Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

But while we're on that subject, several comets

Here is a current forecast…



It does take binoculars or a telescope.

Any evidence the forecast for this comet is wrong?

Vs what for FE?

An uncomfortable discussion that comets are real, orbit the sun, fly about disproving the firmament as a solid barrier.  Topics typical flat earthers avoid like your trying to avoid now. 

As I get better at using my camera with my telescope, I’ll start trying to locate comets not visible to the unaided eye.  If light dies, why are there comets visible only with telescopes scopes and binoculars.  For now, I’ll try to do timelapse of sunspots using a telescope and white solar filter I bought.  I’ll added it to the thread below.

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

Unfortunately, it takes time, some skill through trial and error, and clear skies. 

I guess just hijacking other people’s cartoons is the FE lazy path repeating Eric propaganda is easier, huh. Allows you to wrap yourself in a fantasy world.  Takes no effort other than cut and paste.  No time looking at a comet and weather forecasts.  No planning. Setting up equipment.  Actually having to learn a skill through trial and error. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 19, 2025, 05:55:47 AM

No, it's about reprogramming me for your cult.

How’s noticing flat earth totally fails to accurately predict the path of the sun hour by hour?

Where the visible parts of the sun do not change dimensions to even invoke vanishing point.

That's your failing, not mine. You assume that the sun in a real object that blows up and then shrinks like crazy. Rather than an abstract object that changes angle. The sun indeed does change in size some, but over 12 hours, it appears to only move with a small area because of perspective.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 19, 2025, 05:55:47 AM

Comets are about patterns in the heavens.

New comets are discovered over time.

Not all comets survive the trip around the sun.

Something the flat earth model fails to explain.

What's so hard to explain about this? Objects in motion, as a condition of motion encounter friction (your perfect frictionless space doesn't exist). Friction creates wear and tear on objects, just as driving a car all day and night 3000 miles across the country completely screws the transmission. If Earth really did orbit and rotate around the sun, we should see the Earth break down, which it doesn't do.  Similarly, friction accounts for meteors and asteroids and comets breaking down over the course of distance before it reaches its destination.  The flat Earth model fails to explain this? Don't make me laugh!!!

Where flat earth doesn’t explain how comets moved.  For the record, flat earth doesn’t explain without magic how the sun provides heat and light to the earth.  And in the terms of FE the sun providing heat and light stays magically in the air.

It's simple. It's a miracle. The sun and moon are not physical objects. "God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." As we learned in science class, perpetual energy is impossible.

So then, what exactly we are talking about is a consistently perpetual source of energy (oh sorry, two consistently perpetual sources of energy) that have lasted millennia without (*cough* bullshit *cough* *cough*) gone supernova, nor worn apart through constant motion.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 19, 2025, 05:55:47 AM

No, it's about reprogramming me for your cult.
But while we're on that subject, several comets

Like they didn’t get close enough to be illuminated by the sun, or the didn’t survive the trip around the sun.

More like your oh-so-sensitive measurement instruments are about as sophisticated as a crystal ball. Just as you can't predict storms well, you can't predict earthquakes well, can't predict sudden volcanic activity well, you can't predict comets well. In fact, the only thing you can predict well are the sun and moon, eclipses, and tides. These are all things that better men than you have actually figured out by studying patterns over years.

Where in the FE model there shouldn’t be comets at all because of the firmament.

We know that that comets when they enter atmosphere burn up.  Now the reason that I (maybe you as a round Earther think you know better about my own theory than me?) don't think we can leave the firmament is an entirely different reason. There is no such thing as no friction in space, so you must continue to supply motion in order move up and out of this. Whereas, it's easy for objects to fall down from a vacuum into atmosphere.

But I don't think comets actually are outside the firmament.

The firmament separates the physical world from the energetic or spiritual. Not Earth from "space."     

I be happy to discuss any examples you can actually cite instead of you making a vague reference to a link with your false assurances.  Where Bulma, you have repeatedly caught in right out lies.

You mention a pier which you can clearly draw a line that looks only a few inches from the horizon. Your eyes tell you that it goes to the horizon. But the horizon isn't a distance. So telling me 1000 ft, or 3 miles, or 10 miles, or 100 miles is a mathematical lie. You'd be better off saying the horizon is "over there." Yes, the bridge almost reaches the horizon in the picture. Zooming in more shows that it is quite far off. Zooming even more ahead, and the bridge goes barely halfway. These are not distances, they are abstractions. You call these lies, when I merely explained that this is how the picture appears to the viewer.
I also adjusted that figure to Chicago that I said exactly once to around 50 miles, but you are harping again about the one time that I said that. You are making it out like I repeatedly lied about something, when actually I conflated two measurements. The 100 mile thing is (again) the distance that a railgun can hit a target. Chicago is not 100 miles away from any of those locations, unless you're measuring the distance driving around the lake or something.
So if you're saying that I told that, then the lying liar is you. Mentioned it once, bad estimate. Someone showed me a map, and I amended it.

Bulma, you sadly have no honour and parrot FE lies.

No, you have no honor. You insist that things that do not have a definite value (such as the horizon) are a known quantity of distance. You are full of crap. We cannot know how far the horizon is, because the longer the focal length, the farther away the horizon expands.  Measurements are done with sticks and the like, but after a certain distance, the only way that we can know the distance is by surveying or by traveling that distance. Supposing all mile markers are wrong?

Flat Earth is the natural result of looking at the earth and sky without any bias.

No, that would be round Earth.
The best you get would be the ancient FE models, from looking at a tiny portion of Earth without bias and ignoring the rest of the world and doing as little thinking as possible, where you simply assume Earth is flat for no reason, not because of any evidence showing it is flat.

This ancient FE model has more in common with the modern RE model than the modern FE model.

e.g. a key distinction, for the ancient FE model, there is no problem with this sunrise, the sun is rising from below Earth. It is physically below the clouds and so is fine to shine upwards on them. And it then rises for the entire world at once. It can then do the same at sunset, where it then sets going physically below Earth again allowing it to shine upwards onto the cloud.

The RE model allows this as well. All you need to do to make it match is cut out the vast majority of Earth and change the reference frame and ignore some minor motion.

But the modern FE model can't explain it at all.
It has the sun always above the clouds, with no way for the light to shine on the cloud from below.


Meanwhile, actually thinking, including thinking about how you could distinguish between a flat and round Earth, including comprehending the effect of the radius on those tests, will very quickly lead you to the conclusion that you are unable to show it is flat, the best you get is a lower bounds on the radius.
But then actual testing will clearly show it is round.
No bias involved, just thinking and tests. 2 things you seem terrified of.

This on the other hand is smoke and mirrors.

Why? Because it so trivially recreates what is observed in reality?

You think I didn't notice that the wood in the middle of the board creates artificial curve?

No, we think you would, but then again, given your previously demonstrated stupidity/dishonesty you seem to have entirely failed to understand that as well.
That piece of wood is intentional, to curve the piece of metal to show how that curvature matches reality.

Or that you've been distorting pictures to make a flat beach horizon appear to "really" be curved?

In what way are they distorted?

Or that you routinely use a basketball or silo to claim these are "really" flat?

Wrong again, and you have that lie refuted many times.
Again, it is not claiming they are flat.
They are a simple demonstration that something "looking flat" doesn't mean it actually is; that a small enough portion of a large enough curve is indistinguishable from flat.
So your inability to see the curve in your bathtub doesn't mean it is actually flat.
So pretty much the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

Or that Jack Black is trying to zoom in on a picture to show me where there is supposedly curve that I haven't seen?

You mean clearly explained what I was doing and how you could do it yourself and how that wouldn't create a curve that wasn't there; but you in your standard wilful ignorance refuse to do.

Or that your supposed elevation shift is actually using a spherize effect?

You mean your wilful rejection of reality?
Do you have any evidence of that at all?
No.

But no, it's obvious Flat Earth that does the smoke and mirror tricks.

Yes, it is obvious, such as your BS above, where you blatantly lie and misrepresent things.
And your cherry picked photos and videos where they can't show what you are trying to have them show, so you can try to hide from the curve.
And how you take examples where there are curves, and then put on a very thick line to hide the curve.

So yes, FE is the one that does it.

Fucking quit the scams, dude. Not buying any of it.

You mean reality. You want us to quit reality, because you aren't buying it, because you have been brainwashed by your cult leader.
And brainwashed so well, you refuse to accept reality.

No, it's about reprogramming me for your cult.

No, it is about you rejecting the programming of your cult, and trying to think for once.
I know, thinking is hard, and you are used to other people doing your thinking for you. But try it.

But while we're on that subject, several comets or meteors were predicted that never came.

Care to provide any examples?

So basically there was a big scare about a 2% chance of hitting, then they're like "Oh, nope, not gonna hit."

No. There was a brief period of concern. Like "Oh, this might hit us, we should investigate more".
No where in that quote did it say there was a big scare.

Scientists also admit that they can't accurately predict meteor showers.

Now try reading and understanding honestly.
And recognising the difference between a meteor shower, and a comet visible in the sky.

Meanwhile, you use plate tectonics models that depend on RE depictions of Earth. Yet they can't predict a single earthquake!

And that isn't surprising at all.
Yet again, you are using smoke and mirrors.

That's your failing, not mine.

Nope, it is entirely your failing.
You are yet to present a single coherent explanation which actually works.
You provide multiple different contradictory explanations, none of which actually work.

If you had an explanation you would provide it, but because you don't you just yet again appeal to vague crap.

Objects in motion, as a condition of motion encounter friction (your perfect frictionless space doesn't exist).

Not simply objects in motion.
Objects in motion relative to a something else, in some kind of contact with that something else.

If Earth really did orbit and rotate around the sun, we should see the Earth break down, which it doesn't do.

Why, and how?
Instead of just asserting vague crap try to explain it.
Then explain why this isn't happening with the sun in your fantasy.

It's simple. It's a miracle.

i.e. yet again you appeal to pure magic, because you have no actual explanation.
Your model relies upon magic.
Why would any sane person accept a model that needs magic over a model that needs no magic and just works?

So then, what exactly we are talking about is a consistently perpetual source of energy

No, that is just your fantasy.

There is no such thing as no friction in space

Which means there is nothing to slow you down, so you don't need to provide any extra energy to keep moving.

You mention a pier which you can clearly draw a line that looks only a few inches from the horizon.

And that tells me it does not go to the horizon.
But that doesn't stop you lying about it to pretend the RE model is wrong.

But the horizon isn't a distance.

No, the horizon is not a distance, but there is a distance to the horizon.
This is shown with how it obstructs the view to objects beyond the horizon.

because the longer the focal length, the farther away the horizon expands.

No, it doesn't matter what focal length. The horizon remains the same distance away.
Objects beyond the horizon that are low enough remain out of view regardless of what focal length or zoom you use.

That's your failing, not mine.
You assume that the sun in a real object that blows up and then shrinks like crazy.

The sun that gives me sunburns and I’ve seen rise in the east from Japan is real.  The big orb in the sky called the sun emitting radiation and charged particles that drives the Aurora Borealis.

Rather than an abstract object that changes angle. The sun indeed does change in size some, but over 12 hours, it appears to only move with a small area because of perspective.

Meaningless babbling.

From my thread, “ The Size of the Sun the Past Few Days - No Proof Dimensions Shrinks”

Just the filtered stuff..

Yesterday April 11, before sunset where the sun set at 8:23

Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter



Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter



Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter



After sunrise today.  April 12.  Sunrise was at    7:16 am

Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter



Today. April 12.  Later in the morning.


Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter


Today. April 12. Close to sun straight overhead.


Canon 50mm lens, camera body adapter ring, ND100000 filter.

 The sun most definitely and provenly doesn’t change size that can be discernible to the human eye.

If you want to invoke vanishing point, the sun needs to shrink in size all afternoon like this ball rolled down the hall. 



Where it’s been shown the sun gets physically blocked from view.



Similar to this ball being blocked from view by the wall.




 

More like your oh-so-sensitive measurement instruments are about as sophisticated as a crystal ball.

Vary real telescopes and comparing how the sky changes with recording the night sky and how the view changes.

Just as you can't predict storms well, you can't predict earthquakes well,

The prediction was good enough for comet Tsuchinshan-ATLAS that people like me were ready and able to capture imagines.  Where flat earth provided no forecast. 

A thread on my pictures.  “Not Great Pis of Comet Tsuchinshan-ATLAS, But They Are Mine.” https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92842.msg2433217#msg2433217

Not great pictures.  But my first effort.  The lens autofocus wouldn’t lock on the comet.  Had to do it manually.  I now understand why it’s best to use a wide angle lens when the comet is at it’s brightest.  Took the pics tonight. 85mm lens with a crop sensor.  Canon R100. Various exposures.






This pic below is probably my best one exposure. 


Still interesting to watch the comet hang there as it sets lower and lower to the horizon.

Unfortunately, lots of camera shake despite using a tripod when it got closer to the tree.




I guess I should have used my smartphone to activate the camera remotely.

The comet will be a little higher above the horizon each night.  But will get farther away and more faint each night. 

Moving forward, capturing decent photos will take longer exposures, and a good mount that will match earth’s rotation to keep the comet from turning into a light trail / streak.  The comet in the longer exposure is streaked.

We know that that comets when they enter atmosphere burn up. 

Comets are more like dirty snowballs that usually orbit the solar system.  Where a comet hit Jupiter around 1993 and caused wide spread chaos in Jupiter’s atmosphere that was observed for years.

Meteorites are what usually enter earth’s atmosphere that are mostly comprised of rock and metals.  Explaining why comets have tails when they go around the sun and the rocks float around the solar system don’t degas to produce comet like tails.


Where not all meteorites completely burn up in the atmosphere and sometimes hit earth.

No, you have no honor.

I’m actually going out and presenting data from the real world.  Bulma, you steel other people’s cartoons to cling to a fantasy.

Bulma, you done running from the failures of flat earth.  Care to actually address some of flat earth’s glaring failures.

Now explain how stupidly invoking vanishing point to explain a sunset where the sun stays a consistent dimension throughout the day killing flat earth.


You need to realize the flat earth model totally fails to predict the path of the sun where the sun needs to travel north / south over areas of the world like Japan, killing flat earth.

Flat earth is useless to me.  Where flat earth can’t even accurately predict the path of the sun.

That's your failing, not mine.

 Actually.  If a person was lost at sea, and tried to apply a flat earth sun orbit to give a clue what direction they should go.  It would be meaningless.  Understanding how the sun works in the heliocentric model gives a lost person a chance to navigate in some meaningful way. 

Actually, they would quite easily be able to find their way.

"The sun rises in the east, and  sets in the west."

This means at noon, the sun is a bit to the north. As your own flatearth.ws admitted.

                          N
                          !!
W==========+=============E
                          !!
                          S

Using the arc of the sun, if you want to go north, you head 90 degrees from the sun at sunrise and sunset. And directly towards the sun at noon. If you want to go west, you head toward the sun at sunset. If you want to go east, you head toward the sun at sunrise. If you want to head south, you travel away from the sun.

Or you can do this, which requires you wait twenty minutes, and have a stick and a rock at sea. Seems more likely that you'd have a compass. But it at least gives a watch method.
https://www.wikihow.com/Find-True-North-Without-a-Compass

More importantly, you can find directions with the North Star and Southern Cross. Almost as though God appointed ways for you to find yourself, so you wouldn't remain lost.

Meanwhile, in an orbiting, spinning, wobbling Earth trailing the sun, there is no way to trust any navigation, because the Earth constantly shifts position in regard to other celestial objects. You are the one who probably got everyone lost at sea to begin with.

"The sun rises in the east, and  sets in the west."

Now.  Draw on a flat earth map how the sun can travel east to west for Japan, Asia, Europe, North America without turning as required by the flat earth model.  The sun literally would have to travel various directions other than east and west for various parts of the world on a flat earth with the sun circling above. So, the sun over Japan wouldn’t travel east to west, and would visibly turn during the day.   Flat earth fails to accurately predict the path of the sun.  Where the sun is always in the line of sight and wouldn’t set.  Debunking flat earth is that simple. 

ss

More importantly, you can find directions with the North Star and Southern Cross.

The southern cross has been posted about, and the celestial South Pole.  Flat earthers just babbled incoherently and abandoned the line of argument.

Quote from: turbonium2 on March 14, 2025, 09:20:00 PM

But why let facts bother your little fairy tale rubbish!

And yet you ignore the very real dip of the horizon.  The horizon vs vanishing point.

Dip of the horizon



Vanishing Point




Where flat earth doesn’t explain why a south celestial pole means something for our earth.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on December 16, 2024, 01:42:08 AM

Care to draw out how people in Australia, Africa, and South America can look south and see the constellation Southern Cross?  Where the Southern Cross can be a navigational aid to find south? Find the southern celestial pole. 



And not this..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 22, 2024, 01:43:38 PM

Quote from: WISHTOLAUGH on March 22, 2024, 01:18:43 PM

No one uses Sigma Octatntis to navigate to the supposed south pole.

I've ignored nothing, but I am going to start now by ignoring your stupid bullshit.

??

You keep trying to change the subject with basically lying how navigation in the southern hemisphere works with a sextant.  It’s not based off the celestial South Pole for the southern hemisphere where Polaris isn’t visible because of the earth’s curvature? 

How to find the celestial South Pole makes sense on a globe / sphere.






The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth

Actually, they would quite easily be able to find their way.

"The sun rises in the east, and  sets in the west."

No, it doesn't much of the time. The direction of sunrise or sunset varies quite a bit depending on the time of year and even more depending on how far you are from the equator - at the equator it varies from a bit more than 23° N or S of the equator, depending on the date. At the Arctic or Antarctic circle, sunrise and sunset can be anywhere from due north to due south, and both sunrise and sunset are very nearly the same direction (north or south) near the solstices. Near the equinoxes, sunrises and sunsets will be close to due east and due west from almost all locations on earth except for very high northern or southern latitudes.

This means at noon, the sun is a bit to the north.

Quote

This is problematic. In order to know when it's local solar noon you need to know time accurately and also know your longitude and the equation of time for the date (I presume you know the date). Whether the sun is north or south of you depends on your longitude; if you're north of the sun's declination the sun will be south of you at solar noon, if you're south of the sun, it will be north of you. If your latitude is equal to the declination of the sun for that date you cannot tell the direction of north from its position because the sun will be at zenith at local solar noon.

Using the arc of the sun, if you want to go north, you head 90 degrees from the sun at sunrise and sunset. And directly towards the sun at noon. If you want to go west, you head toward the sun at sunset. If you want to go east, you head toward the sun at sunrise. If you want to head south, you travel away from the sun.

As we've seen, this advice will seldom be very accurate and could lead you very far astray.

Or you can do this, which requires you wait twenty minutes, and have a stick and a rock at sea. Seems more likely that you'd have a compass. But it at least gives a watch method.
https://www.wikihow.com/Find-True-North-Without-a-Compass

More importantly, you can find directions with the North Star and Southern Cross. Almost as though God appointed ways for you to find yourself, so you wouldn't remain lost.

Assuming that 1) the sky is clear and 2) you can see and identify Polaris, or see both Crux and the Southern Pointers. As you get closer to the equator both of these become less reliable.

Meanwhile, in an orbiting, spinning, wobbling Earth trailing the sun, there is no way to trust any navigation, because the Earth constantly shifts position in regard to other celestial objects.

Bullshit. Orbiting and spinning are why we need to know date and time for celestial navigation to work. By "wobbling", presumably you mean precession of the equinoxes, which is slow enough that it's not a significant factor over several human lifetimes for basic direction finding. "Trailing the sun" is meaningless - the earth doesn't "trail the sun" - it orbits around it in a plane - and the speed of the sun relative to other stars we can see is so small that this won't make any difference over millennia. Celestial navigation on the orbiting, spinning and even precessing earth works just fine.

You are the one who probably got everyone lost at sea to begin with.

Not if they know what they're doing. Your suggestions are the recipe for disaster.

Actually, they would quite easily be able to find their way.

"The sun rises in the east, and  sets in the west."

This means at noon, the sun is a bit to the north. As your own flatearth.ws admitted.

                          N
                          !!
W==========+=============E
                          !!
                          S

Using the arc of the sun, if you want to go north, you head 90 degrees from the sun at sunrise and sunset. And directly towards the sun at noon. If you want to go west, you head toward the sun at sunset. If you want to go east, you head toward the sun at sunrise. If you want to head south, you travel away from the sun.

Or you can do this, which requires you wait twenty minutes, and have a stick and a rock at sea. Seems more likely that you'd have a compass. But it at least gives a watch method.
https://www.wikihow.com/Find-True-North-Without-a-Compass

Which has the issue of how they determine what that time is, to find that "noon", making sure it is solar noon rather than just the legal time of noon.
And also knowing if the sun would be north or south.

Sunrise and sunset are only east and west on the equinox. And that is something your steaming pile of crap can't explain at all.

The stick method requires a stable platform on level ground. So also quite useless at sea.

You then have the far more important issue of them still going in the wrong direction because your map is wrong.

More importantly, you can find directions with the North Star and Southern Cross.

You mean how we have 2 celestial poles clearly showing the FE model is wrong?

A FE cannot have something in the sky pointing north and something in the sky pointing south.
e.g. you can have the north star to point north.
But then the southern cross wont point south for everyone.
It will point south for those on a line connecting the direction it is pointing to to the north, but for those east or west of it it will not be pointing south for them.

Again, basic geometry.

Meanwhile, in an orbiting, spinning, wobbling Earth trailing the sun, there is no way to trust any navigation, because the Earth constantly shifts position in regard to other celestial objects. You are the one who probably got everyone lost at sea to begin with.

You mean in your delusional fantasy.
Whereas back in reality, the relative angular motion is so slow you can rely upon it for hundreds of years, but the north pole star does change and has changed.

Once again exploring how little you understand of FE, while at the same time downplaying that this doesn't work on RE.

The Earth is spiraling around the sun, so the same stars will not be visible all year long. Some times of the year, that pattern of stars will be in the southern hemisphere, and sometimes the Earth spirals above the sun.



Regarding these people looking in different directions, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the skyline rather than the Earth moves?

Once again exploring how little you understand of FE, while at the same time downplaying that this doesn't work on RE.

There you go projecting again.

Again, this doesn't work on a flat Earth with the north pole at the centre and the south as a ring.
This is because there is no point that is due south for everyone.

And yet again lying about the RE.

The Earth is spiraling around the sun, so the same stars will not be visible all year long. Some times of the year, that pattern of stars will be in the southern hemisphere, and sometimes the Earth spirals above the sun.

Yet again you demonstrate either a complete lack of understanding, or you are intentionally lying to everyone.

Just what do you think is "up" in this case?
In this case, south is to the left in that image.

The stars in the south, including the southern cross, remain visible all year long, for those south enough to see them.
It is the stars which rise due east and set due west, and close to it, that change visibility.

Regarding these people looking in different directions, has it ever occurred to you that maybe the skyline rather than the Earth moves?

Has it ever occurred to you that these arguments aren't really about the motion at all, but instead about the shape of Earth?
Has it ever occurred to you that if you are going based upon visual observations, you cannot tell which is moving?

Even if you want to pretend it needs Earth to be fixed in place with the sky moving around us, it still doesn't work in your flat fantasy.

has it ever occurred to you that maybe the skyline rather than the Earth moves?

It has nothing to do with how people in the southern hemisphere can look south and be looking at the same direction to the same celestial South Pole.

Done derailing from the last line of argument more on topic of this thread.

Now.  Draw on a flat earth map how the sun can travel east to west for Japan, Asia, Europe, North America without turning as required by the flat earth model.  The sun literally would have to travel various directions other than east and west for various parts of the world on a flat earth with the sun circling above. So, the sun over Japan wouldn’t travel east to west, and would visibly turn during the day.   Flat earth fails to accurately predict the path of the sun.  Where the sun is always in the line of sight and wouldn’t set.  Debunking flat earth is that simple.

The stars are really really really far away.
Like really.

You ever play mario onnintendo?


The foreground mves faster than the back ground.
Giving thebillusion of depth.


Far things appear to move slow because the angular change is very small.




Moron.




Ever notice far away hills take a long time to pass?


Idiot

The stars in the south, including the southern cross, remain visible all year long, for those south enough to see them. It is the stars which rise due east and set due west, and close to it, that change visibility.

Exactly. All year.

Which is impossible for any "planet" that actually moves. However if the stars, sun, and moon orbit the Earth in a fixed path ordained by God...

• It is possible for astronomers (I am not an astronomer, so don't ask) to predict eclipses. The Sargos cycle established that it was millennia ago.
• It is possible for astronomers to predict the motion of things like Haley's Comet. We can.
• It is possible for astronomers to predict the sun's motion throughout the year. This is so, which is why we have a solstice and equinox.
• It is possible to order time according to days, weeks, months, and years. Yep.
• It is possible for non-astronomers to notice that all year long, we have the same patterns of constellations. As you yourself have said, the Southern Cross remains there all year long
  
• It is possible for non-astronomers to notice that the sun can be used as a crude compass.

The sun generally rises in the east and sets in the west, but this is only true on the spring and fall equinoxes. Throughout the year, its rising and setting points shift slightly north or south depending on the season.

In particular, the sun moves from the tropics (during the solstices) to the equator (during the equinoxes).

So yes, you can use the sun  to determine which direction is what, and no, it does not matter what season it is to find north.

---

You ever play mario on nintendo?

The foreground moves faster than the back ground.

So all that criticism about cartoons, and now you cite Mario as a source?

Moron

Yes, that is correct. You are a moron.

Smart people play Zelda.

---

Draw on a flat earth map how the sun can travel east to west for Japan, Asia, Europe, North America without turning as required by the flat earth model

It's not turning. It's going in a straight line given the Earth is "round". As "round" as a pancake.

I've shown stuff like this before.

This picture stacks them visually for context.

Which is impossible for any "planet" that actually moves.

No, it's not. And you are yet to even come close to demonstrating why it would be impossible.
Instead you just repeatedly assert it.
All that you have claimed is possible in your delusional fantasy, is also possible in reality with a moving Earth.

If you live in a town with a far away mountain that is visible to the east, you can move all around that town and have the mountain still visible to the east.
But according to your delusional BS, that means you must be stationary, you couldn't possibly be moving.

It is pathetic garbage which fails to understand distance and scale.

But again, the important part here is not which one is moving.
The important part is the shape of Earth.
There is no way to have it work in your delusional fantasy.

Again, how does due south work in your delusional fantasy?
How does the southern cross allow people to find south in your delusional fantasy, from whenever they can see it?
Can you try drawing it out?

In particular, the sun moves from the tropics (during the solstices) to the equator (during the equinoxes).

In particular, the sun rises due east on the equinox, and south of east during the southern summer.
Something completely impossible in your delusional fantasy.

Trying drawing in the direction to the sun on the equinox at sunrise.
Show how it appears due east for everyone.
Just pick a single longitude, and show how all latitudes have the sun rise due east.

It's not turning. It's going in a straight line given the Earth is "round". As "round" as a pancake.

So your idea of a straight line is a circle?

I've shown stuff like this before.

Yes, you have provided crappy pictures which do not explain anything.

Meanwhile, I provided things like this, which clearly show the problem:


The black lines show the path of the subsolar point. The middle radius one is the equator, the path of the subsolar point on the equinox.
The orange line is a particular longitude which has been chosen for the demonstration.
We then consider 3 points on this longitude.
Then the red lines show the direction from the points to the subsolar point at sunrise.
The yellow lines show the direction from the points to the subsolar point at sunset.
We see all these lines are north of east or north of west.
They are not due east or due west like they need to be to match reality.
This shows how your model completely fails.
And you have no rational response.
Instead all you can provide is pathetic dismissal.

mario?
yes
because you seem to only understand cartoons.
because you're a moron.


but it does describe the illusion of recreating something we experience in real life.
just like perspective drawings converge to a point.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax_scrolling





Parallax scrolling is a technique in computer graphics where background images move past the camera more slowly than foreground images, creating an illusion of depth in a 2D scene of distance.[1] The technique grew out of the multiplane camera technique used in traditional animation[2] since the 1930s.




idiot.

Making Masonic secret symbols...



You happen to know this because you've toured the world by boat, right?

Oh wait... no, you're just kinda making this up.

---

I know about parallax scrolling. I make games, remember?
I created a fun picture of the sun rising and setting on a rotating Earth. You wanna see it?



In this picture, I made individual sun shots of the parallax. Then, I stop motioned it. I would have done the whole picture, but then the mountain would move.

While Nintendo makes parallax look good, it's actually fucking hard to do because there's a chance that a seam might appear.

The point of paralax was to descr8be to you why rhe star cconstellations dont change much thourghout the year..




Idiot



Not how good you are at computer games...


And you definitely not good at these avoidance games.
Your obvious avoidance is obvious.




Moron.

Making Masonic secret symbols...

Pathetic deflection to avoid simple reality that shows you are spouting pure BS and your model doesn't work.

You happen to know this because you've toured the world by boat, right?

No, this is simply a representation of the problem.
You can use any longitude and the problem remains, this is just one of the easiest to draw.

I know about parallax scrolling. I make games, remember?

And yet you still act like a complete moron that has no idea what you are talking about.

For example, if you truly understood that, you would understand that the further away something is, the less it appears to move as you move.

So if for example you had a star billions of lightyears away, it would not appear to move pretty much at all as Earth orbited the sun and the sun moved through the solar system.

But instead of admitting that, you act like a complete imbecile and spout pure BS.

I created a fun picture of the sun rising and setting on a rotating Earth. You wanna see it?

No, you didn't. Because you again you either have no idea what you are talking about or are intentionally lying to everyone.

And you are wrong on basically all accounts.
For starters you can ditch the mountains in the background, they don't help your case at all.
But this isn't the sun rising and setting, and do you have any idea what location on Earth this would correspond to and what time of year?

I do, from simple understanding.
Because the angle of elevation is not changing, it corresponds to the poles.
Because it is cut half way, it is roughly the equinox (refraction screws around with it when it is so close to the horizon).
And because it is going to the left, it is the south pole.

And guess what? This is what happens in reality at that location at that time.

But if you want to go to a different location, you need to understand what the angle of the rotation is compared to the ground.
You have drawn it perpendicular, which means it must be at the poles.
If you want to do it at the equator, it needs to be parallel. That would have the sun go vertically up until it gets to being overhead, and then it goes vertically down.

If you use something decent like PoVRay you can even simulate this and then combine the images together to make a gif.

And you can show what is expected on a flat Earth, which doesn't match what is observed on Earth.

How about you talk about how you don't know any other words for insulting people's intelligence but idiot and moron?

Neanderthal, troglodyte, nimrod, retard, dimwit, halfwit, dolt, numbskull, dunderhead, blockhead, ninny, dummkopf, cretin, imbecile, lamebrain, ignoramus, dullard, imbecile. People have called folks all sorts of names. But you only seem to know two, and are deluded enough to think that if you repeat them, I won't notice that you utterly lack creativity in the insults department.

For the record, I am awesome at computer games. So awesome in fact, that I am frankly insulted that you think I somehow wouldn't know what a parallax is.

It's a screen. When you're looking at the sky you're looking at a screen. A thing that moves only as an illusion.



You didn't even have the decency to talk about parallax scrolling, before parallax should have been possible.

Remember kids, the next time you see grass moving in real life, why, it's just a scanlines trick. 

If you know what paralax is then you know why it takes centuries for the constellations to change (not accounting for seasonal changes which seasonally revert)



Youre hopeless so i keep the insults simple.



Idiot.

Wrong.

The lie about viewing dead stars is just that.

We have a claim about the speed of light, which on Earth translates to "basically instant." Outside of that, we're told it's 186,282 miles per second. And then we have objects that are (supposedly) light years away.
But like your gravity and curvature, we have no evidence of this outside normal view. That is, if in Chicago, they switch streetlights on, from miles away viewing the skyline, you can see the change instantly. 
We're talking about another gaming term, latency. There should be some, if these objects are off sync. But no, this doesn't track with what we know of latency. In real world latency, if I tell it to show one object (like a blue ball) drop to the ground, then shatter, and then disappear, this would be an iteration of a program. Latency would be while it is falling, it stalls for awhile, then suddenly it catches up, and the falling and shattering might happen at normal rate, or it might skip some frames. By iteration, I mean the single run of the program. Contrary to the "glitch in the Matrix" scene with repeating cats, that's actually closer to the norm than the exception. Every time the program runs, the ball will drop and the cat does its routine. So when we talk about latency, if there really were a lag in the state or position of the star, you would need to outsource some part of the code. For example, telling the code to permanently delete the blue ball would result in a missing fall animation (ironically, because the shattering is a different picture, you would go from nothing falling to the image of a shattering ball spreading apart). In RpgMaker, you cannot make that sort of permanent change code, but you can in C++. This would mean that repeating night after night, when there's a dead star? Nope, "file not found!" You pretty much can't have latency for a file that is deleted. Well, I'd like to say that. But sometimes I send a file to Recycle Bin, and there's pesky backup memory, and I have to refresh. But that's a noticeable distinction. We claim time dilation, but this is the same thing as latency. Without an actual "storage" system, you would be looking at a program that can realistically only run as instructed once if you really do tell the program only to call an existing image, and then to really and truly delete it. So when a star goes through a nova animation, even if it is too lagged for us to see it, that star would no longer exist. We most definitely wouldn't see it night after night like an animation that's cued to play.

How about you talk about how you don't know any other words for insulting people's intelligence but idiot and moron?

I know plenty.
But that appears to be yet another pathetic distraction from your complete inability to defend your BS.

How about of trying to deflect, you try defending your BS?

For the record, I am awesome at computer games. So awesome in fact, that I am frankly insulted that you think I somehow wouldn't know what a parallax is.

So you are just intentionally and wilfully lying to us all?
Because that is the only alternative.

It's a screen. When you're looking at the sky you're looking at a screen. A thing that moves only as an illusion.

Do you mean a video game, or reality?
Because that illusion in the video game is to more closely match what is observed in reality.

The lie about viewing dead stars is just that.

No, it isn't.
It is something based upon mountains of evidence you choose to remain wilfully ignorant of so you can lie to everyone while pretending to be honest.

we have no evidence of this outside normal view

Except there are plenty of ways for you to measure the speed of light, which you choose not to.

Latency would be while it is falling, it stalls for awhile, then suddenly it catches up, and the falling and shattering might happen at normal rate

Wrong again.

That would be if the latency was variable.

But again, this is yet another pathetic deflection by you.

The real world is not confined by what YOU are capable of doing in a crappy video game engine.

I love that. "We have plenty of ways... you're just too lazy to do it."

Name one.

Hell, name all of them.

I do not believe you can do so.

Meanwhile, the speed of light was not discovered, it was decided. They explain the origin of the speed of light, and how they know it's exact.

The speed of light in vacuum, commonly denoted c, is a universal physical constant exactly equal to 299,792,458 metres per second

(...)

It is exact because, by international agreement, a metre is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of ¹/_299792458 second.

This is what is called a tautology. The unit a meter is defined as (by international agreement) is the length that light travels in ¹/_299792458 a second. Therefore, we know the rate of speed for light, as defined as the number of meters in a second. Except we don't know the speed of light, because it is based on the length of light traveling in a meter, and we cannot possibly see that fast. How do I know that? Because in animation, you need filler frames, because the eye can see that 30 frames per second is slightly less smooth than 60 frames per second, but practically nobody does 120 frames per second, as the smoothness stops being visible and creates a diminishing return. So maybe ¹/₉₀ is about the limit our eyes notice. Now, a machine may spit that out, but as far as verifying it is concerned, this is garbage data.
 So this decided number was decided because Freemasons saw that it was a big exact looking number with a lot of auspicious numbers that probably adheres to this.
https://symbolsarchive.com/number-symbols/
They like to pass little messages to each other, then chuckle about it in their lodge rooms as they wear ridiculous clothes.

---

A parallax is a screen both in reality and a video game. The video game thing was named after the reality. In particular, mountain scenes with good parallax make or break games. It is that elusive view near the horizon that can't be touched. And then sometimes the game has you in the course of the journey go there. Other times, it's a parallax of the sky. Sea of Storms has layers of moving parallax, and one of its gimmicks is the night and day shifting.

 "It would be if latency was variable." I'm sure when you talk like that around your parents or in a classroom, people tell you how brilliant you sound. But it's unlikely to impress me.
Latency has certain rules. If I play a game that I know  will lag my older computer (Genshin Impact is kinda at that limit) and then I replay it after deleting sound or video resources (unfortunately, modern games tend not to have these out in the open, unlike RpgMaker stuff), the game might even run with less lag. But when it gets to that missing resource, it does one of two things:
1. It crashes.
2. It runs without the missing images or sounds.
In RpgMaker, the first one tend to be the case for images, but for sounds, they sometimes just play silence.

I do not believe you can do so.

Meanwhile, the speed of light was not discovered, it was decided..

Try actually observing the solar systems

Bulma, why do you post stupid things?

Again, since AI is your buddy.



I added to my thread “ The Size of the Sun the Past Few Days - No Proof Dimensions Shrinks”
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=93094.0


All things that can be honestly observed and documented concerning the suns shows it acts nothing like what is required for a flat earth. 

 

Name one.

A modern one is fiber optic data transmission

There is nothing in the nature of using light through fiber optic cable that light travels instantly..



And that leads to the obvious that light travers at different speeds through different media.

I don’t post this lightly Bulma.  Either you are right out stupid Bulma, or your right out lie.  Blatantly lie.  Knowingly lie.  Right out troll. 

Another modern one that came to mind is the time it takes for satellite internet to send up to a satellite and back to a ground station.



Bulma, killing flat earth with stupidity.  Or just being a lying troll. 

I love that. "We have plenty of ways... you're just too lazy to do it."

Name one.

Hell, name all of them.

There are so many it would be virtually impossible to name all of them.

One simple method would be using highly precise electronics with a very long spool of fibre optic cable.
Send a light pulse along it and measure how long it takes to get the signal back.
If light travels instantaneously, there would be no delay.

Another option would be one of the earlier methods:
Find a nice large open area, you could even go across a small lake.
On one side, you have a light shining up into a mirror to go towards the other side, right after the mirror there is a rotating plate with holes cut out. Then across the other side, there is another mirror to reflect the light back and back through the same plate but through another slit, where you then have an eye-piece to view it.
With the plate stationary, you can see the light through the eye-piece.
But when you start spinning it, your ability to see the light depends on the speed of the disc.
If light travelled instantaneously you would be able to see it every time the disc lined up. But because it isn't, you need the slight to line up with the light coming back after passing through the first slit.
But varying the rotational speed of the disc you can determine the speed of light.

You have things like diffraction gratings, which cause light to change direction, with different colours being diffracted by different amounts, which again relies upon the speed of light and the wavelength of light. Refraction is similar. Both of these make absolutely no sense with light being instantaneous.

You are just spouting delusional BS to pretend there is a problem.

And what makes it even more pathetic, is that this doesn't help you at all.

For what we are discussing, who cares if light is instantaneous or not? Having it instant doesn't magically bring things closer.
It doesn't magically explain why the sun sets.
It doesn't magically explain how the sun could ever possibly illuminate a cloud from below when it is above.
It doesn't magically explain how the sun could ever rise due east on the equinox instead of north east like your garbage indicates it should.
It doesn't magically explain how a sun, which is to the north of you, could ever rise south of east.

It doesn't help your BS at all.

Your BS model remains refuted BS, regardless of if light is instantaneous or not; and the RE model remains working just fine.

It is just an absolutely pathetic deflection from a pathetic individual who can't justify or defend their delusional BS.

Meanwhile, the speed of light was not discovered, it was decided. They explain the origin of the speed of light, and how they know it's exact.

You have had that lie refuted before. Why repeat it?

The speed of light was measured.
Then to stop having a metal bar in a vault in France be the definition of the metre, they switched it around, so now the speed of light is the definition of the metre.
This allows any lab with the right equipment to use light to determine the length of a m.
This still relies upon the speed of light actually being that speed.
If the speed of light was different, then all lengths would be different.
e.g. if the speed of light was double what it actually is, then all rulers would need to double in length to remain accurate.

How do I know that? Because in animation

How do I know you are spouting pure BS?
Because you keep pretending life is a video game with all the same limitations of it.

A parallax is a screen both in reality and a video game.

No.
In reality, parallax is the change in angle to an object in the distance due to a distance between observation points.
e.g. if you have a house that is 100 m wide, and you look towards a mountain n the distance, you can have the parallax as the change in angle between the 2 view points.
And importantly, the further away something is, the smaller that angle.

It has nothing to do with screens.

Parallax in games, is about recreating that.
Old games did it with different layers that moved at different speeds; to recreate that key fact above, that the further away something is, the smaller the parallax angle.
Modern games do it by rendering in 3D.

"It would be if latency was variable." I'm sure when you talk like that around your parents or in a classroom, people tell you how brilliant you sound. But it's unlikely to impress me.

Nothing intelligent would ever impress you.
Instead, you are impressed by stupidity and lies like those of your cult leader.

But notice how you again appeal to complete crap, with no response to what I have said?

Do you even understand what latency is and what it would mean?

It is a time delay between the message being sent and the message being received.

Considering you only seem to understand games, lets say you are playing a game, and someone far away is playing with you, and you are the host.

In this particular part of a game, you just need to run down a corridor, as soon as a light goes green at the end.

Now lets assume there is a fixed latency of 1 second between you. i.e. all the messages (including the internal messages of the game to send things like position) you send will take 1 second to reach them and the ones they send will take 1 second to reach you.
You decide to spectate them in this corridor.
You see the light go green, but they just stay there waiting.
That is because they haven't seen it yet, it is still on the way.
Then 1 second, they see it and start moving. But you don't see that yet, because it takes 1 s for that message that they are moving to reach you.
Then 1 second later you seem them walk the corridor just like normal and reach the end.
You see what they are doing 1 second later. But it remains smooth.

Now lets say the latency varies, i.e. it is not a constant 1 second.
So now lets say the latency starts off as 0.1 second. So they start moving 0.2 seconds after the light goes on, but then latency increases to 1 second, so they appear to pause for almost a second and then start moving again, then the latency drops to 0.1 second again, and they appear to jump forward a bunch, as if they moved that 0.9 s distance in 0 seconds.

What you are appealing to is the effect of latency varying.
So it doesn't apply to something like the speed of light at a near constant distance.


i.e. you are spouting pure BS to pretend there is a problem when there is none.

Latency has certain rules. If I play a game that I know  will lag my older computer

Except that isn't latency, not the kind that is important here.
That is your computer taking too long to process things.

e.g. if you are meant to be able to do all the math for it in a 30th of a second, but your crappy computer takes a 20th of a second, meaning you can only get 20 fps.
That has nothign at all to do with the speed of light and is not comparable to it in any way.