Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

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)?

You mean how the earth tilts as the earth rotates about its axis as it orbits the sun.  I think it’s been explained to you repeatedly?

The days are longer in June in the northern hemisphere because summer where the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun.  The earth keeps the same axis tilt, but in the winter for the northern hemisphere, the northern hemisphere points away from the sun. 

Where the earth is still making a complete rotation every solar day, so  the earth isn’t getting out of phase.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2024, 05:31:56 AM

This is the classical model of how tilt

Which isn’t wobble.


Let’s take the fat off the earth and use something more cylindrical.



For the above.  The left and right pieces of pipe are tilted the same direction. The one on the right has its top closer.  The one on the left has its bottom closer.  Tilt never changed. 

The pipe on the top represents the equinox.  The tilt is “parallel” so the pipe piece doesn’t tilt away or from.

Drawn below to exaggerate even more.

Like what Jack showed countless times.

Again, understand the 2D version:

Summer, longer days.



Winter shorter days


Summer, longer days.




Added…

The below video the actual path the stick shadow traveled in France for a time around the equinox.   Models put FE vs Globe. 

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.

You keep asking the somethings that have repeatedly been explained, where you make false assurances it hasn’t.

Now.  Bulma.  The sun rises due east and sets due west during the equinox.  This is explained by the hemispheric model.  For the flat earth delusion, the sun hast to visibly turn during its travel through the day.  The sun would have to travel north / south over Japan.  That alone kills flat earth.  The heliocentric model makes accurate predictions, FE is useless. 

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?

I thought that you said that you understand RE better than most RE'ers.  It seems that you don't understand much of anything about how anything works, regardless of the shape of the earth.

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.

I'm just calling out your BS. Not crushing your hopes and dreams.

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

It wasn't meandering. It was directly addressing all the BS you claimed.

What it clearly showed, is that even things passing overhead change in angular size.
So if you want to claim perspective is causing the change in angle of elevation of the sun, it needs to cause it to change in angular size as well.

You say always you have "mountains of evidence", but most of what you say is such empty trash talk

Except how could you possibly know that when you admit you don't read it?
What you are really saying is you choose to remain wilfully ignorant.
So you can pretend BS like this.

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

And there you go trying to deflect from your complete inability to defend your BS.
I'll skip your questions which have nothing to do with the topic at hand, and only deal with those relating to perspective. But I'll be nice and include other starts as well.

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?

For the same reason you can't see an object on the other side of a brick wall even if it is only 1 m away.
Our vision isn't magic. It wont let you see through opaque objects.
If you can't see the end of a bridge, it is likely because something is blocking the view.

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.

Because you are unable to explain how this occurs with the FE, and it has been explained to you repeatedly how this works on a RE.
You repeatedly ignoring the demonstrations and explanations doesn't negate that. Here it is again:

Tell me how the sun is not illuminating the cloud from below in that diagram.
See if you can be honest for once in your life.

Why don't you answer why the sun shouldn't rise twelve hours ... "sidereal days

You already know the answer, as demonstrated here.
You lying about how they work doesn't change that fact.
Again, if you want to time based upon the rotation of Earth, you need to use units of time of sidereal days; if you want to time based upon the position of the sun in the sky you use solar 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?

Based on what?
You are now yet again just spouting pure BS.

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

Again, already explained.
The distance matters.
Just like how people in a small town can look out to a mountain in the distance and see basically the same view all around.

Instead of just asserting pathetic BS like this, why don't you try explaining why it should change, including doing the math.

You don't have any evidence.

You ignoring the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Conversely, you literally have no evidence at all supporting your delusional BS.
Your BS is so flawed you need to continually flee or deflect from simple questions and requests which demonstrate it is pure BS.

You still can't explain how the sun is magically illuminating the cloud from below.

And asking all these questions just demonstrates you either have no idea at all about the RE model, or you are intentionally lying to people.

Again, try drawing a picture.
Show a side view.
Show the real physical location of the sun, the cloud and the observer.
Then draw in the path of light from the sun to the cloud and then from the cloud to the observer.
Any time this changes direction from a straight line, explain why.

You mean how the earth tilts as the earth rotates about its axis as it orbits the sun.  I think it’s been explained to you repeatedly?

They more mean what is the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.
Where they dishonestly pretend a solar day is exactly 1 rotation of Earth about its axis.

Where if for simplicity you take Earth as having a perfectly circular orbit with no axial tilt, and an orbital period of exactly 365 solar days; then we consider a point initially facing directly towards the sun (so 12pm), then after 183 days that point will be pointing directly away from the sun (so 12 am).
Where they want to ignore the distinction between solar days and sidereal days, pretend that a solar day of 24 hours is the rotational period of Earth, so after 182 (or 183) solar days, the point above will be pointing directly away from the sun.

This has also been explained to them repeatedly, where in the simple example above of 365 solar days, it will be 366 sidereal days, with a solar day being a few minutes longer than a sidereal day, so after 183 sidereal days, they will be out of sync by 12 hours.
It has also been explained how they can verify this themselves by a time-lapse of the sky, with the stars (excluding the sun) following sidereal days, while the sun follows solar days.

They more mean what is the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.

Really.

Read what Bulna posted.

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)?

What causes sunrise times to change.  The tilt of the earth or its rotation. 

Quote from: JackBlack on April 14, 2025, 12:37:26 AM

They more mean what is the difference between a solar day and a sidereal day.

Really.

Read what Bulna posted.

Quote

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)?

What causes sunrise times to change.  The tilt of the earth or its rotation.

I have read it.

They are treating it as if Earth takes exactly 24 hours to rotate on its axis, so when Earth is on the other side of the sun, the clocks should all be off by 12 hours.

This diagram you quoted from me actually with this as well:

Taking this arrow to represent the direction of Earth, but this time say the direction 0 degrees east is facing, they are saying 12 am has 0 degrees east facing to the left in this diagram, regardless of where you are in the orbit.
So in the left hand side of the diagram, it is midnight and dark.
But half a year later on the right hand side of the diagram, it is still 12 am, but now it is pointing towards the sun, so midday is happening at 12 am instead of 12 pm. i.e. that 12 hour offset they are appealing to.
And for the 3 month offsets, it is sunrise or sunset, equating to what should be 6 am or 6 pm.

If instead we stick to reality, where the rotational period of Earth is 1 sidereal day, then it is the same sidereal time for each point, but the solar time is offset by varying amounts from sidereal time.

We can also get a good idea that this is what they are talking about with what they followed the part you quoted with:

And if you say "sidereal days...

i.e. they already know the answer, the difference between a sidereal day and a solar day.

I thought that you said that you understand RE better than most RE'ers.  It seems that you don't understand much of anything about how anything works, regardless of the shape of the earth.

You're not answering any of these questions. And you're using classic emperor's new clothes dodge ("If you question this thing, you must be too stupid.")

Sorry, no. You're too stupid. All of these questions are what's known as Socratic. I know the official stance on such things. And I know why it doesn't work.

You like to ask other people loads of questions, and when they answer them, you ignore the answer and ask again and again.

So I'm giving you your own medicine.

---

Jack Black, that sun picture is impossible.

It requires the Earth to pull the clouds around in such a way that the sun looks to be following the geocentric model on a RE.  In other words,  order that the sun slip "below" the Earth either requires you cheat and suspend the heliocentric model (in which case there's no reason to be RE, it's a sort of taqiyya, like a Muslim eating pork on occasion to prove they aren't "really" a Muslim). Or to assert that all bodies on Earth naturally keep pace with the Earth's rotation, including the entire atmosphere. This is problematic, to say the least. Why? Well, let's put it this way. If everything is swept along in one direction, then by clouds heading one direction, they are moving with the speed of rotation. But during a storm, clouds move in many different directions, and this requires a selective difference of 1000+ mph (the speed of Earth's rotation). Even if we don't feel the rotation cuz of scale, we certainly should feel this sharp difference in winds. And if the clouds don't move with the rotation but against it, we have our model with the protractor above. But yet, moving against the rotation, they should lose track with our position because they are moving away while we spin in the opposite direction, yet instead they sometimes don't appear to move at all.  In other words, for the model below with the protractor to work, either the clouds are in space with the sun (and thus not subject to rotation). But in that case, clouds get left behind in space. Or when the sun appears above nonmoving or slow moving clouds as they appear below a moving sun above them, the sun is actually still and the clouds are moving very fast. Yet holding their shape perfectly.

What causes sunrise times to change.  The tilt of the earth or its rotation.

To quote markjo, I thought you (as a round Earther) would be more familiar with round Earth theory.

Where if for simplicity you take Earth as having a perfectly circular orbit with no axial tilt, and an orbital period of exactly 365 solar days; then we consider a point initially facing directly towards the sun (so 12pm), then after 183 days that point will be pointing directly away from the sun (so 12 am).
Where they want to ignore the distinction between solar days and sidereal days, pretend that a solar day of 24 hours is the rotational period of Earth, so after 182 (or 183) solar days, the point above will be pointing directly away from the sun.

Sorry, no, I've taken into account solar days and sidereal days. And your math is wrong. It's by degrees, not days. Because it's 182.5 days, and there's no such thing as a half day.

The sunrise to sunset is determined in your theory by the 180 degree arc of where the sun hits to the left, middle, and right of Earth, with solar noon at the midpoint. At different points of Earth's orbit with the same steady rotation, the same location will be hit from different angles, meaning that same 180 degree arc will be hours off sync with the original time. So sunrise that happened at 6 am will creep towards 12 noon and eventually 6 pm before completing a year back at 6 am. This never happens, even though the angle of incident of the sun at the same rotation says that it should indeed be very off in terms of time.
The way round Earthers who actually understand their theory (and aren't just clueless dumbasses) explain this away is that every other day, there is a sidereal day, a day where the Earth rotates 361° instead of 360°. Not only does this offset the rotation of the Earth by 0°/1° each year, meaning by the time I'm forty (I am) I should see at least 20° difference from my childhood (I original thought it was 40° but it comes out to every other year, every 30 degrees is 1/12 of  day or two hours), but every three months, it would need to adjust 90° (or have sidereal every single day, except for one of the five extra days because there are 365 days in a year). But this is not what we have expressed. We have a 45° degree deficit because only half of the days are said to be sidereal. Have you noticed 3 hour difference in sunrise and sunrise? And the next three months, it's 3 more hours off (total six). By the time the year has passed, it would be 12 hours off of the original sunrise and sunset times, and would be on a two year cycle. This has never proved true. But it certainly has been proved false! Over just two years, we can be utterly certain this level of offset has never happened.

The sun orbits the Earth, simple as that.

 Sidereal days fails Occam's Razor, it fails all tests of timing, it fails on yearly offsets, and even daily time of sunrise. Every day I get up is a day that I can by looking out the window, be assured that not only did the sun not rise at 12pm but it also didn't rise at 9am. Nor is there a yearly slip where the sun gradually gets off time. In order to have the sun actually sync with the Earth so time of sunrise is as we see, either (1) the sun orbits the Earth. (2) Or periodically, the Earth abruptly rotates in the opposite direction to get back on track, sending all living things and all matter flying into the air at the abrupt change in direction (velocity is speed and direction, meaning a change in one creates hella whiplash). (3) Or it does get off track, and periodically, our government tells us to adjust our clocks four or six or whatever hours.

No, I haven't noticed #2 or #3.

Except how could you possibly know that when you admit you don't read it?

2/3 of it is trash talking and claiming stuff is delusional BS. You don't organize your paragraphs into solid points but pick at parts of sentences to the point where it is clear you aren't listening either, so I stopped.

For the same reason you can't see an object on the other side of a brick wall even if it is only 1 m away.
Our vision isn't magic. It wont let you see through opaque objects.
If you can't see the end of a bridge, it is likely because something is blocking the view.

There isn't. We can see past the end of the bridge to the water behind the bridge, but that bridge narrows to a point. Unlike you. Good try, tho.

(Let's see, mentioned for clouds move and how the speed of rotation is not consistent with the minor motions of clouds in reality... Mentioned that I do know about solar and sidereal days, and no I am taking exactly their point as presented, and every 3 months, it's off be 45° more degrees... So skipping ahead two paragraphs. (Btw it took you five paragraphs to address four sentences of mine, this is what I mean by meandering AF) I explained this in the above paragraph... skipping some more...)

Eric Dubay explained this one. Appealing to distance and scale falls apart when someone's zoom camera can apparently zoom billions or trillions of miles. No it can't. The object in question must be closer than is claimed.
So your rescaling doesn't work, and you are subject to all the same restrictions as originally mentioned. I suppose you could tell me the stars move to keep pace with the Earth. But then you have something that works far better on a geocentric FE.

You haven't answered about tides
You didn't answer about a cannonball keeping perfect  trajectory with the supposed rotation of the Earth to land back in its barrel.
You haven't talked about how if clouds move based on speed against this rotation (which increasingly, since objects move with it perfectly like the cannonball seems to so little affect anything as to be said not to exist), then moving at a different speed than the plane should cause the runway to be a moving target. KABOOM, the plane crashes.
You haven't talked about why Foucault's pendulum keeps moving all day, but a dangling crane used for lifting rebar to upper parts of buildings seems to never move at all with this orbit, nor does it affect the cannonball. Nor does it cause a pendulum that I hold to swing after it has stopped.
Nor have you mentioned why my water compass hasn't moved since last night.

---

Again, your mountains of evidence is no evidence.

You have a mountain of friends willing to back you up on this (and I honestly say "must be nice") but no evidence.

It requires the Earth to pull the clouds around in such a way that the sun looks to be following the geocentric model on a RE.

Pure gibberish.  It’s just requires the clouds to move above the earth at a specific altitude because of their density.

Remember the argument you abandoned.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on November 24, 2022, 11:13:37 PM

When an object stops, it falls or rises based on being heavier or lighter than the medium.

Then why isn’t this plunger falling?

From this video..




A hand plunger being supported by a column of air.



The plunger is more dense than the air it’s being supported on. 

Now.  What force is causing the air molecules to bunch up to support a hot air balloon like the air in the trapped cylinder supporting the plunger. 



  A ballon filled with helium ever once in awhile ends up at the house.  For a day or two, its bouncing off the ceiling.  Then after a while it loses enough helium the ballon floats a few feet under the ceiling, but doesn’t fall to the floor.  What force causes the air molecules to bunch up and support the ballon like the air molecules supporting the weight of the plunger in the example.  If you don’t think weight is a real downward force, why does just adding weight to the plunger make it go down more into the cylinder.  Then removing the weight causes the plunger to rise. 

Where the sun illuminating the bottom of clouds has been proven and explained numerous times.




Bulma.  Stop running from things that kill and debunk flat earth beyond a reasonable doubt.  Again.  Flat earth, the sun would have to visually turn hour by hour in its path and travel north / south over Japan. Where on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west.  The heliocentric model accurately predicts our reality.  Flat earth is useless. 

Where they want to ignore the distinction between solar days and sidereal days, m

Could care less about sidereal days and your attempt to butcher something to make a false assurance.

Address what was actually posted.  And the failure of flat earth to accurately predict and model what is witnessed and documented.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 13, 2025, 03:44:03 PM

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)?

You mean how the earth tilts as the earth rotates about its axis as it orbits the sun.  I think it’s been explained to you repeatedly?

The days are longer in June in the northern hemisphere because summer where the northern hemisphere is tilted towards the sun.  The earth keeps the same axis tilt, but in the winter for the northern hemisphere, the northern hemisphere points away from the sun. 

Where the earth is still making a complete rotation every solar day, so  the earth isn’t getting out of phase.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on September 06, 2024, 10:35:28 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 06, 2024, 05:31:56 AM

This is the classical model of how tilt

Which isn’t wobble.


Let’s take the fat off the earth and use something more cylindrical.



For the above.  The left and right pieces of pipe are tilted the same direction. The one on the right has its top closer.  The one on the left has its bottom closer.  Tilt never changed. 

The pipe on the top represents the equinox.  The tilt is “parallel” so the pipe piece doesn’t tilt away or from.

Drawn below to exaggerate even more.

Like what Jack showed countless times.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 06, 2024, 02:32:28 AM

Again, understand the 2D version:

Summer, longer days.



Winter shorter days


Summer, longer days.




Added…

The below video the actual path the stick shadow traveled in France for a time around the equinox.   Models put FE vs Globe. 

Quote

Bulma.  Like it or not.  The earth makes one full rotation in relationship to the sun what we define as a solar day we call 24 hours. If we called one rotation of the earth in relationship to the sun 100 marks, it doesn’t change how fast or slow the earth rotates.  And doesn’t change one rotation in context of using the sun as a reference, and isn’t going to magically shift sunrise sunset times.  Why solar day is used to reference the earth day in the context of the sun.   Since the earth maintains a consistent rotation speed, tilt of the earth is what causes the sunrise sunset times to change with the seasons. 


Now address things that kill and debunk flat earth beyond a reasonable doubt.  Again.  Flat earth, the sun would have to visually turn hour by hour in its path and travel north / south over Japan. Where on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west.  The heliocentric model accurately predicts our reality.  Flat earth is useless.

Sorry, no, I've taken into account solar days and sidereal days.

Video.  Perfectly explains sidereal vs solar day.

Sidereal Day versus Solar Day

Bulma.  If you were honest and gave the proper context of when, who, and how sidereal days are used vs why, when, and how solar days are used.  You would answer your own questions.  As always.  Context and use are importance. 

The sunrise to sunset is determined in your theory by the 180 degree arc of where the sun hits to the left, middle, and right of Earth, with solar noon at the midpoint.

Is that how a solar day is calculated?


Since you like AI.



The definition seems to be from a specific local noon to that next local noon. Nothing about 180 degrees nor “sun hits to the left, middle, and right of Earth”

Bulma.  Why do flat earthers butcher the heliocentric model to create these blatantly false definitions and assurances, to create false arguments.  Try arguing what a solar day actually is, what a sidereal day is.  And use them in their proper context.  And don’t ignore who uses each for what circumstance, in what context. 

Eric Dubay explained this one.

Maybe instead of filtering everything through a known liar and grifter you should study what is actually documented and published concerning the heliocentric model, its usefulness, and go out and experience things for yourself. 

I'm not. I watched him zoom the camera in. I've done similar zooming, and this doesn't feel odd.

Unlike some of the trickery that you pull (Foucault's pendulum vs a real pendulum), I can go home, find a watch on a chain, and dangle it, and I find out the truth. I trust Eric Dubay because he doesn't do special pleading, but gives proofs that I can go verify. In other words, I primarily trust myself.

So when you liars, say "Of course a water sticks to a spinning ball!" And I go and get a ball and put it in the water, and it sinks or floats but does not gravitate water, and you tell me that "Oh you need a ball as big as the Earth for there to be enough gravity" but I get a tiny magnet, and I don't need a magnet as big as the Earth to have magnetism work, yeah I start to think maybe the liars are right in front of me telling me "Don't listen to that liar!"

That "liar" doesn't know me, and I can take or leave what he says, and I do. I leave what he says about veganism. Vegetables don't supply key amino acids. I leave what he says when he spouts crap about Jews. The Masons, maybe, but the Freemasons are pagans. That's why they call their system the craft. The Jews are at odds with paganism, as are Christians. You liars lie to me every day, and I catch you in it quite often. In fact, as I pointed out with the sunrise/sunset, it is literally every day that you have told me a lie.

Your pier photo

Is the pier:

A infront of the horizon?
B At the horizon?
C extending beyonf thevhorizon?

I'm not. I watched him zoom the camera in. I've done similar zooming, and this doesn't feel odd.

What are you incoherently babbling about.

Why did you abandon the below argument that has “zooming”  involved?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 12, 2025, 08:15:30 PM

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: DataOverFlow2022 on March 21, 2023, 10:05:28 AM

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.

That "liar" doesn't know me, and I can take or leave what he says, and I do.

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?

Notice below, “zooming in” “uncompressed” the end of the pier.  It didn’t do anything for the clouds physical blocked from view by the earth’s curvature that are below the horizon.





Your rambling has nothing to do with what is observed, recorded, and documented.

Now address things that kill and debunk flat earth beyond a reasonable doubt.  Again.  Flat earth, the sun would have to visually turn hour by hour in its path and travel north / south over Japan. Where on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west.  The heliocentric model accurately predicts our reality.  Flat earth is useless.

Sorry, no, I've taken into account solar days and sidereal days.

If you have, then you are blatantly lying.
How about instead of just asserting the same pathetic, refuted BS, you trying actually explaining it with the math behind it.
In doing so, make sure you note if you are using times in mean solar time like normal, and state how long you are using for the rotation period of Earth.

If you do it properly:
The rotation period of Earth is 23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds or ~0.997268519 days.
After 183 rotations, it will have been a total of ~182.5 mean solar days.

This would place it ~180 degrees along Earth's orbit, with the solar time offset by roughly 12 hours.
i.e. what we observe and what you wish to pretend is a problem.

And your math is wrong.

How about instead of a baseless assertion, you try showing it.

there's no such thing as a half day.

A day is a unit of time. Commonly taken as a mean solar day, which is 24 hours.
Half a day is 12 hours.
Your stupidity and wilful ignorance will not change that.
Would you have preferred I said 182 days and 12 hours? Because it is the same thing.

The sunrise to sunset is determined in your theory by the 180 degree arc of where the sun hits to the left, middle, and right of Earth, with solar noon at the midpoint.

Providing vague crap wont help you.
Sunrise to sunset is determined by a combination of the rotation of Earth and the movement of Earth in its orbit.
Instead of focusing on sunrise to sunset, it is far more useful to focus on solar noon to solar noon.
If you were actually using solar days vs sidereal days, you wouldn't be saying this crap.
You would understand it is not 180 degrees for the difference, and for a day it is not 360 degrees.

Instead you lie to everyone, pretending a mean solar day of 24 hours is 360 degrees, completely ignoring the orbit and the distinction between mean solar days and sidereal days, to then pretend there is a problem with the RE model when you bring the orbit back.

Again, do it properly, actually taking into account solar days vs sidereal days rather than lying to everyone.

The way round Earthers who actually understand their theory (and aren't just clueless dumbasses) explain this away is that every other day, there is a sidereal day, a day where the Earth rotates 361° instead of 360°.

No, that is how lying POS like you pretend.
And this just shows you either have no idea what you are talking about or you are a pathetic lying POS, desperately lying to pretend there is a problem with the RE model, because you can't find any actual problems with it but are desperate to reject it.

Back in reality, they are not alternating. They are simply different measures of the same thing.
You can think of them as different units of time.

It is like if you have a path which is 100 miles, or ~160 km.
Lying POS like you will then pretend that after 50 miles you should be hallway there, but that means you should only be ~1/4 of the way there, because you only did 50 out of the 160 km.
And then saying people who understand say that every second mile is actually 1 km.
Sane people recognise that is pure BS, and that 50 miles is ~80 km, and you are half way regardless of which measure you use.
They understand that you aren't switching back and forth between them, but using either or both, depending on what you are measuring.
They understand that the first mile is ~0.6 km, the second mile is an additional ~0.6 km, so that the total is ~1.2 km.

Again, a mean solar day is 24 hours. This is the time it takes (on average) to go from one solar noon to another.
A sidereal day is ~23 hours, 56 minutes and 4 seconds. This is the time it takes Earth to rotate about its axis.

or have sidereal every single day, except for one of the five extra days because there are 365 days in a year

Or honestly recognise the distinction between solar day and sidereal, and recognise that for every mean solar day you have ~1.002738963 sidereal days.
And instead of being a complete imbecile where you pretend that 1 degree offset is exact, you instead recognise it as a rounded value, with the actual value being closer to 0.986 degrees, so after 365.2425 days (the average length of a year taking into account leap years), you end up with 360.14 degrees.
i.e. one full extra revolution accounted for. And that is what is expected for an object rotating while orbiting.
And before you complain about the .14 degrees which I left in specifically for this reason to show I'm not hiding anything, this is not precise enough to show a problem, as I only used a sidereal day to the nearest second.
If you instead go to 1 more second, so if it was 23 hours 56 minutes and 5 seconds, you would end up with 358.61 degrees. So in order to show a problem with that, you need to show a more accurate sidereal day; and then also go into the difference between a tropical year which doesn't really care about the orbit and instead attempts to force the spring/autumn equinox to occur on March 21st, and isn't quite a precise orbit because of the precession of the equinox, and the sidereal year, which is a complete orbit; with a difference of roughly 20 minutes.

But this is not what we have expressed.

Because you are a lying POS, that doesn't want to admit the truth and instead will continue lying to everyone to pretend there is a problem.

This has never proved true

Your delusional strawman has been proven false.
But reality has been shown to be true, including by a FEer who bought a laser ring gyroscope and confirmed the rotation of Earth.

Sidereal days fails Occam's Razor, it fails all tests of timing, it fails on yearly offsets, and even daily time of sunrise.

Your strawman fails. The real version you keep ignoring works wonderfully.

Sidereal days certainly meets Occam's Razor, as it is expected from an object that is rotating while orbiting, and it directly explains the observed period of time for stars to rise and set and rise again, and the difference between the sun and other stars.
Much simpler than pretending that everything is magically rotating together at the same speed, except the sun and moon and planets.

In order to have the sun actually sync with the Earth so time of sunrise is as we see

Or, Earth rotates while orbiting, with the length of a solar day being based upon the sun rather than simply the rotation of Earth.

No need for any of your delusional BS.

Mentioned that I do know about solar and sidereal days, and no I am taking exactly their point as presented

i.e. you are lying about it to set up a strawman to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

Sorry, no. You're too stupid. All of these questions are what's known as Socratic. I know the official stance on such things. And I know why it doesn't work.

Except this BS of yours demonstrates either you have no idea at all, or you are intentionally lying to everyone.
Do you know how? Because the question you ask have been answered countless times, and all you can do is appeal to vague BS or outright lie without ever being able to demonstrate how they show any problem for the RE.

Jack Black, that sun picture is impossible.
It requires the Earth to pull the clouds around in such a way that the sun looks to be following the geocentric model on a RE.

Why?
On what basis do you make this claim?
Yet again, you can't show an actual problem, so you just assert pure BS.
And then to pretend that BS is justified you just assert more BS.

Or to assert that all bodies on Earth naturally keep pace with the Earth's rotation, including the entire atmosphere.

In the absence of additional forces, everything on Earth, including the atmosphere, would move with Earth.
But additional forces can act, to have them move around.

But notice how you are just deflecting from the issue.
Because you can't show a fault with the geometry of it, nor can you admit that this actually explains what is observed, you just deflect to other BS.

this requires a selective difference of 1000+ mph

Why?

Mostly moving with Earth, and then having small variations which allow it to move relative to Earth does not require a selective difference of 1000+ mph.

Just like if you are on a plane walking around, or tossing things around or even using a fan.
That doesn't require a magical selective difference of the speed of the plane.

So yet again, you can't refute the actual model, so you just assert pathetic BS.

Quote

Except how could you possibly know that when you admit you don't read it?

2/3 of it is trash talking and claiming stuff is delusional BS.

Again, how would you know that if you don't read it.

And no, it isn't claiming stuff is delusional BS, instead it is explaining why.
But you can't handle that, so you ignore it.

You don't organize your paragraphs into solid points but pick at parts of sentences to the point where it is clear you aren't listening either, so I stopped.

Quite the opposite.
It demonstrates I am reading and clearly showing the fault with each line of your pathetic BS.

There isn't. We can see past the end of the bridge to the water behind the bridge

So you aren't actually appealing to not being able to see the end but being able to resolve it easily?
Quite different things.
Especially if you are dealing with things which emit or reflect large amounts of light against a background of very little.

Btw it took you five paragraphs to address four sentences of mine

Because unlike you, I don't just dismiss it.
I explain what is wrong with it.

Eric Dubay explained this one. Appealing to distance and scale falls apart when someone's zoom camera can apparently zoom billions or trillions of miles. No it can't. The object in question must be closer than is claimed.

You mean he baselessly asserted complete crap with no justification. And you decided to not bother thinking, but just accept what your cult leader says.

Why do they need to be close?
Any justification at all?

You haven't answered about tides

[
Because it is entirely irrelevant to the perspective of the sun.
So I won't. It is a pathetic attempt by you to deflect from your complete inability to justify your delusional BS.
If you want that answered, make another thread.

Again, your mountains of evidence is no evidence.

Again, your wilful rejection of reality does not change it.
Those mountains of evidence still exist and show you are a lying POS.

I can go home, find a watch on a chain, and dangle it, and I find out the truth.

But you choose not to, and instead just accept your lying cult leaders, with no reason at all.

You can set up your own Foucault's pendulum, and confirm the rotation of Earth. And yes that is without any electricity or the like near it.
You just choose not to, because you don't want your fantasy destroyed.

So when you liars, say

You mean when we honestly explain something to you, with you desperate to lie and strawman it?
Again, if you want to test gravity, there are simple ways to do that you can do yourself, but you refuse to do.

You liars lie to me every day

Yet you can't provide a single example, and instead lie by claiming we are lying, and lying about what we said.
This post of yours is yet more lies from you.

Meanwhile, we have shown you and your cult leader lying about the RE model so many times it isn't funny. Including in this very thread.

Now again, care to actually try justifying your delusional BS?

Draw a side view showing the sun, the cloud and the observer, showing their real physical positions.
Draw in the path of the light, explaining any curve or other change in direction in it.
Until you can, don't pretend the FE can actually work as a model.

Japan

This is only possible in a flat Earth, not a heliocentrism.

Let's explain why. In a geocentrism, the sun, the moon, and the stars make fixed motions around the Earth in a seasonal pattern.

In a heliocentric model, they claim - to get the newbies hooked - that it is something like this:


But once you're an adult and fully brainwashed, they switch the model to this.


The thing is, that even if we could justify Earth not hitting these other planets, it has gone pretty off course of the idea of predictable rise. ADB look like a year, but C looks like a gap.

In a geocentric model, the cause is easy. As the sun moves back and forth from tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, it makes a semicircle on rise locations, eventually rising through the gate (I'm guessing that's summer solstice?)

With your stupid spiraling Earth while following the sun around the galaxy (designed by nihilists, obviously) there is no rhyme or reason to any astronomic events, and we can't even predict whether tomorrow Uranus might collide with Venus.


And lastly, there's a feature film!

This is only possible in a flat Earth, not a heliocentrism.

If flat earth was true, you could address this simple flat earth debunk.  And not run from this argument.

Now address things that kill and debunk flat earth beyond a reasonable doubt.  Again.  Flat earth, the sun would have to visually turn hour by hour in its path and travel north / south over Japan. Where on the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west.  The heliocentric model accurately predicts our reality.  Flat earth is useless.

Sorry Bulma.  From why celestial south has meaning, to comets, why an equatorial telescope mount is useful, how a telescope brings into view more details of Jupiter and its moons to faint to see with the unaided eye, to why simple dial star atlases for the norther hemisphere and the southern hemisphere are accurate at predicting the night sky. You have failed to show how that flat earth has any usefulness.  Where the heliocentric reality simply works from celestial navigation, tracking and documenting comets, photography, to astronomy.  Where flat earth utterly fails.

Japan

Has to do what with this post.

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




What you going to do? Lie more.  Try to post a picture of a pier and lie that it is a bridge, and lie that it goes to the horizon even though the pier doesn’t even extend 1000 feet.

The thing is, that even if we could justify Earth not hitting these other planets,

It’s not hard to understand the solar system stays relatively together like the rotating parts of a propeller airplane stay together as it moves in a line of travel.  Where the solar system does have things collide, and a history of collisions.  What is the flat explanation for meteors falling to earth, hitting the moon.  Comets that don’t survive the trip around the sun, and the past comet the broke apart and collided with Jupiter.  Where Jupiter’s weather systems were visibly disrupted for years. 

Bulma.  Amazing how your stupid comments bites FE in the ass.

This is only possible in a flat Earth, not a heliocentrism.

Yet you cannot explain why.
Instead, you just make vague baseless appeals without any actual demonstration.
You also entirely ignore the distinction between the 2 separate but related issues of a FE vs RE and a geocentric vs heliocentric universe.
i.e. proving it wouldn't work in a heliocentric universe and it requires a geocentric universe wouldn't mean it must be a flat Earth, it can still be round.

And you entirely fail to comprehend that HC is still just a model which doesn't fully describe reality, because the sun is moving.
You are literally appealing to a non-HC universe, to say the HC universe is impossible.
Quite pathetic.
Again, you either have no idea what you are talking about, or you are blatantly lying to everyone.

The thing is, that even if we could justify Earth not hitting these other planets, it has gone pretty off course of the idea of predictable rise.

No, it hasn't.
As it is still following the simple laws of motion, it is still quite predictable.
Especially as this is just focusing on the sun, so the motion of the entire solar system doesn't matter.

ADB look like a year, but C looks like a gap.

Only because you have no idea what you are talking about and can't understand simple geometry.
A full year would be A to B to C to D.

With your stupid spiraling Earth while following the sun around the galaxy (designed by nihilists, obviously) there is no rhyme or reason to any astronomic events, and we can't even predict whether tomorrow Uranus might collide with Venus.

You mean you appeal to your wilful ignorance to pretend that is the case.

Notice how you have entirely failed to show any fault?
Notice how you have entirely failed to provide any reason that the view is impossible on a HC model?

Instead, you just appeal to a part looking like a gap and baselessly assert we can't predict anything.


See, this is what we mean by you don't explain.
You just assert crap, and pretend that crap explains when it does nothing of the sort.


Just like you have continually refused to provide an explanation for how the sun illuminates a cloud from below.
Draw a side view showing the sun, the cloud and the observer, showing their real physical positions.
Draw in the path of the light, explaining any curve or other change in direction in it.
Until you can, don't pretend the FE can actually work as a model.

Your pier photo

Is the pier:

A infront of the horizon?
B At the horizon?
C extending beyond the horizon?

is the boy
A infront of the sun,
B at the sun,
C beyond the sun?

The pier does not reach the horizon. Which, contrary to Moana, you can't really do. The horizon stretches on a long infinite line.  If you go east or west, exactly what you see is a perfectly straight line that you can build connecting roads or bridges between every continent or island in the world. The pier appears to pierce (say that out loud) the horizon but it comes short.

This is how the world operates. If you go east or west, you go in a circle, but anything you've build appears as a straight line. If you head north, you go to the center. If you go south you go outward.

You think it's a sphere, because you think north south loops. But it is like this dart board, except there is probably not an edge. It keeps continuing outward.

The boy is beyond the sun. Totally beyond, man.

The pier does not reach the horizon.

What are you babbling about.

This is what you tried post about a pier you claimed was a bridge.

What about this bridge?

You need to get your eyes checked.



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

Where the end of the pier in no way extends to anywhere near the horizon.



The pier probably isn’t even 1000 foot long.

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.

Notice that at some point, I changed it from bridge to pier. Your own quotes show this.

Notice that at some point, I changed it from bridge to pier. Your own quotes show this.

Now address the loads of specific examples that soundly debunks flat earth.

Start with the sun rising due east and setting due west on the equinox.

The pier does not reach the horizon. Which, contrary to Moana, you can't really do. The horizon stretches on a long infinite line.  If you go east or west, exactly what you see is a perfectly straight line that you can build connecting roads or bridges between every continent or island in the world. The pier appears to pierce (say that out loud) the horizon but it comes short.

This is how the world operates. If you go east or west, you go in a circle, but anything you've build appears as a straight line. If you head north, you go to the center. If you go south you go outward.

You think it's a sphere, because you think north south loops. But it is like this dart board, except there is probably not an edge. It keeps continuing outward.

The boy is beyond the sun. Totally beyond, man.

Bravo
The pier is in front of the horizon.
So your attempt use it to say the posts didnt disappesr bottom-up is a either:

A:   a lie to misrepresnt how circles work
B:    you didnt realize an oject has to go behind something for it to be blocked from view.


Im gonna guess B, that youre a fucking moron