Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

 Bottom up is not how it disappears

Then what is this setting sun doing…

(or it would be floating in midair) but rather it appears to shrink.

Funny. The sun all afternoon stays the same apparent size.  Then as the sun disappears bottom up, the part of the sun still visible isn’t changing dimensions. 

That's why it appears to descend, not because it is going around a curve but because of compression effect.

Again.  The sun doesn’t shrink all afternoon in apparent size to even invoke vanishing point.  The dimensions of the sun still above the horizon are not changing size.

Why can’t I see this set sun.




But still see clouds east of me 16 minutes after sunset.

Where the sun’s light doesn’t even die like you claim.

 I can see the bottoms of them for quite a way. But they get tinier and tinier.

Where you can see the end of a pier not even 1000 foot long?



Bulma.  Where you ignore the dip of the horizon and how impacts vanishing point.

Does that pier extend to the horizon?

No
Moron

The obvious doesn’t stop Bulma. 

Does that pier extend to the horizon?

No
Moron

Actually, it kinda appears to.

Holly cow Bulma.  You can only see the very top of Chicago’s tallest buildings at 40 miles as predicted by earths curvature. What, three or four at most?

You discount pictures that manage to have more as mirage. Because as you know, we can't have good pictures at that distance!

Then you pull shit like this.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 10, 2025, 04:58:49 PM

That's what you do. Lie and post doctored pictures.

Not my fault you can’t look at a picture before you post it.

 It is all too obviously curved, as you made water curve, which it doesn't.

First.  Compress the photo inward from left and right.



Now crop down to the horizon.



Now stretch the picture inward height.

You legit altered a picture, and then have the absolute gall to that I "made the water curve."
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=sunset+horizon&ia=images&iax=images
This was my search. It's the pxhere here one, which is halfway down the page. I didn't do anything to it, and no, I don't see any unnatural curving. Meanwhile, your attempt to "fix" it lends to a very artificial picture.

That's what you do. Lie and post doctored pictures.

You legit altered a picture,

You’re making a stink for a picture you posted?

Again…

That you can’t handle you supposedly posted a picture of a flat horizon after years of bitching about fisheye lenses, to where you posted a picture taken with a fish eye lens.

Your original post.

You can tell the horizon in your picture curved upward by just looking at it.



Stretching and compressing the photo was only a means of “zooming” in on the curvature all ready there. 

Now.  Care to stop changing the subject with blatantly false arguments and care to address what was posted.  Like dip of the horizon.

That's what you do. Lie and post doctored pictures.

Not my fault you can’t look at a picture before you post it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 06, 2025, 05:45:26 AM

 It is all too obviously curved, as you made water curve, which it doesn't.

You don’t see the water in your photo curving up?  The water level in your pirated photo with no credit to its source isn’t “level”.  And I don’t think anyone believes water curves upward left to right as presented in the photo you cherry picked as “flat”. (Unless you want to talk about the depression that is the Indian Ocean anomaly)

First.  Compress the photo inward from left and right.



Now crop down to the horizon.



Now stretch the picture inward height.



Bulma.  You’re so crooked, you couldn’t even tell the picture you pirated doesn’t have a “flat” horizon.

😂😂😂😂😂

Now, care to address measurable dip of the horizon and pictures of the earth’s curvature.

https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/

Where you also ignore the dip of the horizon.

Water lays flat.

Other than high tide, low tide, spring tides, tides coming in, tides going out, tidal bores.

Where you are trying to ignore the surface of water is level.  Level that is perpendicular to earths gravity?

Your friend AI again Bulma.

It's not a spelling or typing error.

The website is called pxhere. Not pixhere.

https://pxhere.com/en/photo/1116343

See?

---

Also, what you've described is ad hominem logic.

That I attack other people for their spelling is a pet peeve. It only has to do with their claim that I am a moron (i.e. when you can't spell "and" but it isn't simply failure to add the 'd', and other crimes against the English language), not with the shape of the Earth.

Think about this argument: because Adolf Hitler was a staunch vegetarian and loved dogs as well as a killer of Jews, being a vegetarian is completely evil. Have you proven vegetarian lifestyle is morally unsound? Have you proven that human beings should not own dogs? No, you have only proven that he was a terrible person.

That doesn't prove the Earth is a globe, in case you missed it.

But while we're on the subject, you're a person who calls people morons without bothering to verify their spelling is in fact correct. Therefore (by your logic) the Earth is definitely flat.

That I attack other people for their spelling is a pet peeve.

Care to address what was actual posted instead of being a language Nazi.  I think it has more to do with attacking the person because you can’t attack the fact the earth is spherical without you lying, trying to constantly change the subject, change the argument.


A good example is your trying to use driving distances instead of straight line distances. 

But I understand my own theory,

Then why do you contradict it.  Or use right out lies?

Like you claiming we can’t see the sun after the sun sets because light dies when the light of the sun is still illuminating the sky to the east and the sun is simply blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.

Or you go on about seeing Chicago almost 100 miles yet you appeal to light dies and vision has a limit no matter how large or illuminated the object in the line of sight is.

I love watching rainstorms travel across fields.



And thought about how photography and and amateur astronomy is just line of sight, composition, and lens choice.  The right telescope brings objects in the night sky to faint to be seen with the unaided eye into view.  Unless that object like a moon of Jupiter is behind it, or a planet sets below the curvature of the earth.  Or if the moon or a particular galaxy hasn’t risen yet.

Watching the rain storm, I remembered an old argument that shows you ignore the consequences of your made up parabola from the context of down into your model.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 19, 2023, 06:42:42 AM

Look at this picture. 



Why does the tree line fill the field of vision from side to side.

With this..



Why is the much farther away cloud  line just as visible, and fills the photo side to side like the much closer tree line




If your cone of perception was true, then the much farther away cloud formation shouldn’t fill the picture side to side.  It should only look like a cloud column or a sliver. 

Light and sight work nothing like what the parabola needs it to do.

Like this set of photos with the horizon.

Sight ahead of my car.


Same area and light pole looking left from my car.



The much farther away cloud line is just as visible and takes up the whole picture side to side like the horizon.  And the cloud didn’t “disappear top down”. Or in this case didn’t reveal itself top down? 

Parabola delusion totally dead on arrival and debunk!

Again Bulma. If your parabola was true, I should be able to photograph it in action. Not have to draw it out like a cartoon like you. 

Or time lapse would show something.  If you really think light /vision has a limit.  Where there is a limited circle of perception around us based on a magic limit not line of sight with how large and illuminated an object is.  Large clouds would only enter our vision as a sliver as it enters your made up parabola.  And expanded as it become more visible as it ventured further into your made up parabola. 

Yet, I have photographs of clouds stretching left to right past the horizon.  Taking up the sky above the horizon. 

Gaining enough altitude should reach your BS visual limit for the earth below. And because of your made up parabola, any gain in altitude at that point should cause the visible area under you to shirk.  Gaining altitude only increases the viewable area until the curvature of the earth is revealed. 

And you still haven’t solved this puzzle.

And why do you Flat Earther’s ignore this part of the argument?

On the flat earth, you would get into this situation.



For this to happen on a flat earth.  How does the video account for on a flat earth one person close to the cloud would see the cloud illuminate top down with the cloud’s shadow on the ground.  But a father away person would have to simultaneously see the cloud illuminated bottom up with no cloud shadow on the ground.


  Bulma.  Your parabola delusion is debunked because it doesn’t exist, doesn’t explain how an object far away can simply be seen if it’s large enough and illuminated enough like Jupiter compared to its moons where the moons can be brought into view with a telescope.  Where the sun actually sets bottom up and you have to lie about that.  Where there is no evidence the sun shrinks in apparent size all afternoon to invoke vanishing point.  And it still doesn’t solve the sun has to visibly turn through the corse of the day for a flat earth orbit where during the equinox the sun rises due east and sets do west.  The heliocentric model makes useful and accurate predictions.  FE is useless. 

Says the people who literally uppercase whole words when effectively shouting at me, and bold entire paragraphs because I haven't answered their stupid questions lately. Questions that they repeat anyway, if they don't get the answers they want.

Capitalise or bold to draw attention to things you keep ignoring.
Questions that are repeated because you refuse to answer.
It isn't a matter of not getting answers we want, it is a matter of not getting answers to that question.

e.g. when we ask how does the sun cast light on the clouds from below; telling us how the angle of elevation of the sun appears lower than the clouds is not answering the question.
Likewise, drawing a crappy picture without any explanation for what the light is doing is not answering the question.

Yeah, someone is being a spoiled child, but I don't think it's me.

Just like a spoiled child wouldn't.

But does the sky have 360 degrees vertically?

Earth blocks the view.
We can still look in that direction, but Earth blocks the view.
That view still exists, and you can map your vision to an entire sphere.
How do you think 360 degree cameras work?

Does standing up near a wall magically turn your dome into a quarter of a sphere?

Instead, what we see is a dome.

No, we don't.
Again, our vision being based upon angles is not seeing a dome.

Now, you accuse me of being a spoiled child but it isn't me trying to back out of an argument with both feet because I stepped into it wrong.

It most certainly is you.
I fully accept our vision works based upon angles.
That does not mean there is a magical dome like you want to pretend it is.
Nor does that in any way help with the rest of your BS.

And here I am being a sane person.

No, you aren't.
You cherry pick part of a quote and pretend it means pure BS.

Once more, sane people recognise this means we are seeing a very wide view, not the narrow view your BS appealed to.

It's because you can trace a circle around yourself, then trace a front to zenith to back line, ahead of you and to your sides.

There you go making up more BS. Got any evidence for that? Because other sources say it is because it represents the wheel of a chariot which the sun god used to pull the sun across the sky.
But sane people recognise that ancient people thinking something doesn't make it true, and appealing to such crap just shows desperation.

But even then, still no dome.

Babies pout and go into denial when something is unpleasant.

Just like you.

Adults accept information given to them. Or they make decisions, and accept their consequences.

Unlike you.

The parabola exists, and you outright admitted it.

There you go lying again.
I have never admitted such delusional BS.

Again, viewing the world based on angles doesn't mean your magic parabola exists.
But because of how pathetic and desperate you are, you pretend it does.

You can either act like an adult and admit that and try to provide actual evidence for your parabola (or admit you have none) or you can go on acting like a child.

we can have an actual conversation about what it means to have a parabola dome as our sky.

Except you have already shown you have no interest in doing so, as I already demonstrated what it would mean.
If your magic parabola causes the horizon, then the vast majority of the world would be in darkness, only seeing the sun for a tiny portion of the day.
And it still doesn't help the sun magically bend and illuminate the cloud from below.

Again, try actually drawing a diagram showing a side on view of the system, showing the sun and the cloud in their physical position, and show the path of light. If you have it turn, explain why.

But there are too many fake adults in this world. People who haven't really grown up walk around in fear of being caught and punished. So they double down on their falsehoods, and reject ppl who don't agree.

Like you?

But mostly, I accept that this is how things are when you have a belief considered fringe.

And what you are not accepting is that it is because you have a belief which is pure BS which you refuse to honestly defend.

You people ask so many awful questions that don't get any real information.

You mean good questions, which show you are spouting pure BS, so you flee from at all costs; as opposed to question you think you might be able to answer.

But the parabola is useful mental construct to visualize angles.

Again, switching back and forth.
Once more, can you confirm for everyone if this is just a concept to visualise angles, which in no way changes the path of light, which we can do entirely without to understand the angle;
or is it a magical somewhat physical parabola which magically changes the direction of light?

so it should be easy for you to get what I am talking about. Apparently not.

And the reason why is because you keep switching back and forth between this just being a tool for understanding which would have no impact on the direction of the sun and the light of the sun, vs a real physical thing which causes the light of the sun to bend.

The point being, that unlike certain ppl I know, I don't go around automatically believing any crap I see. Like this crap.

No, only crap that you like and fits your delusional fantasy, with you rejecting reality that goes against it, typically dismissing it as crap with no justification.

The same way as atheists "look" for God?

Yes, trying to find anything which would be evidence, actually showing its existence, rather than things which work just fine without.
So yes, not surprising we don't find any evidence of your fantasy.

Meanwhile, I think it was JackBlack who confirmed there is in fact 180 degrees from in front of you to in back of you.

i.e. I confirmed that we see based upon angles. That is not confirming your parabola.

That's your imagination. Bottom up is not how it disappears

No, that is reality.
We observe it appear to sink into Earth with Earth obstructing the view from the bottom up.

but rather it appears to shrink.

The glare reduces, but the sun does not appear to shrink.

These posts are not "disappearing bottom up"

Because they haven't gone past the horizon.

The long distance photos of buildings clearly do, with the bottom obstructed.
That isn't simply shrinking. That is the building appearing to sink into Earth.

You discount pictures that manage to have more as mirage.

No, we don't. We just recognise it doesn't show Earth is flat.

Then you pull shit like this.

You mean provide honest examples showing how the horizon does appear curved?

That's what you do. Lie and post doctored pictures.

Again, the one lying here is you.
And those pictures aren't doctored, just showing what is already visible but hard to see.

You need to get your eyes checked.



The end of the pier appears to be at the horizon line. Yet you can always see the posts. They just get shorter and shorter. You also see the guy up near the end there. No he doesn't appear to be floating or without legs or feet.  The only thing that happens which remotely resembles what you are describing is visual blend. On the left side, the cement siding appears to taper and can no longer be seen. But if you look on the right side, you can draw a line practically all the way up (this is a light and shadow thing).

The land, the sea, and sky explain what is really going on here.


\  sky
  \
    \
      \
        \
          \
            \
              \
________ \ horizon
                /
              /
            /
           /
         /   
____/ water
     /
   /
 / land

No, things are not disappearing bottom up. They're visually compressing towards the horizon. You are not looking. You're seeing what you want to see, according to your prejudices. If you zoom in, you can see a blurry view of the end of the dock. The posts are indeed intact, they haven't disappeared.

You need to get your eyes checked.


The end of the pier appears to be at the horizon line.

Blatant lie.  Zoom in on the picture.

 

Where you can see the end of a pier not even 1000 foot long?

Now, stop changing the subject

Bulma.  Your parabola delusion is debunked because it doesn’t exist, doesn’t explain how an object far away can simply be seen if it’s large enough and illuminated enough like Jupiter compared to its moons where the moons can be brought into view with a telescope.  Where the sun actually sets bottom up and you have to lie about that.  Where there is no evidence the sun shrinks in apparent size all afternoon to invoke vanishing point.  And it still doesn’t solve the sun has to visibly turn through the corse of the day for a flat earth orbit where during the equinox the sun rises due east and sets do west.  The heliocentric model makes useful and accurate predictions.  FE is useless.

Truly spectacular.



So in the round earth.

Dot his disappaea, bottom-up, when they approach the horizon, at the horizon, past the horizon?

Which of the three?



And then which of the three is depicted by your pier?

No, things are not disappearing bottom up.

What’s the sun doing..




Same event unfiltered.



Things are either in the line of sight or not unless under the influence of refraction and mirage. 

Care to define visually compressing?  What causes visually compressing?  Things are simply seen if big and illuminated enough. Unless the line of sight is blocked. How do you compress a light source like the sun.

As a photographer, how can I use visually compressing? 

What does visually compressing have to do with invoking vanishing point where the sun doesn’t shrink.  If the sun isn’t shrinking in the afternoon how is it visually compressing? 

The end of the pier appears to be at the horizon line.

You mean your eyes can't tell.
Which is already pathetic and doesn't help your case.

Here is a link to a better image, and a crop from that:
https://www.pexels.com/photo/wide-angle-photo-of-bridge-dock-on-body-of-water-191840/

There is clearly water between the end of the pier and the horizon.

So no, this doesn't help you.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of examples of objects being cut off by the horizon, with the object appearing to have sunk into Earth, like the skyline images you appealed to before, or the sun at sunset.

If you zoom in, you can see a blurry view of the end of the dock. The posts are indeed intact, they haven't disappeared.

Which is just admitting it hasn't reached the horizon.

Showing things getting smaller BEFORE the horizon, doesn't mean the same thing happens at the horizon.
Things should only start appearing to sink and getting blocked from view once they are over the horizon.

What you need to do is show something beyond the horizon, disappearing from view and not being able to be brought back by zooming in.

But again, compare this to the sun.
It doesn't shrink.
Showing perspective is not the cause.

For this to happen on a flat earth.  How does the video account for on a flat earth one person close to the cloud would see the cloud illuminate top down with the cloud’s shadow on the ground.  But a father away person would have to simultaneously see the cloud illuminated bottom up with no cloud shadow on the ground.

Bulma.  Your parabola delusion is debunked because it doesn’t exist, doesn’t explain how an object far away can simply be seen if it’s large enough and illuminated enough like Jupiter compared to its moons where the moons can be brought into view with a telescope.  Where the sun actually sets bottom up and you have to lie about that.  Where there is no evidence the sun shrinks in apparent size all afternoon to invoke vanishing point.  And it still doesn’t solve the sun has to visibly turn through the corse of the day for a flat earth orbit where during the equinox the sun rises due east and sets do west.  The heliocentric model makes useful and accurate predictions.  FE is useless. 

Because it's a three body problem. It's literally impossible to draw.

No, this is not an expression of the failure of Flat Earth theory. It would be just as impossible on a Round Earth. Let me show you what I mean.



This is the model for Flat Earth sunrise and sunset.

And these are the two ways that sunlight can be below clouds.




Either the sun itself is "below" the clouds, or it has set, and its light is below the clouds.

Seems simple enough. What's the problem? Well, let me draw it out individually, and you see if you can figure it out (then I'll draw a merged, if you still can't see it). We'll go with the idea that it is the sun's light, as these two are pretty damned far away (far enough that this seems a different timezone).




Don't see the problem? Lemme spell it out for you. As the physical location changes, you have things like the same cloud bank in two places at once.


"Bulma you've been debunk..."

Not so fast.

Does your model even work?



Two friends stand a distance apart. The closer one sees the sun at an angle above the clouds. The second one sees the sun at an angle below the clouds. I assume they are the same cloud bank?

Fine, let's be specific. Two friends in Russia about one time zone away (map may not be accurate in this regard) and 30 degrees of curvature both witness the same cloud bank as Russia threatens to have a legendary amount of snow. Then the sun comes out. Is it possible for one to see the top and the other to see light from the underside?

Let's find out.

So we're gonna make this accurate to your model and have them on a sphere. Except that you routinely say that a sphere, which is mathematically bound by rules of geometry to be exactly 360 degrees isn't "really" a sphere. Fuck it. We're using this perfect sphere because otherwise it is impossible to make any meanwhile statement about angles. And we're going to include a protractor so we get the angles just right.

Now using the crappy picture of yours, the protractor gives us roughly 60 degrees or so to the nearest guy, and the second guy has under 30 degrees to the sun, so roughly 30 degrees away from the first. But this model of yours completely obstructs the first guy from sunlight and the second guy can see the sun well above the clouds.

How does the sphere (it turned out to not be perfect after all, but not for lack of trying) fare?

Well, not well at all.

If the sun's motion is horizontal overhead (not pictured here), then the northern hemisphere alone gets sunlight, because it is above the Earth, but if it rolls toward the sun, the sun here is always above or behind the clouds from what I could see. Never underneath.

Because it's a three body problem. It's literally impossible to draw.

If it was real it would be trivial to draw.
You draw the sun, and the clouds and the people in their real physical positions, and show the path of light.

But because it is pure garbage with no explanation at all, you make whatever excuse you can to dismiss it.

This is the model for Flat Earth sunrise and sunset.

A crappy diagram, with no explanation, which just shows what you want to see is not a model.
You need to explain how that sun circling overhead produces what is seen.
What you have done is just drawn a completely disconnected part.

Again, draw the path of the light which results in what we see.

And these are the two ways that sunlight can be below clouds.

Except like your previous examples, it is just crap which explains nothing.
Why does the one on the left apparently see through the parabola to the sun and the cloud, but the one on the right then magically sees it completely differently?
Your 2 magic parabolas are operating in magically different ways for no reason at all.

Again, draw the path of the light which results in what we see, and explain why it changes direction.

Don't see the problem? Lemme spell it out for you. As the physical location changes, you have things like the same cloud bank in two places at once.
...
Does your model even work?

And that problem is because you are clinging to a magical parabola with a magical distance of 3 miles to the horizon.

i.e. take that image for the right person, and stick someone directly below the cloud. What should they see in your useless, delusional pile of garbage?

Back in reality, as the cloud is illuminated from below, everyone seeing that cloud sees it illuminated from below. Including people in planes above it.

If the sun's motion is horizontal overhead

It isn't, so you can skip that pile of garbage.

if it rolls toward the sun, the sun here is always above or behind the clouds from what I could see. Never underneath.

Because you keep wilfully rejecting reality.
You have had it shown to you how it is below countless times, with you unable to show any fault and just lying or fleeing like the lying coward you are.

Remember this:


The picture you had to blatantly lie about by pretending the sun is a magical spotlight?

Again, the RE model explains what is observed just fine.
Yet you appear to not be able to explain it at all.

Again, draw a side view, showing the real physical location of the sun, the cloud and the person, and then draw in the path of light and explain it.

Because it's a three body problem. It's literally impossible to draw.

Why would you say something silly like that?

You do know that's a nonsense model, right?

Unlike the two-body problem, the three-body problem has no general closed-form solution, meaning there is no equation that always solves it

The three body problem refers to the spatial relationship between three objects and issues (classically, I think it was gravity, but I'm more concerned with things like not being in two places at once, bumping into each other, stuff like that). That heliocentrism actually has a ten body problem ought to give you pause.

You do know that's a nonsense model, right?

You do know that is just a simple demonstration to show you can draw it, and appealing to it being 3 bodies is just a pathetic excuse.
And as a reminder, a person, observing a cloud illuminated by the sun is already a "3 body problem", 4 if you include Earth.

The three body problem refers to the spatial relationship between three objects and issues

And specifically that there is no general analytical solution. Not that it is impossible to model, nor intrinsically unstable and so on.
And it even allows some cases to have analytical solutions.

This is not a reason for pause or to reject a model.

Do you know what is?

The sun, allegedly being way above the clouds, yet somehow managing to illuminate them from below. So much so that pilots flying over these clouds can see the sun poking through from below.
That makes absolutely no sense at all.
And that gives me serious pause towards ever accepting your delusional garbage.

Again, draw a side view, showing the real physical location of the sun, the cloud and the person, and then draw in the path of light and explain it.



 (classically, I think it was gravity, but I'm more concerned with things like not being in two places at once, bumping into each other, stuff like that). That heliocentrism actually has a ten body problem ought to give you pause.
[/quote]

Because it's a three body problem.

What are you babbling about.

You posted this..

For the 1100th time, the parabola represents the narrowing perspective of vanishing point.

The sun’s dimensions need to shirk all afternoon before vanishing point can be used.

That doesn’t happen.  Filtered to remove glare.



A whole thread proving the visible sun doesn’t  change dimensions through the day.

The Size of the Sun the Past Few Days - No Proof Dimensions Shrinks
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=93094.0

Simple thread killing FE for something that your parabola fantasy can’t fix.  Reality documented.  Where I tried to see and document your parabola through photos of dust, fog, sky, storm, and amateur astronomer.  It fails. Especially when I can use a telescope to see Jupiter in better detail, where the telescope can bring into view the moons of Jupiter to faint to be seen with the unaided eye.

No, things are not disappearing bottom up.

What’s the sun doing..



Things are either in the line of sight or not unless under the influence of refraction and mirage. 

Care to define visually compressing?  What causes visually compressing?  Things are simply seen if big and illuminated enough. Unless the line of sight is blocked. How do you compress a light source like the sun.

As a photographer, how can I use visually compressing? 

What does visually compressing have to do with invoking vanishing point where the sun doesn’t shrink.  If the sun isn’t shrinking in the afternoon how is it visually compressing?


I’m not the one using cartoons and blatantly lying.

You need to get your eyes checked.


The end of the pier appears to be at the horizon line.

Blatant lie.  Zoom in on the picture.




Where you can see the end of a pier not even 1000 foot long?

No, things are not disappearing bottom up. They're visually compressing towards the horizon.

WTF.

How can the sun at sunset visually compress when its visible dimensions are not changing throughout the day.  How can the sun visibly compress when the sun isn’t changing distance in any measurable way to the human eye.  How can only part of an object not changing distance from the viewer visibly compress.

Curvature of the earth and the sun becoming increasingly blocked from line of sight explains the reality of the sunset. 

The heliocentric model accurately predicts events, FE fails. 

Where you can’t explain dip of the horizon and curvature of earth.

https://mctoon.net/photos-of-the-curve/

Where you also ignore the dip of the horizon.




Bulma.  Flat earth is soundly debunked.  You’re just a moron at this point. 

Don't see the problem?

Bulma, that your model doesn’t explain reality so you have to use cartoons?




And thought about how photography and and amateur astronomy is just line of sight, composition, and lens choice.  The right telescope brings objects in the night sky to faint to be seen with the unaided eye into view.  Unless that object like a moon of Jupiter is behind it, or a planet sets below the curvature of the earth.  Or if the moon or a particular galaxy hasn’t risen yet.

Watching the rain storm, I remembered an old argument that shows you ignore the consequences of your made up parabola from the context of down into your model.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 19, 2023, 06:42:42 AM

Look at this picture. 



Why does the tree line fill the field of vision from side to side.

With this..



Why is the much farther away cloud  line just as visible, and fills the photo side to side like the much closer tree line




If your cone of perception was true, then the much farther away cloud formation shouldn’t fill the picture side to side.  It should only look like a cloud column or a sliver. 

Light and sight work nothing like what the parabola needs it to do.

Like this set of photos with the horizon.

Sight ahead of my car.


Same area and light pole looking left from my car.



The much farther away cloud line is just as visible and takes up the whole picture side to side like the horizon.  And the cloud didn’t “disappear top down”. Or in this case didn’t reveal itself top down? 

Parabola delusion totally dead on arrival and debunk!

Completely backwards.

As we have driven from our town to Richmond, I watched the clouds climb the sky. In other words, clouds appear to be sticking to a sort of domed vault, while distant objects have a sort of perspective shrink.

So this means that objects on the ground do sorta...
tree tree tree tree
as they get closer, while objects in the air are like...

              bird
       bird       bird
bird                     bird
as they pass.

And yes, your can see this. Especially on hills, where the pitch makes clouds rise or fall, but if you get going the right direction that you're starting to pass a cloud, watch what it does.

This is not a reason for pause or to reject a model.

The sort of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy I'd expect from you. "You don't get to believe in Flat Earth, because I have pointed out problems." But this idea that involves objects in motion under RE heliocentrism? Never been proven? People just guessing? Why, "this is not a reason to pause or reject a model." It damned well is a reason to consider whether the model works.

Completely backwards.

What’s backwards?

Bulma.  You ignore the consequences of drawing out your parabola down into it.

You believe light dies and explains why the sun can’t be seen at three miles?  Because of vanishing point, light dies, and visually compressed?





There is no proof of your stupid parabola. 



Your parabola would need to make things shirk to a sliver vertically and disappear.  Clouds hold no proof of your parabola.  If your parabola was true, the clouds after passing overhead should shrink in the vertical and disappear.

And why isn’t the sun illuminating the clouds bottom up?


What dome? 



I see clouds moving over a field at a certain altitude. 

So this means that objects on the ground do sorta...

And yes, your can see this.

What we see is the sun not growing in dimension all morning.  What we see is the sun not shrinking in dimension all afternoon.  What we see is the sun not changing any appreciable dimensions and distance to the human eye during the day.  What we see is the sun setting relatively below the curvature of the earth with the line of sight increasingly becomes blocked from view.




Bulma, notice the setting sun moves nothing like the clouds moving away from you.

For the 1100th time, the parabola represents the narrowing perspective of vanishing point.

Which is stupid to post because the sun stays a constant size as it travels through the day.  It doesn’t shrink in size through the day then just wink out of existence.  Where the sun in the morning should grow in size after sunrise, but doesn’t.  Showing the sun stays the same relative distance from the viewer through the day.  Where on a flat earth the sun has to change relative distance minute by minute.


The sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid. 


Now.  Bulma.  Address dip of the horizon.

Address the curvature of the earth can be documented.

Address the curvature of the earth is accounted for in tow tanks used in testing ship design.

Address for a flat earth, the sun would have to visibly turn during its path.  But on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west.

Address that I can use a telescope to see more detail in Jupiter, and bring into view the moons of Jupiter to faint to be seen with unaided eye.

Watch that black cloud up top.

You could stick your finger in the middle, and were the GIF longer, it would descend to that point. On the left side, it does so.

Completely backwards.

As we have driven from our town to Richmond, I watched the clouds climb the sky. In other words, clouds appear to be sticking to a sort of domed vault, while distant objects have a sort of perspective shrink.

So this means that objects on the ground do sorta...
tree tree tree tree
as they get closer, while objects in the air are like...

              bird
       bird       bird
bird                     bird

as they pass.

And yes, your can see this. Especially on hills, where the pitch makes clouds rise or fall, but if you get going the right direction that you're starting to pass a cloud, watch what it does.

Thank you for providing that picture.

Watch that black cloud up top.

Which has nothing to do with what was posted.

Your parabola would need to make things shirk to a sliver vertically and disappear.  Clouds hold no proof of your parabola.  If your parabola was true, the clouds after passing overhead should shrink in the vertical and disappear.

And why isn’t the sun illuminating the clouds bottom up?


What dome? 



I see clouds moving over a field at a certain altitude. 

So this means that objects on the ground do sorta...

And yes, your can see this.

What we see is the sun not growing in dimension all morning.  What we see is the sun not shrinking in dimension all afternoon.  What we see is the sun not changing any appreciable dimensions and distance to the human eye during the day.  What we see is the sun setting relatively below the curvature of the earth with the line of sight increasingly becomes blocked from view.




Bulma, notice the setting sun moves nothing like the clouds moving away from you.

For the 1100th time, the parabola represents the narrowing perspective of vanishing point.

Which is stupid to post because the sun stays a constant size as it travels through the day.  It doesn’t shrink in size through the day then just wink out of existence.  Where the sun in the morning should grow in size after sunrise, but doesn’t.  Showing the sun stays the same relative distance from the viewer through the day.  Where on a flat earth the sun has to change relative distance minute by minute.


The sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid. 


Now.  Bulma.  Address dip of the horizon.

Address the curvature of the earth can be documented.

Address the curvature of the earth is accounted for in tow tanks used in testing ship design.

Address for a flat earth, the sun would have to visibly turn during its path.  But on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west.

Address that I can use a telescope to see more detail in Jupiter, and bring into view the moons of Jupiter to faint to be seen with unaided eye.

Watch that black cloud up top.

Which has nothing to do with my actual post and its context.  Just flacking the thread with useless false assurances.  Like you lying the peir goes to the horizon?  Didn’t you even try to call a pier a bridge at one point?

What about this bridge?

Seems simple enough.

?

What happens when a cloud bank is large enough to straddle both ends of the parabola.



Added.  Where the sun still isn’t illuminating the clouds bottom up like this picture.

Especially for the below with clouds all the way to the east horizon for sunrise.  With no evidence the sunlight is reflecting off the ground.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 21, 2023, 05:45:20 AM

Funny you should mention that. Let's watch a video together. ❤

Meanwhile.

Another impossible flat earth sunrise you have to ignore. Run away like a coward.  You have no explanation, you change the subject from the opening post, lie, use BS, and go into delusion rants, and try to derail another thread…







Clouds illuminated bottom up before sunrise is a property of spherical earth.  Not explained by FE without lies, BS, delusion

The clouds would have to do bendy crap like this, climbing up then turning overhead.



Where these low altitude clouds, maybe 1000 feet altitude.


Are just a going away from the camera, like this ball down the hallway.



Which is nothing like the motion of the setting sun.



Where “zooming” in from the original didn’t visually uncompress anything. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid. 

You do know that's a nonsense model, right?

It's a mathematical model showing that the n-body problem can be modeled.

Quote from: Wikipedia

Unlike the two-body problem, the three-body problem has no general closed-form solution, meaning there is no equation that always solves it

Two sentences later...

Because there are no solvable equations for most three-body systems, the only way to predict the motions of the bodies is to estimate them using numerical methods.

Even though there is no exact solution to the n-body problem, it is still possible to make very good approximations. 

The three body problem refers to the spatial relationship between three objects and issues (classically, I think it was gravity, but I'm more concerned with things like not being in two places at once, bumping into each other, stuff like that). That heliocentrism actually has a ten body problem ought to give you pause.

So you're saying that the FE earth, sun. moon, other planets and celestial objects don't count as an n-body problem?  At least RE can mathematically model the RE solar system to match observations.  That's a whole lot more that FE'ers can do.

as they get closer, while objects in the air are like...

Your wilful rejection of reality will not change it.

We can see that you are wrong with what you have already provided.
Remember this video you provided to try to justify your BS?


Well here are 2 parts of it overlayed without any scaling:

The larger image is the plane when directly overhead.
The other is after some time, after it has passed overhead.

Now it is being viewed from a different angle, so you can't trust the length, but you can use is the width.
i.e. if your blatant lies were true, the wingspan should be the same, and the width of the fuselage should be the same.
But we see that the wingspan has reduced in apparent size to almost the width of the fuselage, and the fuselage is tiny.

i.e. you are a lying POS, just like always.

Even things going overhead appear to change size.
Your lies will not change that.

The sort of intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy I'd expect from you. "You don't get to believe in Flat Earth, because I have pointed out problems." But this idea that involves objects in motion under RE heliocentrism? Never been proven? People just guessing? Why, "this is not a reason to pause or reject a model."

And yet it trying to display such dishonesty and/or hypocrisy on my part, you just further demonstrate it yourself.
Do you not notice the drastic difference between the 2 points?

On one hand, we have mountains of problem showing your BS doesn't work at all, with numerous problems you cannot address, which results in you repeatedly lying to everyone.
On the other hand, we have your wilful ignorance which you assert as a fact that applies to everyone.

Even ignoring your lie, on one hand we have clear demonstrations the model does not work and is clearly not true.
On the other hand, you have a model that works, with you unable to show any fault, but missing a piece of evidence to support it.

But again, even that is a lie.
We have mountains of evidence showing Earth is in motion.
We have gyrocompasses which rely upon the rotation of Earth to function.
We have laser ring gyroscopes showing the rotation.
We have Foucault's pendula and large scale weather systems showing the rotation.

The rotation is also the simplest explanation for what is observed, i.e. all the stars excluding the sun appearing to circle at the same rate.

We also have evidence for the orbit around the sun, such as stellar aberration and parallax.

As well as it being the simplest model which actually makes sense to describe what is happening without needing to invoke copious amounts of magic.

So why should the wilful ignorance of a lying coward give me pause?

Again, just look at the key issues being discussed here.
The sun appears to rise from beneath Earth pass roughly overhead (depends on where you are and the time of year) and then set on the western horizon, with the exception of those in the Arctic or Antarctic circles during their summer.
And while it is doing this, it continues to move at roughly the same angular velocity and maintains roughly the same angular size.
And shortly before sunrise or shortly after sunset, the sun is observed to be illuminating clouds from below.
And importantly, different locations have different time zones, i.e. the sun can be in the middle for one person while it is midnight for someone else.

Your FE fantasy cannot explain any of this.
You need to continually switch back and forth between several different refuted piles of BS to pretend it works and continually lie to everyone.
Meanwhile, the RE model explains it trivially with you needing to repeatedly lie about the RE model to pretend there is a problem, with those lies actually typically being far more applicable to your pile of delusional nonsense.

e.g. you claim it couldn't possibly happen in the RE model because the sun is so high above the clouds. But that isn't the RE model. The RE model is they are so far away, and that allows it to be above or below.
But in the FE fantasy, the altitude of the sun is always above the clouds, so no way for it to shine on the clouds from below.

e.g. you claim the RE model is wrong, because we should see pure garbage with the sun being closer at noon.
But in the RE model, the sun is only closer at noon by a tiny fraction of the distance to it. Meanwhile, for the FE fantasy with the commonly expressed values, the sun at sunset is over twice the distance to the sun at noon when directly overhead.

So again, why should the wilful ignorance and lies of a lying coward like you give me pause?

Meanwhile, why don't all these problems you cannot address give you pause?

And considering you want to appeal to a lack of evidence, where is any evidence to support your delusional fantasy? No where.
The best you get is our vision works based upon angles. But that doesn't prove your magic parabola which magically limits vision.
You have no proof at all of your magic parabola.
You have no proof at all of light magically flipping direction, or the sun magically being projected onto anything.

All you have are your hopes and dreams, and a desperate need for your fantasy to be true.

If you're gonna try to crush my hopes and dreams (btw, only assholes set out to crush the hopes and dreams of others), you'd have to do better than a plane superimposed over another plane.

What is that even supposed to demonstrate? I'm sorry, I didn't read your long meandering post.

You say always you have "mountains of evidence", but most of what you say is such empty trash talk that I can ignore entire sections of your posts, and have missed nothing.

Since some of you like to ask question after question let's have you answer just a few:

Why do tides go back and forth? If Earth is in orbit around in a single direction, shouldn't it roll over the entire surface of the "planet" in a single direction?

Why is it that if you say that the light from the sun travels billions of miles, can't we see the end of a bridge?

Why is it that you say that light below the clouds proves  RE, but I was not able under any circumstances from an angle see the sun below the clouds? It was always below it.


Why don't you answer why the sun shouldn't rise twelve hours from its original time when it is 180 degrees away from its original position on orbit after six months (and 6 hours from its original time after three months)? And if you say "sidereal days, how do you account for the fact that there are half as many sidereal days as there should be for this adjustment to work?

If the Earth is spinning about and orbiting and following the sun, how is it that we've been able to view constellations since ancient Mesopotamia all the way up to when light pollution (and regular pollution) screwed with our ability to see them? I mean, the Southern Cross is about four stars, right? So why doesn't it break apart over the course of millennia as the Earth and sun whiz around the galaxy?

Why, if you fire a cannonball that is perfectly leveled, can it often fly back into the barrel or around 2 ft away, instead of being offset several miles? It's going upward not towards the Earth's rotation, so how it is that it's not offset?

Why can you land a plane? The runway itself should be moving at the speed of Earth's rotation, right?

Why if you have Foucault's pendulum (which is clearly and obviously not a fraud, usually supplied energy and with hidden mechanisms), can I not hold an ordinary plumbline straight down, and after an initial series of swings, have it continue in the same way? Should it not swing as long as the Earth rotates like Foucault's pendulum? And shouldn't other things on a cord also perpetually swing (such as a wrecking ball)? But yet, they all settle to a stop. Why is that?

(Now, I don't buy gravity is the cause , but note what he does prove. With each swing... unless energy is provided, hint hint, it always has less energy for the next swing. Therefore Foucault's pendulum, along with these electrically powered gyroscopes, is fraud. If I buy a gyroscope, and take out any bells and whistles (such as batteries or microchips), and just let it rely on gravity's effect from Earth's rotation, it will never move. Just as I have a water-based compass that I have laid so the compass is vertical, and I haven't noticed a change in four months, day, afternoon, or night. Not the water nor the compass point has moved)

---

You don't have any evidence. You're like Usopp with his army of just himself really.

You have a silly picture of a plane from two angles.

Enablers are different from Encouragers