Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Protip: "How?"

Context.

Meanwhile, time moved on, and Eric Dubay is using a zoom camera to bring a set sun back into view (for a few more minutes).

How.  The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.



Where the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun from view at sunset.

Where the sun doesn’t visibly change apparent size and shrink in apparent size all afternoon to invoke vanishing point for sunset.

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

This means there is a clear way to fake such a picture.

Can you explain the very real and measurable dip of the horizon Bulma?  Proving spherical earth.  Without sounding like an idiot, without contradicting your other debunked lies, and without derailing the thread. 

Visually, this is what it appears to do.

Not visually, phsyically.
These ancient FE models had the sun physically go below Earth so Earth blocked the view.
No need for any of your convoluted BS.

Eric Dubay is using a zoom camera to bring a set sun back into view (for a few more minutes).

Pure BS.
Notice how you again just assert crap with no evidence of it at all?

by moving the sun to the position you want.

No, by having Earth rotate.
It doesn't just happen whenever you want.

A third time.

A third time (probably more) do you notice how you have just provided a completely useless diagram that explains nothing and does absolutely nothing to address the multitude of problems with your parabola BS?

No special moving of the sun required.

No, just pure magic to magically project the sun to wherever it is needed to match the results expected for a RE.

The RE doesn't need any special BS like that.

Is it that the parabola is stupid, or you are?

Still the parabola, because you still don't explain it.

As even kindergarten kids know, you can't look infinitely ahead because the sky (not the curvature) descends into the horizon, just as the ground ascends into the horizon.

You might have been stupid enough to think that, but sane people don't.
The sky is not descending into the horizon.

It is merely that a point at a given altitude that is above you will appear lower if it is a greater distance away.
Simple geometry.
No need for any of your convoluted BS.

This doesn't magically limit our vision.

can see 90° worth of angles...

Yes, angles. Not magic distance.

The further away the sun

The smaller it would appear.
The fact it doesn't change angular size by any noticeable amount shows it is not getting significantly further away.

And yet again you decide to switch from your parabola BS back to perspective.

You can also try this with objects that are much closer where you can measure the distances, and see that it does just work based upon simple geometry, without any of your convoluted BS.

Actually, it sorta does work in a way that involves justifying FE.

No, it doesn't. Just look at what you have done yet again. You can't address the issue at hand to defend FE, so you need to spout crap about other aspects of RE to pretend there is a problem.

So if the Earth is constantly moving, either the clouds are at perfect pace with Earth's rotation (which is to say, they appear not to move at all, making no difference from the Earth not moving at all).
Or the Earth is moving in a specific direction, and clouds in the sky would trail behind it, lagging behind in the opposite direction. But clouds move in literally every direction.

Or, the clouds generally keep pace with Earth, but can move around in all directions relative to Earth.
Just like when you are on a plane, you generally keep pace with the plane, but can move all around.

You are spouting pure BS again.

Horizon is even with eye level not the actual elevation.

No it is not.
This has been demonstrated countless times.
You wilfully rejecting reality is not answering. It is demonstrating wilful ignorance and lack of integrity.

This means there is a clear way to fake such a picture.

Then why don't you demonstrate this fakery, rather than just asserting crap which doesn't work?
You aren't just using one bit of level water, you are using 2, to construct a level line to show where that eye level is.

We can actually stop right here. This is begging the question.

No, it isn't.
It is providing an explanation, not a question.
It is saying what is happening for a round Earth.

The picture above shows real vanishing point and horizon.

And importantly, THEY ARE DIFFERENT!

Meanwhile, that picture they display has lines drawn beyond normal vanishing point, which is always at the horizon.

No, that is far closer to begging the question than what you called out.
But it is more circular reasoning and just wilful rejection of reality.
You baselessly assert the vanishing point is the horizon, to dismiss these pictures which show quite clearly that the vanishing point is NOT the horizon.

Do you know an easy way to find the vanishing point in a picture? Find a series of lines in the photo which are parallel lines in reality, and extend them until they cross. Where they cross is the vanishing point.
To find those for "eye level" you want those lines to be horizontal.

So what they have done there is drawn in the vanishing point.
You not liking it because it doesn't match your delusional fantasy doesn't change that.
The fact is you are wrong. The vanishing point is not the horizon.

The second and fourth picture appear to have a superimposed building over a skyline at a lower level.

Again, entirely circular reasoning.
On what basis do you claim this?
The fact it shows you are wrong?
It shows you are wrong so you assert it is fake.

Fisheye lens and superimposed object in "space"

So more pathetic dismissal with no answers.

Curved water using the spherize effect. We've  dealt with this one.

Yes, we have dealt with this one, showing how you just pathetically lie about it.
There is no evidence of any effect being used.
You simply dismiss it as that because it shows what you don't want.
You cannot justify how simple linear transformations could result in the effect seen here.
And more stupidly you still fail to accept the fact that in even in your delusional fantasy the horizon is a circle - the only difference is how far below it is.
e.g. if you are standing with your eyes 2 m above the water, then the horizon will be a circle roughly 5 km in diameter, and a distance of 4 below your eyes, or in your delusional fantasy it would be 2 m below your eyes.

Superimposed object on fisheye lens picture.

i.e. more pathetic dismisal.

No, we don't know the Earth is a sphere

Because you choose to remain wilfully ignorant.
Sane people do know.
From plenty of different things.
Including the fact that the horizon does not rise to eye level.

Baselessly asserting that it always rises to eye level, when you have literally nothing to support that baseless assertion, is entirely useless; and just demonstrates the very behaviour your are pretending to call out.

If you want to reject the images, go get your own to provide as a counter.

The picture above shows real vanishing point and horizon.

Ok.  We can use one of your posts.

Sorry.  Something on the page is causing it to load funny.  So using a screenshot instead.

It’s from your post on this page.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2438608#msg2438608



Bulma.  Do you understand that buildings don’t look like that?

Anyway..

Do you understand if the earth was flat, you should see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  Even your own pictures show less and less of Chicago with distance. 

Where you where repeatedly lying in posts by using driving distance and not using line of sight distance over the lake. 

Bulma, your the worst thing to happen to FE.  Are you a government plant to make FE look stupid.  Or is flat earth stupid.

Oh stop it.

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

"The sun is in line of sight in this picture, what's to stop us seeing it?"
"Flat Earth would let you see forever."
"We can't see that far! This image must be a lie!"

The Earth is flat AND you can't see forever. You can however see farther than projected with your curvature theory, because there is no 8 in per mile curve or whatever. You can't see forever because of vanishing point, but "mirages" like these are real.

Now about that image, you tell me with your no pincushion or barrel distirtion that you say is proof there is not parabola. But look! Similar to a funhouse mirror, you have the sky curving what you see in the distance.

Stop lying and fix to one idea or other.

What's it gonna be?

1. You can't see forever so this picture is a fake? Fine! The sun can't be millions of miles away!
2. You can see forever on a flat Earth? Fine, I contend this picture is real and proves the distortion you've been worried about.

So?

No more waffling back and forth. As recent as two posts ago you contradicted yourself. Time for you to make sense.

"We can't see that far! This image must be a lie!"

You are the one saying that.

The Earth is flat AND you can't see forever.

You keep saying this, but you have literally nothing to support it.
Meanwhile, there is plenty going against it.

You can however see farther than projected with your curvature theory

Again, you assert this, but are yet to provide a single example.

You can't see forever because of vanishing point, but "mirages" like these are real.

Yet as plenty of examples have shown, the vanishing point is NOT the horizon.
As basic geometry shows, the vanishing point is not some magical limit to vision.
It is infinitely far away.
The best you get from appealing to that is things being too small to resolve.

But look! Similar to a funhouse mirror, you have the sky curving what you see in the distance.

The sky does not curve things we see in the distance.

Instead they appear to sink into Earth.
Nothing like what your crap indicates.

No more waffling back and forth. As recent as two posts ago you contradicted yourself. Time for you to make sense.

Says the one that can't even be consistent on deciding if perspective or a magic parabola causes the sun to set.

You are the one saying that.

Actually when I said we could see a decent view on occasion from 50 miles, you never let go that I once said 100 miles and harped on that while showing subpar shots.

You keep saying this, but you have literally nothing to support it.
Meanwhile, there is plenty going against it.

You can literally go outside an look at a line of trees diminishing, and explain yourself (were you honest) why seeing forever on a flat Earth doesn't work. Instead you resort to trick photography.

Again, you assert this, but are yet to provide a single example.

You claimed my examples weren't real and replaced them with shoddy substitutes.

Yet as plenty of examples have shown, the vanishing point is NOT the horizon.

They are the same thing.

The vanishing point is a specific point on the horizon line where parallel lines appear to converge in perspective drawing, while the horizon line represents the viewer's eye level and separates the ground from the sky. Both are essential for creating depth and realism in art, with the vanishing point always located on the horizon line.

If the vanishing point is above the horizon (as it is in RE pictures) then you have done something to distort perspective.

The sky does not curve things we see in the distance.

Instead they appear to sink into Earth.
Nothing like what your crap indicates.

Do you notice how that building is in midair? Weren't you the one who pointed it out? That doesn't appear to be sinking. Rather it appears cut off by the atmosphere itself.

Says the one that can't even be consistent on deciding if perspective or a magic parabola causes the sun to set.

Yes.

Should I draw how lines of vanishing point relate to the parabola?
Will that make you understand?

Oh stop it.

Stop what.

You’re the one that is changing the subject.

Dip of the horizon is real and measurable where your own post uses a picture demonstrating earth’s curvature blocking the bottom of tall buildings in Chicago.  And the complete blocking of small structures and trees.

Where for a flat earth the sun circles overhead, the sun would have to visibly turn in its path like a race car going around a circular track.  Where the sun would have to travel north south for large areas of earth which is problematic especially on the equinox where the sun rises due east and sets due west.

Where the sun would have to change distance from a viewer throughout the day so flat earth requires the sun to change apparent size, but doesn’t.  Especially if you want to invoke vanishing point for a sunset that requires the sun to shrink in apparent size all afternoon, but doesn’t.

It’s that easy to debunk flat earth.  FE is useless at accurately predicting the course of the sun throughout the day and over time. 

Actually

You lied about distances for the pictures you used to make a word salad and lies in your favor.

Again.  Address what was actually posted.

The picture above shows real vanishing point and horizon.

Ok.  We can use one of your posts.

Sorry.  Something on the page is causing it to load funny.  So using a screenshot instead.

It’s from your post on this page.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2438608#msg2438608



Bulma.  Do you understand that buildings don’t look like that?

Anyway..

Do you understand if the earth was flat, you should see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  Even your own pictures show less and less of Chicago with distance. 

Where you where repeatedly lying in posts by using driving distance and not using line of sight distance over the lake. 

Bulma, your the worst thing to happen to FE.  Are you a government plant to make FE look stupid.  Or is flat earth stupid.

Protip: "How?"

Context.

Meanwhile, time moved on, and Eric Dubay is using a zoom camera to bring a set sun back into view (for a few more minutes).

How.  The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.



Where the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun from view at sunset.

Where the sun doesn’t visibly change apparent size and shrink in apparent size all afternoon to invoke vanishing point for sunset.

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

This means there is a clear way to fake such a picture.

Can you explain the very real and measurable dip of the horizon Bulma?  Proving spherical earth.  Without sounding like an idiot, without contradicting your other debunked lies, and without derailing the thread.

I did, earlier.

It's like this. Your pictures, which show this "real and measurable dip" are the equivalent of me going  out to my front door, and down the stairs, taking a shot of a cornfield across the street (we're a town, but we're still rural), then going upstairs, taking a shot out the window, cutting out a layer, and claiming that this lower horizon is proof of curvature.  It's a fraud from start to finish. The horizon is actually at eye level, so the only way to change it is to manipulate where the real eye level is.

What we have instead of a dip is a convergence point. No, objects don't disappear bottom up. They shrink to a tiny point.

I can still see the base and sail of the boat. If this were really about disappearing we should see just the sail at around this point.

I did, earlier.

Except your own post demonstrates dip of the horizon..

Address what is actually posted and the piture you used.

It’s from your post on this page.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2438608#msg2438608



Bulma.  Do you understand that buildings don’t look like that?

Anyway..

Do you understand if the earth was flat, you should see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  Even your own pictures show less and less of Chicago with distance. 

Where you where repeatedly lying in posts by using driving distance and not using line of sight distance over the lake. 

No, objects don't disappear bottom up. They shrink to a tiny point.

Which would be a lie, and not how sunsets work at all.

The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.



Where the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun from view at sunset.

Where the sun doesn’t visibly change apparent size and shrink in apparent size all afternoon to invoke vanishing point for sunset.

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

This means there is a clear way to fake such a picture.

Can you explain the very real and measurable dip of the horizon Bulma?  Proving spherical earth.  Without sounding like an idiot, without contradicting your other debunked lies, and without derailing the thread. 

I did,

Which still has nothing to do with..

Where for a flat earth the sun circles overhead, the sun would have to visibly turn in its path like a race car going around a circular track.  Where the sun would have to travel north south for large areas of earth which is problematic especially on the equinox where the sun rises due east and sets due west.

Where the sun would have to change distance from a viewer throughout the day so flat earth requires the sun to change apparent size, but doesn’t.  Especially if you want to invoke vanishing point for a sunset that requires the sun to shrink in apparent size all afternoon, but doesn’t.

It’s that easy to debunk flat earth.  FE is useless at accurately predicting the course of the sun throughout the day and over time.

Actually when I said we could see a decent view on occasion from 50 miles, you never let go that I once said 100 miles and harped on that while showing subpar shots.

Firstly, that wasn't me.
More importantly, that was demonstrating you were lying about the distance involved.
In no way was it saying you can't see forever.

You can literally go outside an look at a line of trees diminishing

And importantly, look at the leaves. You can clearly make out the leaves of the very close by tree. But as it goes off into the distance, the leaves start to all blur together and you can see the canopy, and the tree, but not the individual leaves.
And as the trees go further off, they to begin to blur becoming too small for your eyes to resolve.
But then you pull out a pair of binoculars, and you can see that you can resolve leaves and trees further away, and you can see how the trees appear to sink as they go over the horizon.

This shows that it is not some magical distance limit.
Instead, it is a case of objects of particular sizes being resolvable from a certain distance away with certain optics.
This does not produce the horizon you need.

And to make it even worse, if you get a bright light, you can then see that from much further away even though you can't resolve it.

So no, that does not show you can't see forever.
It does not explain the horizon or sunsets and so on.

You claimed my examples weren't real and replaced them with shoddy substitutes.

What examples?
Where have you ever provided an example from a high altitude (or with great enough resolution) with something to indicate where eye level is?
I am yet to see a single example of that from you.
Instead you provide an image and just claim where eye level is with no basis.
And typically these images you provide are from quite low altitude.

They are the same thing.

Repeatedly asserting the same lie will not help you.
Appealing to AI and ignoring what it says will not help you.
Nor will appealing to AI to take it talking about perspective geometry and pretending that is what happens in reality.

e.g. try asking this:

in reality is the horizon at eye level

No, in reality, the horizon is always below eye level due to the curvature of the Earth

If the vanishing point is above the horizon (as it is in RE pictures) then you have done something to distort perspective.

Or your delusional BS is wrong, and Earth is round.

The simple fact is the horizon IS below eye level, it IS below the vanishing point for level parallel lines.
There is plenty to show this, and you have absolutely nothing to refute it.

Again, your argument is entirely circular.
You baselessly assert the horizon is at eye level and at the same level as the vanishing point.
To then dismiss photos clearly show that is not the case, to then conclude it is to pretend Earth is flat.

Do you notice how that building is in midair?

I noticed that the part of the photo right near the horizon is most distorted as would be expected.
That does not help you explain why the top of the building is lower than it should be.
That is not the sky curving anything.

Should I draw how lines of vanishing point relate to the parabola?
Will that make you understand?

You had already tried that and said it was different.

The simple fact, is you are appealing to vanishing point, that is things getting smaller as they move further away.
You can understand this with simple perspective geometry.
Mark your vanishing point.
Draw the sun at some close point.
Then draw straight lines from the vanishing point to be tangent to the sun.
Then as the sun moves away into the distance, it needs to stay between those lines.
And then throw in the basic geometry which actually dictates that to reality your sun would never set.

Your pictures ... cutting out a layer

No, they aren't.
You have absolutely no basis to assert this.
You are just desperate to reject reality so you make up whatever excuse you need.

What we have instead of a dip is a convergence point. No, objects don't disappear bottom up.

Yet there are countless examples showing them disappearing from the bottom up.
Including a near daily occurrence of the sun setting.
That is not the sun converging to a point.

Your own examples of the skylines with the bottom of the buildings missing, as if the entire city had sunk into Earth demonstrate this.

I can still see the base and sail of the boat. If this were really about disappearing we should see just the sail at around this point.

Why?
You take an example of a boat well in front of the horizon, a horizon which is difficult to see due to fog, and then just baselessly assert that it should magically be half hidden.

It being blocked from view by Earth as it goes over the horizon does not mean it magically wont shrink.

We are not saying perspective isn't real and things just sink into Earth as they get further away. We are saying it doesn't explain what is observed, of an object going beyond the horizon and appearing to sink into Earth, disappearing from the bottom up.

Why?
You take an example of a boat well in front of the horizon, a horizon which is difficult to see due to fog, and then just baselessly assert that it should magically be half hidden.

It being blocked from view by Earth as it goes over the horizon does not mean it magically wont shrink.

Why?
We can see from this picture what is really happening when observing multiple boats.

It is nothing more, nor has ever been anything more, than vanishing point perspective.

Now, I believe that I made you a promise.

Should I draw how lines of vanishing point relate to the parabola?

Why?

Because you ignore the dip of the horizon is a real thing.

Again.  Good thing you approve of AI.



Which leads to..

5. Horizon dip angle

https://www.mezzacotta.net/100proofs/archives/127

Let’s draw in where your sail boats are in context of horizon.



You think close sailboats are evidence are not evidence of the dip of the horizon.  Stupid argument.

Now…

I did, earlier.

Except your own post demonstrates dip of the horizon..

Address what is actually posted and the piture you used.

It’s from your post on this page.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2438608#msg2438608



Bulma.  Do you understand that buildings don’t look like that?

Anyway..

Do you understand if the earth was flat, you should see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  Even your own pictures show less and less of Chicago with distance. 

Where you where repeatedly lying in posts by using driving distance and not using line of sight distance over the lake. 

No, objects don't disappear bottom up. They shrink to a tiny point.

Which would be a lie, and not how sunsets work at all.

The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.



Where the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun from view at sunset.

Where the sun doesn’t visibly change apparent size and shrink in apparent size all afternoon to invoke vanishing point for sunset.

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

This means there is a clear way to fake such a picture.

Can you explain the very real and measurable dip of the horizon Bulma?  Proving spherical earth.  Without sounding like an idiot, without contradicting your other debunked lies, and without derailing the thread. 


Now.  More examples that the curvature blocks objects from view.

Part three.  Modern proof.

I came across this video.  I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.

Part four, the classic.  Ships disappearing bottom up.

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Quote

So.  There you go.

Proofs the earth is curved.  The Chicago skyline.  The 1901 take on the Bedford experiment published in British Association for the Advancement of Science.  The video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km” published on YouTube.  And the classic boats disappearing bottom up as a bonus to the video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”.  And in the video “Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon. Nikon Coolpix P900.”

Why does the sky look more cartoon than real?








The photographer kept up with a sailboat sailing from morning through sunset with the same boats as background?  With the same wave pattern in front of the closer sailboat? 


😂😂😂😂😂😂

To broke to even take the water mark off

Give it a rest.

It's a stock image.

I know it's a stock image. Our priority is the foreground not the background. The background could literally be anything.


Legit none of that affects the perspective of any of the boats.

What it isn't, is a CGI image, or some kinda of AI monstrosity where the ships have hands or wings.

And that's rich calling the sky cartoonish when most pictures of "space" look like snazzy CGI.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/07/24/sorry-internet-some-of-your-favorite-space-pictures-are-fakes/
And speaking of which, most pictures of satellites are fake too.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/3970/why-are-photos-of-satellites-most-often-computer-generated#3971
This is an open secret, but the rationale they claim for it is that satellites keep their distance from each other, not that the actual satellites always seem to have a red ribbon where a deflated helium balloon (oh I'm sorry, "parachute") dangles in midair.

Give it a rest.

Ok?

The below quote from you is totally wrong or a blatant lie by you.  And destroys anything of yours Bulma built on this lie. 

No, objects don't disappear bottom up. They shrink to a tiny point.

Which would be a lie, and not how sunsets work at all.

The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.



Where the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun from view at sunset.

We can see from this picture what is really happening when observing multiple boats.

We can see PART of what is happening.
Notice what that picture of yours lacks? Any boat close or past the horizon.

Again, we are not saying perspective isn't real. We are not saying objects do not take up a smaller angular size as they get further away.
We are saying that there are things in addition to that.

Showing a picture of a boat BEFORE the horizon does absolutely nothing to address why when they go past the horizon they disappear form the bottom up.

It is nothing more, nor has ever been anything more, than vanishing point perspective.

Except as shown by countless examples, including your own images.

Now, I believe that I made you a promise.

Quote

Should I draw how lines of vanishing point relate to the parabola?

And you have utterly failed to deliver.
Instead of even attempting an explanation, you have just provided another crappy diagram with lines drawn all over it with no explanation at all.

Do you know perhaps the biggest issue with your pathetic drawing?
You have tried to draw a side view of perspective.

This is what a vanishing point perspective looks like from an outwards view, i.e. from a view of a person looking outwards, where it applies:


This is what it looks like from a side view:


And this is the simple geometry behind it appearing to shrink:

Notice that the further away objects take up a smaller angle.
That gives them a smaller angular size.
Notice that your parabola isn't here at all?
Notice that the sun is not magically projecting onto a magical dome to magically produce the results expected for a FE?

This is why they are fundamentally incompatible.

Another big reason is the location of the vanishing point.
You have the vanishing point a finite distance away, at the edge of your magic parabola, some 3 archaic units away from the observer normally.
But the vanishing point is literally the point where parallel lines meet. That requires an infinite distance.


Even your explanation, when truly understood to be what you are trying to pretend, literally makes no sense.
You are trying to suggest the sun is magically lowered to the vanishing point and then below it.
This makes no sense at all.
In order to reach the vanishing point it needs to go an infinite distance. You can't go beyond that to get below.

Our priority is the foreground not the background. The background could literally be anything.

No, our priority is the horizon and objects near it.
Something your image doesn't address at all.

And speaking of which, most pictures of satellites are fake too.
This is an open secret

No, it is not a secret.
Try it more honestly. They are explicitly stated to be artist renditions.

But this is just yet another pathetic deflection from you.

Let's explain it slowly for those slow to understand. 

An object moving straight past, like a car does like this:



Meanwhile, the sun as it moves overhead at the same elevation does this.



No? You still don't get it?


What's changing is the angle. When the angle does not change (the van), the effects of vanishing point cause an object to shrink. A changing angle however, the object appears to arc instead of shrinking. Though it does shrink, but that's not the primary thing that you see.

Btw, you guys were talking about how you can't predict the location of the sun cuz you're one of those ignorant FEers.
The guy said, "Based on what I've told you, where will the sun rise?" And I predicted it right.

The brightest point in the center, I said. Sure enough.


In another part of the video, we can see bird flying across. And can notice two things.
1. The birds, when flying laterally, do not shrink in quite the same way as they do when they fly away from us.
2. The proximity of the birds appears to affect their altitude. So closer birds can in some cases appear to be flying above the sun, while more distant birds might fly more level to the setting sun.

Except that the vanishing point is not always on the horizon.

Let's explain it slowly for those slow to understand. 

Your stupid.

Angles don’t physical block light.  Solid objects like the earth’s curvature blocks light. 

The below quote from you is totally wrong or a blatant lie by you.  And destroys anything of yours Bulma built on this lie. 

No, objects don't disappear bottom up. They shrink to a tiny point.

Which would be a lie, and not how sunsets work at all.

The setting sun works no way how you need it to to justify FE.



Where the curvature of the earth physically blocks the sun from view at sunset.

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.




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.

It’s from your post on this page.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2438608#msg2438608



Bulma.  Do you understand that buildings don’t look like that?

Anyway..

Do you understand if the earth was flat, you should see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  Even your own pictures show less and less of Chicago with distance. 

Where you where repeatedly lying in posts by using driving distance and not using line of sight distance over the lake. 

Bulma, your the worst thing to happen to FE.  Are you a government plant to make FE look stupid.  Or is flat earth stupid.

Btw, you guys were talking about how you can't predict the location of the sun cuz you're one of those ignorant FEers.

That’s not the argument jackass.

You love playing the fool Bulma.  Read what the actual context of the argument is.

Where for a flat earth the sun circles overhead, the sun would have to visibly turn in its path like a race car going around a circular track.  Where the sun would have to travel north south for large areas of earth which is problematic especially on the equinox where the sun rises due east and sets due west.

Where the sun would have to change distance from a viewer throughout the day so flat earth requires the sun to change apparent size, but doesn’t.  Especially if you want to invoke vanishing point for a sunset that requires the sun to shrink in apparent size all afternoon, but doesn’t.

It’s that easy to debunk flat earth.  FE is useless at accurately predicting the course of the sun throughout the day and over time.

Let's explain it slowly for those slow to understand. 

That you don’t get the inside of your dome would work nothing like what is documented in real life.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 30, 2025, 06:55:49 AM

There's the dot, and then it scatters nearby, similar to how the sun lights all the clouds around it.

So…

If you take a light representing the sun around what you used to represent your parabola, a glass dome.  And circle the parabola dome like how the sun doesn’t pass directly overhead for me in the winter.



And actually do a video coming up from under the dome parabola.



Th projected glare on the parabola dome acts nothing like an actual sun.




And acts nothing like your false assurances.



Even passing the light representing the sun directly over the parabola didn’t help.

Bulma, debunking themselves.

Let's explain it slowly for those slow to understand.

Try actually explaining, including an understanding of what parallel lines are, and how the vanishing point works.
This requires you to understand geometry, a part of math.
A part which shows you are spouting BS.

But even look at your crappy animation, again the car is there and just shrinks.
Fundamentally different to the sun magically projecting onto your dome.

You have 2 fundamentally different ideas.

What's changing is the angle.

In reality, yes.
In your delusional BS, no.
You don't simply have the angle to the sun change. That would still just be line of sight.
You have pure magic.

When the angle does not change (the van)

The angle to the van does change.
Again truly simple to understand:


The nearer object has a large angular size, while the further object has a smaller angular size.
This is entirely because of the angles to the various points on the object.

This is also what makes it appear lower.

A changing angle however, the object appears to arc instead of shrinking.

A changing angle, with the object remaining the same distance away, causes it to appear to sink without shrinking.
Otherwise, you can't have it sink, without having it shrink.
The 2 are intrinsically related. You can't have one without the other.

Btw, you guys were talking about how you can't predict the location of the sun cuz you're one of those ignorant FEers.

You cannot predict it based upon your model.
Because your model is a steaming pile of garbage which doesn't work.

You still can't explain how the sun magically projects onto your parabola to produce the results expected for a RE.
Meanwhile, the RE does explain it.

1. The birds, when flying laterally, do not shrink in quite the same way as they do when they fly away from us.

Do you mean when they are remaining roughly the same distance away?
i.e. the very thing which does not apply in your steaming pile of garbage.

2. The proximity of the birds appears to affect their altitude. So closer birds can in some cases appear to be flying above the sun, while more distant birds might fly more level to the setting sun.

i.e. you fail to understand that when viewing the world through a 2D angular lens you can't tell how far away things are?


So stop just repeating the same pathetic BS, and actually try to explain it.
Go through the geometric origins of perspective and vanishing point to show how it actually works.
And explain how your magic parabola works.

quote author=bulmabriefs144 link=topic=92453.msg2441659#msg2441659 date=1746502907]
When the angle does not change (the van)

The angle to the van does change.[/quote]

Yes, the angle to the van changes because you are standing of a curb and it is driving past. What you should be doing is standing in the road, directly behind it in a straight line of sight. This conversation will be resolved in two ways:
1. It will only shrink, and you having seen it, will recognize I am right. Even though I drew it wrong.
2. You will be hit by an oncoming car, and either die or lose your memory, ending discussion.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 05, 2025, 04:37:38 PM

Let's explain it slowly for those slow to understand.

Try actually explaining, including an understanding of what parallel lines are, and how the vanishing point works.
This requires you to understand geometry, a part of math.
A part which shows you are spouting BS.

But even look at your crappy animation, again the car is there and just shrinks.
Fundamentally different to the sun magically projecting onto your dome.

You have 2 fundamentally different ideas.

It doesn't just shrink. I actually kept moving it towards the center of vanishing point. Because this is what it's doing by driving off in a straight line.

Parallel lines are something entirely different from vanishing point.
_____________

_____________

These are parallel lines. Parallel lines are not vanishing point, because parallel lines never intersect or converge. Vanishing point is built on converging lines.

Parallel lines are lines that never meet and are always the same distance apart, while intersecting lines are lines that cross each other at one point. In geometry, parallel lines are denoted with the symbol "||" and intersecting lines do not have a common intersection point.

Sigh... you always quote geometry for me, when it is clear you did poorly in the class.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 05, 2025, 08:41:47 PM

What's changing is the angle.

In reality, yes.
In your delusional BS, no.
You don't simply have the angle to the sun change. That would still just be line of sight.
You have pure magic.

I can literally superimpose a protractor at a line at the horizon. This is what I mean by parabola. It is the perspective primarily by angle rather than by distance.

Again truly simple to understand:


The nearer object has a large angular size, while the further object has a smaller angular size.
This is entirely because of the angles to the various points on the object.

This is also what makes it appear lower.

Now try drawing it the same elevation and distance (because the distance is not that different). You're drawing yourself looking across to the sun, but that view never happens, instead replaced by a radial line view of a person standing underneath the sun. Tell me what you see happening when just angle changes. Yes, there is some difference in size, but it's like viewing a car driving  past from your house (mostly changing in angle), from your sidewalk (turning when it passes you to follow it), and jumping in the road when it passes. In the latter two, you would substantially see it shrink. In the first one, you mostly see it pass.  The last two describe something not similar to our view of the sun.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 05, 2025, 08:41:47 PM

A changing angle however, the object appears to arc instead of shrinking.

A changing angle, with the object remaining the same distance away, causes it to appear to sink without shrinking.
Otherwise, you can't have it sink, without having it shrink.
The 2 are intrinsically related. You can't have one without the other.

In terms of elevation above us, the distance never changes. It stays level in its height, only rising and sinking. The way our vision works, we either see an object or we don't because of its angle. This means the vision of the sun is only a span of 3 to 100 miles (depending on elevation) of the total arc of the sun (which should be opposite distance to hemisphere, that is roughly the diameter away). In other words, watching the sun for 12(ish) hours, you ought to be aware that something strange is going on. It's taking 12(ish) hours from the sun to move 3 miles away when Earth's diameter is 7000 miles roughly (3/7000 takes half the day? But yeah, this is what I mean not noticing a shrink). At a very high elevation where you can see to other mountains, it takes the same 12(ish) hours.
Distance is not a factor. Only angle is a factor.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 05, 2025, 08:41:47 PM

Btw, you guys were talking about how you can't predict the location of the sun cuz you're one of those ignorant FEers.

You cannot predict it based upon your model.
Because your model is a steaming pile of garbage which doesn't work.

I like how you cut the part where I said that I did predict it. Almost like you want to keep the delusion that I can't predict it intact.

You still can't explain how the sun magically projects onto your parabola to produce the results expected for a RE.
Meanwhile, the RE does explain it.

 

It woefully does not. You have children told before the age where they can question you that the sun moves in an ellipse around the Earth. Then you expand this to a spiraling motion around the sun which moves around the galaxy. Instead of a perfect arc, you would have something more akin to this.


You can't translate this spiraling motion into anything resembling the sunrise/sunset we see. Meanwhile, I believe I have made a model overhead of the angles, and I can verify these angles inasmush as without looking at the sun and burning my eyes. These are results expected in a FE though. I'm not producing the results expected in your delusional model, because I'm not pandering to you.

Do you mean when they are remaining roughly the same distance away?
i.e. the very thing which does not apply in your steaming pile of garbage.

Watch the video. Watch the birds fly past. I despise having to explain things to people who don't put in the effort.

So stop just repeating the same pathetic BS, and actually try to explain it.
Go through the geometric origins of perspective and vanishing point to show how it actually works.
And explain how your magic parabola works.

Referring to repeated BS, when your friend Data literally just spams the same pictures from the same site.

Referring to geometry when you mixed up parallel (||) with intersecting (/\) lines.

If you want to learn how the parabola works, I recommend you learn how to learn first.

Except that the vanishing point is not always on the horizon.

We already addressed this.
1. The vanishing point lines are not even drawn right. Vanishing point, as any artist will tell you, converge on horizon. But these are drawn above horizon.
2. This "photography" is akin to going downstairs from a tall building and taking a shot from lower level, then cutting the building at higher level. The only time the horizon ever is below eye level is when you change where eye level is by elevation trickery.





Suppose you took the view of the horizon from this rowboat and put it on this cruise ship. Using just fingers, I measured distance from index fingertip to index knuckle on the second picture. The horizon on the first picture was half that. So if I put the first horizon line on the second picture, I would have a picture where horizon is below eye level. It indeed looks strange, because it is fake.

We already addressed this.

The dip of the horizon is a proven and measurable fact.

In the Navy, it’s quite obvious ships get blocked from view by the horizon from the earth’s curvature.

Related examples.

Part three.  Modern proof.

I came across this video.  I think it is compelling and reasonable proof showing no doubt the earth is curved.

Quote

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

The rate the building is blocked by the horizon is reasonable proof of earth’s curvature.

Part four, the classic.  Ships disappearing bottom up.

During the video of “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”, the individual pans the camera across a near ship.



Then a ship farther away.




If that isn’t conclusive concerning the ship over the horizon.  There is always my go to ship video.

Quote

So.  There you go.

Proofs the earth is curved.  The Chicago skyline.  The 1901 take on the Bedford experiment published in British Association for the Advancement of Science.  The video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km” published on YouTube.  And the classic boats disappearing bottom up as a bonus to the video “Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km”.  And in the video “Huge container ship eclipsing the horizon. Nikon Coolpix P900.”

There is even ways to get a good estimate how far away ships are based on them being in front of the horizon, on the horizon, or how much the horizon is covering up the ship.



Your own picture proves there is a dip.

Except your own post demonstrates dip of the horizon..

Address what is actually posted and the piture you used.

It’s from your post on this page.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2438608#msg2438608



Bulma.  Do you understand that buildings don’t look like that?

Anyway..

Do you understand if the earth was flat, you should see the Chicago sea walls and trees.  Even your own pictures show less and less of Chicago with distance. 

Where you where repeatedly lying in posts by using driving distance and not using line of sight distance over the lake. 



Bulma.  It’s a conception error or a right out lie ignoring the measurable dip of the horizon.  Anything based on denying the measurable dip of the horizon is a lie. 

Watch the birds fly past.

Which isn’t the argument.  Address what has repeatedly been posted for you.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 19, 2025, 02:58:30 PM

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”

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 12, 2025, 11:47:46 AM

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.




 

.

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.

This book might as well be a fairy tale.

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth into their projects, providing another proof the world is a plane, not a planet. Canals and railways, for example, are always cut and laid horizontally, often over hundreds of miles, without any allowance for curvature.

The Suez Canal, for example, which connects the Mediterranean Sea with the Gulf of Suez on the Red Sea is a clear proof of the Earth’s and water’s non-convexity. The canal is 100 miles long and without any locks so the water within is an uninterrupted continuation of the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea. When it was constructed, the Earth’s supposed curvature was not taken into account, it was dug along a horizontal datum line 26 feet below sea-level, passing through several lakes from one sea to the other, with the datum line and the water’s surface running perfectly parallel over the 100 miles.

The average level of the Mediterranean is 6 inches above the Red Sea, while the floodtides in the Red Sea rise 4 feet above the highest and drop 3 feet below the lowest in the Mediterranean, making the half-tide level of the Red Sea, the surface of the Mediterranean Sea, and the 100 miles of water in the canal, all a clear continuation of the same horizontal line! Were they instead the supposed curved line of globe-Earthers, the water in the center of the canal would be 1666 feet (502 x 8 inches = 1666 feet 8 inches) above the respective Seas on either side!

Once upon a time, sailors believed that ships could adjust vertically to a curve without upending the entire craft, and wrote a book called Elements of Navigation and Piloting.  This person likely never traveled any great distance, for if they had, they would discover just how implausible the idea of a curved zone in water is.  Nevertheless, they prevailed on publishers to submit their book, while flat Earth authors typically have to self-publish.

(Btw, I cracked up when the engineer talked about how absurd it is to think trains deal with vertical curves while working with cargo)

Go ahead. Draw a train with a full load rounding a vertical curve. Then ask a train engineer how he manages to take his tons of cargo up that.