sun coloring the clouds that are apparently above it.

But all you can say is, "Maybe it's over-exposed." It's time. Cya.

In actual fact, just tonight, I saw a sunset. On the way over, we had clouds in front or behind the sun as we drove back, and even one line of clouds that literally split the sun in half by a vertical line.  Then on the way back, we had a post-sunset sky of red. It was beautiful.

Really.  You think clouds can wrap around the sun without being obliterated by the heat of the sun.

What really is going on has been described and demonstrated to you.

The more dense part of the cloud blocks the sun, the less dense part of the cloud passes the light of the sun and we can’t distinguish the true relative position.

https://flatearth.ws/clouds-behind-sun

Sad you claim to be “credible” at analyzing video.  But don’t understand the most basic concepts of optical illusion and the problems of placing a 3D world in 2D. And fall for blatantly dishonest FE propaganda.

I asked you to find examples of clouds behind the sun in theses videos








I know why you haven’t.  Because whenever there is the optical illusion in one frame, the clouds move enough in time lapse to show the cloud formation was in front of the sun the entire time.

What is really going on has been explained and demonstrated.  And you can’t meet the challenge of a few videos where your claims should be happing all the time if true.

Now.  Are you done changing the subject, and tuning away from the real issues with flat earth.


You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

In addition to the clouds should be obliterated by the heat of the sun.  What was cloud cover altitude at that time?  10,000 feet.  That makes the sun only two miles above the earth in your delusion.


Flat earth is stupid. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 09:09:14 PM

In actual fact, just tonight, I saw a sunset. On the way over, we had clouds in front or behind the sun as we drove back, and even one line of clouds that literally split the sun in half by a vertical line.  Then on the way back, we had a post-sunset sky of red. It was beautiful.

Really.  You think clouds can wrap around the sun without being obliterated by the heat of the sun.

What really is going on has been described and demonstrated to you.

The more dense part of the cloud blocks the sun, the less dense part of the cloud passes the light of the sun and we can’t distinguish the true relative position.

Quote

https://flatearth.ws/clouds-behind-sun

Sad you claim to be “credible” at analyzing video.  But don’t understand the most basic concepts of optical illusion and the problems of placing a 3D world in 2D. And fall for blatantly dishonest FE propaganda.

I asked you to find examples of clouds behind the sun in theses videos...

(Cherry-picked videos and ignoring that I already told you the answer, and I already showed you that this is possible)

Uhh yeah? Because the sun is  not some ultrahot object way off in space. It's a glorified mirror reflecting the actual brightness of God nearby. It is God that allows us to be hot or dry. Not some object in the sky. It is also God that allows plants across the world to grow.

The sun's actual name is Yata no Kagami. It is the mirror that reflects the glorious Son, Jesus of Nazareth. It is the mirror who cheers up the depressed, as it does for both Amaterasu and sufferers of Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD, for short).

If the sun's heat is regular (the science in existence would declare it so, as thermodynamics means heat adjustment is heat gain or loss)

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work and internal energy, but it cannot be created nor destroyed, under any circumstances.

then it cannot become "overexposed".

By the way, this wasn't no camera. I was looking directly at the sun, because it was covered with a light mist, and anyway, it was setting. True to my own theories, it is UV light that prevents direct observation of the sun. As it sets, UV moves out of range first, then the main color of the sun, yellow, then orange, and finally red, leaving just various tones in the sky.

I saw a cloud pillar do exactly what you say shouldn't be

in the picture I showed you, except it was a vertical cloud.

The sun is not hot enough to vaporize anything. It's just a mirror, a greater light that shows light from the Son.

(Cherry-picked videos and ignoring that I already told you the answer, and I already showed you that this is possible)

No.  Three videos from random days that you can’t screenshot an example that should occur at any given moment to back your delusion FE propaganda.  Video posted before you picked up on this flat earth lie. 

Because you know in the next frame it will be revealed the cloud as a whole passes in front of the sun.

Uhh yeah? Because the sun is  not some ultrahot object way off in space. It's a glorified mirror

Hmm, Then how is it behind or in front of any object as a light source.

Flat earth is stupid.

The sun is a very hot object that undergoes the fusion of hydrogen producing the heat, light, and radiation that makes life on earth possible. The sun directly radiating charged particles that hit the van Allen belts causing auroras as expected.  The source of particles not explained by reflecting off a mirror. 

Again..

In addition to the clouds should be obliterated by the heat of the sun.  What was cloud cover altitude at that time?  10,000 feet.  That makes the sun only two miles above the earth in your delusion.


There is no indication the sun is in our atmosphere.  From aviation to weather radar, to it’s not a danger to aircraft. 


You’re now running away from the meat of the subject.

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

Whenever Youtube has to put a disclaimer on "misinformation", we know the Powers That Be are in on the act.



And I haven't even gotten to the videos yet!
I'm sorry, but yes, it is proof. The "independent fact check" has no logic, and it propaganda. The sun should not be able to interact with atmosphere outside the atmosphere (since this involves warming air, something that cannot be done while surrounded by a vacuum, because a vacuum does not conduct heat). It also should not give the appearance of being surrounded, since it should appear far above all clouds in the sky.

The sun is in front of a line of clouds. And here.





But I want you to especially focus on this one...



And yes, one of the shorts said that same stupid theory about the sun's light "washing out" the clouds.  Even though she's hot, I don't believe her either.

Yet in this third video, despite it lighting the clouds that are supposed to be "in front" and "behind" it (it's above both, of course), no amount of overexposure forces the clouds in front away nor does anything to those behind.




"How is it possible?" they ask, "It's not an object. The sun is relative to our position."

The sun and moon are not objects.  You can't drive past them, they don't get closer or farther as they rise or set, and no matter what time zone/elevation/latitude the sun is equally visible from rise to set provided no obstructions.

It’s not an object but more like a focal point of a magnifying glass, and where we see it is relative to our position on earth, which is how it can appear in our local clouds.

The sun is Yata no Kagami. A mirror passing light from Beyond to Earth.

 It also should not give the appearance of being surrounded, since it should appear far above all clouds in the sky.

Your stupid. 

There is no proof the sun is in the atmosphere.

Everyone I’ve flown.  No matter what the sun looks like through the clouds.  Once the jet was above the clouds, the sun was above the clouds.

Again..

In addition to the clouds should be obliterated by the heat of the sun.  What was cloud cover altitude at that time?  10,000 feet.  That makes the sun only two miles above the earth in your delusion.


There is no indication the sun is in our atmosphere.  From aviation to weather radar, to it’s not a danger to aircraft. To when I fly during the day, once the jet is above the clouds, the sun is at an altitude much higher than the clouds and the jet.


You’re now running away from the meat of the subject.

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

The sun and moon are not objects. 

bulmabriefs144 Your just being stupid now.

The sun is the big object that is the main source of light and radiation for the solar system.  The source of charged particles that drives the auroras for the Van Allen Belts to why they have radiation.  To the sun and its solar flares that causes static in radio communications. The sun is the big nuclear lightbulb making life possible on earth.  With no other possible source of energy in our solar system as energetic as the sun, or more so, that would drive your delusion.


With every indication the moon is a 3D object with mass from how it affects earth’s rotation, how the earth and moon orbit a common point called a barycenter, with the moon causing tides.  To the moon shields the earth from the sun during a solar eclipse. 

The sun is in front of a line of clouds. And here.

Which means the sun would have to be at an altitude of 10,000 feet.  Which is stupid because all evidence points to the sun being in space.  To when I fly during the day, once the jet is above the clouds, the sun is much higher than the clouds and the jets. With no change is size in the sun as the jet flys at altitude.  To as the sun sets from my view from the jet.  The sun stays the same size.  And it’s obvious from illumination to the shadows the clouds cast, the clouds are between the sun and the jet. 

On a clear night, why does the earth physically block the sun after sunset from the view from my window in the fuselage of the jet?