Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

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.

Would you care to enlighten us as to any of these self-published navigation guides written by flat earth authors? 

Also, you still don't seem to grasp the relationship between down and level on a round earth.  I'd try to explain it, but why bother when you clearly don't want to understand?

Would you care to enlighten us as to any of these self-published navigation guides written by flat earth authors? 

Sure can!

They're called sea charts.

A sea chart operates using plane sailing. Not spherical trigonometry.

Had you watched the video, you'd know this.

But like round Earthers everywhere, you ask "prove it then," only to loudly shout out any proof by talking over it.

This book might as well be a fairy tale.

No.  It was a way to estimate how far away ships were before the irony of over the horizon radar.  There is no tactical advantage for a navy to treat the earth as flat. 

With you completely ignoring reality.

What was actually posted and its context.

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.”

Boats being physically blocked from view bottom up and dip the horizon are very real and measurable phenomena.  And sailors make use of that.  Again.  Heliocentric model useful, flat earth useless.


Bulma.  Sailers also notice the sun doesn’t change apparent size through the day and sets by being physically blocked from view bottom up.

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.

They're called sea charts.

Bullma, your friend AI again…



Where modern navigation is done using GPS and a computer system with the world represented as spherical. 

No.  It was a way to estimate how far away ships were before the irony of over the horizon radar.

Did you listen to what you just said?

Lemme zoom in on it.

estimate how far away ships were before the irony of over the horizon radar.

how far away ships were before the irony of over the horizon radar.

far away ships were before the irony of over the horizon radar.

over the horizon radar.

the

over the horizon

Doesn't it seem odd to you you that radar, traveling outward in relatively straight wave, dips around a sphere, or climbs it like a hill?

You would have to keep using satellites to keep the radar on track! But the first OTH radar was 1949, while the first satellite, while the first satellite was in 1957.
Meanwhile, in All The Light We Cannot See, a blind girl is picking up radio signals from the rest of Europe. It's only due to Nazi restrictions that this is hard. That is to say, a typical radio can send very long distance messages if interference isn't a thing.
Seems to me that the real technology is being hidden because it threatens the orthodoxy.  Hey let's all do satellite radio!

Their explanation for such a thing is (true to RE nonsense), that naturally it must bounce signals off the atmosphere. Yet these signals magically shut off when wanting to talk to the moon. Either these moon landings are done within Earth, or it should be impossible to reach a message there if signals are able to bounce like this. Hmmmm, wait, how do satellites pick up a signal? It seems like now you have to explain why the satellites are not below this atmospheric bouncer but instead past it. In fact, you're having to explain alot of things.

Or... (true to Occam's Razor) we understand that the horizon is simply an optical illusion that our brains produce because of the way that we see, and radar is a pulse which is subject only to signal strength. Like radio, microwave, etc.

Earth is a flat surface.

Doesn't it seem odd to you you that radar, traveling outward in relatively straight wave, dips around a sphere, or climbs it like a hill?

Not unless you represent the technology of over the horizon radar honestly.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-horizon_radar

Bulma, your friend AI.

Were you referring to line of sight radar, which has a radar horizon.

Well Bulma, because you can’t keep your smart ass mouth shut.  You need to explain the difference between line of sight radar vs over the horizon radar.  And why line of sight radar has a radar horizon.  Where if the earth was flat there would be no radar horizon for line of sight radar at sea, and no need for over the horizon radar while at sea.

Did you listen to what you just said?

Bulma.  You done changing the subject to from things that still destroy flat earth?

Why would I when you base your BS off your lie things don’t disappear bottom up like the setting sun. 

This book might as well be a fairy tale.

No.  It was a way to estimate how far away ships were before the irony of over the horizon radar.  There is no tactical advantage for a navy to treat the earth as flat. 

With you completely ignoring reality.

What was actually posted and its context.

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.”

Boats being physically blocked from view bottom up and dip the horizon are very real and measurable phenomena.  And sailors make use of that.  Again.  Heliocentric model useful, flat earth useless.


Bulma.  Sailers also notice the sun doesn’t change apparent size through the day and sets by being physically blocked from view bottom up.

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.

Like a schoolteacher threatened when one of her kids isn't utterly dependent on her knowledge, you're calling me a smart ass and telling me to keep my mouth shut.

No, I don't think I will. And you can keep your smug control-freak self to yourself. I am allowed to speak.



This is a radar.



This is OTH radar.

We are told this radar pitches upward, but since we can't see that, we have to take it on faith.

I don't even take religion on faith.  I doubt everything, until real faith provides an answer. God has not let me down.

So back to this OTH thing. It seems far more likely that what we are actually talking about is those poles being used as a sort of repeater to extend the range of what would be a crappy signal. 

There is nothing about this to do with pitching signals upward. It simply extends outwards like a bat screaming (in the case of a normal radar), and echoes using the poles which repeat the signal (in the case of OTH).

Bulma.  You done changing the subject to from things that still destroy flat earth?

Why would I when you base your BS off your lie things don’t disappear bottom up like the setting sun. 

In other words:
Hey Bulma, you need to get on track for topics that I want to talk about.

I get upset when you talk about radar because I work in a radar center and signed this
nondisclosure agreement here which means that I can use these radars only if I don't talk about how they really work.

And I get upset when you talk about how real pilots and sailors don't learn spherical trigonometry but instead look at a map and draw a straight line with a ruler, because my radar company also works for NASA, and they might defund me if it gets out that radars actually work in a relatively straightforward manner. 

Please Bulma, let's talk about something else!

Yes yes, you know, you could just ask. I respond alot better to honest requests than duplicity.

As for your book, if I were in a boat and I tried to sail somewhere, while there might indeed require that I know that the horizon is horizontally curved, being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel. And it would create problems of engineering canals.

Again.


Flat Earth is certainly not useless to you. I believe one of you mentioned something about experience in radars. Turns out that it is far more effective to have a radar that can continue quite a ways versus one that has to wrap around a curve. Planes can land more easily on a flat level surface than a moving curved surface. And your radar system can guidance missiles to their destination.
Also, if it ever became public knowledge that the Earth is flat, you might be released from your nondisclosure. At least, enough that you could stop saying absurdities like this. I happen to know just how messed up radar nondisclosure can be. Back in WWII, they started a meme that persists even today about carrots giving people night vision.

In other words:
Hey Bulma, you need to get on track for topics that I want to talk about.

I get upset when you talk about radar because I work in a radar center and signed this
nondisclosure agreement here which means that I can use these radars only if I don't talk about how they really work.

You’re fucking nuts.

It’s very simple.

I can go outside and watch the sun set.  Being physically blocked bottom up as it sets because of the earth’s curvature.



I can prove the sun doesn’t change apparent size as it travels overhead.

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


If you actually go to sea and watch objects while sailing, they disappear bottom up.

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.”

Pre radar systems, navy’s would come out with guides on estimating how far away ships are based on if they are in front of the horizon, on the horizon, or how much they were blocked by the horizon.




Things get blocked by the horizon because of earth’s curvature.  That’s an undeniable fact.  To post otherwise is a lie. 

So.  With visual line of sight observation, there is the horizon.

With the advent of line of sight radio, there was the radio horizon because of earth’s curvature.

With the advent of radar, there is the radar horizon because of earth’s curvature.  Private developers and militaries came up with bouncing radar off the ionosphere to create a working technology and over the horizon radar.  Again, because of earth’s curvature.  Where shortwave radio works the same way to over come line of sight transmission and being limited by the earth’s curvature.

Experiencing that the sun sets bottom up, objects seen while sailing disappear bottom up, that there is a real radio horizon for line of sight radio, and there is a real radar horizon for line of sight radar has nothing to do with none disclosure agreements.  But has everything to do with experiencing earth’s curvature. 


So.  I can prove you a liar Bulma.  And have provided loads of undeniable proof the earth is spherical.  Where technology based on the earth being a sphere works and proves the earth is spherical. 

Like a

Bulma.  Before you run your smart ass mouth again.

Remember.  The sun simple disappears bottom up at sunset because of the earth’s curvature.



To post the sun does anything other than disappear bottom up at sunset on a clear day makes you liar. 

Quote

Would you care to enlighten us as to any of these self-published navigation guides written by flat earth authors? 

Sure can!

They're called sea charts.

Sea charts are self-published by FE authors?  That’s news to me.

A sea chart operates using plane sailing. Not spherical trigonometry.

Are you sure about that?  Last I heard, flat charts and maps are flat projections of a spherical dataset. 

Had you watched the video, you'd know this.

But like round Earthers everywhere, you ask "prove it then," only to loudly shout out any proof by talking over it.

Since Eric Dubay is not a surveyor or cartographer, why should I care what he has to say on the subjects of surveying or map making?

Are you sure about that?  Last I heard, flat charts and maps are flat projections of a spherical dataset.

You're confusing what is taught in school and what people tell you is true, for what actually is.

A sailor heads from 34W 80 N to 32W 85 N, they do not do trigonometry and puzzle through the curvature based on location. They put two dots on a map with a math compass (not to be confused with the other type),

grab their ruler, and draw a line.   



The compass rose (the big circle) is to determine horizontal angles, not because of vertical curvature. In fact, if you had to adjust 8 inches per mile in any direction, you'd probably never go out to sea, as finding your way about without crashing into rocks would be a losing proposition.

So yes, I am kinda sure about that. You can't even draw a three-dimensional curve on a two-dimensional map, and he never mentioned that.

If the Earth was a sphere, a waterproof globe and dry erase markers would be the best tools imaginable.  You could adjust for curvature, and your ship gets you where you need to be. Instead, pencils and maps are still how you do course to steer, barring expensive GPS equipment.

In fact, Eric Dubay talks about drift and how assumptions of RE actually lead to more of it in the southern hemisphere, in his video about the South Pole.

He mentions that navigators routinely found themselves out of accordance with their charts and blamed the currents rather than admit maybe the shape of the Earth was wrong.

You're confusing

You’re babbling again with completely ignoring map projections and why they exist.


Now..  Stop changing the argument

In other words:
Hey Bulma, you need to get on track for topics that I want to talk about.

I get upset when you talk about radar because I work in a radar center and signed this
nondisclosure agreement here which means that I can use these radars only if I don't talk about how they really work.

You’re fucking nuts.

It’s very simple.

I can go outside and watch the sun set.  Being physically blocked bottom up as it sets because of the earth’s curvature.



I can prove the sun doesn’t change apparent size as it travels overhead.

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


If you actually go to sea and watch objects while sailing, they disappear bottom up.

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.”

Pre radar systems, navy’s would come out with guides on estimating how far away ships are based on if they are in front of the horizon, on the horizon, or how much they were blocked by the horizon.




Things get blocked by the horizon because of earth’s curvature.  That’s an undeniable fact.  To post otherwise is a lie. 

So.  With visual line of sight observation, there is the horizon.

With the advent of line of sight radio, there was the radio horizon because of earth’s curvature.

With the advent of radar, there is the radar horizon because of earth’s curvature.  Private developers and militaries came up with bouncing radar off the ionosphere to create a working technology and over the horizon radar.  Again, because of earth’s curvature.  Where shortwave radio works the same way to over come line of sight transmission and being limited by the earth’s curvature.

Experiencing that the sun sets bottom up, objects seen while sailing disappear bottom up, that there is a real radio horizon for line of sight radio, and there is a real radar horizon for line of sight radar has nothing to do with none disclosure agreements.  But has everything to do with experiencing earth’s curvature. 


So.  I can prove you a liar Bulma.  And have provided loads of undeniable proof the earth is spherical.  Where technology based on the earth being a sphere works and proves the earth is spherical. 

being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill. This would create extraordinary problems with wind. It would present extraordinary problems with general travel.

Bulma, you can stop derailing this thread with this stupidity.  You can posit it in this thread..

Really, boats would have to sail up hill?
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=93145.msg2441747#msg2441747

Quote

Are you sure about that?  Last I heard, flat charts and maps are flat projections of a spherical dataset.

You're confusing what is taught in school and what people tell you is true, for what actually is.

A sailor heads from 34W 80 N to 32W 85 N, they do not do trigonometry and puzzle through the curvature based on location. They put two dots on a map with a math compass (not to be confused with the other type), grab their ruler, and draw a line.   

What if you need to go from 34W 80N to 42E 22S?

Then you draw a line to there!

(ask a stupid question)

In a flat Earth, this makes no difference. In a round Earth, if you were using a globe, it should literally look like a parentheses as you go from an arc north of the equator to south of it. 

So.  I can prove you a liar Bulma.  And have provided loads of undeniable proof the earth is spherical.  Where technology based on the earth being a sphere works and proves the earth is spherical. 

If your proof was anything substantial, I would bother debating it. Instead, I'm gonna record some videos. Seems a better use of my time.

You have alot of animations based on faulty assumptions which you think are proof. Instead of wasting your time on sailboat pictures, you ought learn to better yourself.

"Better ourselves?!? You heard what he said? Better ourselves? Mister, when you from Skid Row, ain't no such thing!"

Then you draw a line to there!

Good luck navigating that line.  In fact, good luck finding a flat earth chart that big that isn't an RE projection.

In a flat Earth, this makes no difference.

Oh?  Show me a flat earth map that you would use to draw that straight line and we'll see.

In a round Earth, if you were using a globe, it should literally look like a parentheses as you go from an arc north of the equator to south of it. 

Yes, it's called a great circle and it's the shortest distance between two points along a sphere's surface.

Then you draw a line to there!


In a flat Earth, this makes no difference. In a round Earth, if you were using a globe, it should literally look like a parentheses as you go from an arc north of the equator to south of it. 

If the earth was flat, there would be no need for map projections.  The distances in the southern hemisphere would be longer than what is logged and actually witnessed.  And the sun would have to travel north / south over Japan on the equinox when in reality it rises due east and sets due west. 

Then you draw a line to there!
If your proof was anything substantial, I would bother debating it. Instead, I'm gonna record some videos. Seems a better use of my time.

Because you can’t dispute this?

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.

A whole thread on it…

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

I guess it’s actual proof and too specific of a thread that kills FE and would reveal how big of a troll you are if you try to derail it. 

See, the thing here is that you don't even begin to understand me.

You, like many Round Earthers, project your own arrogance to Flat Earthers.
After all, they defy the accepted teaching, they must think they know better. I know that is how you think from a recent survey I took in another thread, where two whole pages were about whether you saw other people as less than you.

Actually, the Round Earthers from my experience are so smug that they will never consider that they might be wrong. Whereas every single Flat Earther (except those few raised in an Amish or Muslim home) grew up as a Round Earther, submitted it to testing, and had to admit they were wrong.

I guess it’s actual proof and too specific of a thread that kills FE and would reveal how big of a troll you are if you try to derail it.

So you trying to appeal to my pride to bait me into a conversation about a certain topic?
It doesn't work. I either am interested, or I'm not.

See, the thing here is that you don't even begin to understand me.

Totally off subject.

Address what was posted.

Because you can’t dispute this?

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.

A whole thread on it…

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

I guess it’s actual proof and too specific of a thread that kills FE and would reveal how big of a troll you are if you try to derail it.

You double posted.

Look, some of your threads are not that interesting.

You play this trick where you distract me from a thread then accuse me of running away from it. So I've stopped playing with new threads that simply aren't interesting. It's gonna die, and I'm gonna let it.

To answer your question here, as I've said before, and you've ignored to wallow in your own delusion, the degree that the sun shrinks or not has to do with humidity. Eric Dubay himself has a picture of the sun shrinking in places like the desert.

It's just not a big enough point to warrant involvement in the thread.

You double posted.

Again.

Has nothing to do with your provable lie the sun doesn’t disappear bottom up at sunset.  Where I can clearly show the sun does disappear bottom up at sunset.

Where it has nothing to do about your babbling about invoking vanish point at sunset.  Where I can prove the sun doesn’t change in apparent size to invoke vanishing point for a sunset.  Where the sun doesn’t noticeably change apparent size to the unaided eye where the flat earth model requires the sun to change apparent size hour by hour.

Where the FE model requires the sun to circle above the earth like a race car on a circular track.  Where the sun for the FE model would have to travel north / south for large parts of the earth.  Where during the equinox the sun for those areas rises due east and sets due west.

FE fails to accurately predict the movements of the sun.  Where the sun is witnessed and documented moving in ways that destroys FE.

Eric Dubay himself has a picture of the sun shrinking in places like the desert.

Funny.  This is time lapse of an actual sunset.




Which contradicts what you claim.

A whole thread.

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

Which contradicts what you claim. 

Your 9 post thread will die without intervention.

This is the video that I was talking about.


Low humidity = more shrinkage

RIP extra thread about sun not shrinking.

Since Eric Dubay is not a surveyor or cartographer, why should I care what he has to say on the subjects of surveying or map making?

You don't need to be one to ask one. I asked a surveyor. He thought the Earth was round, but knew that anywhere on Earth, it appears locally flat. Asking another person is how we learn things outside our own experiences. For example, you could ask me, who on two occasions took road trips of 2000+ miles to what degree I remember seeing curvature, and I will tell you that the whole thing is crap. No roads, bridges, or tunnels were adjusted for curvature, and I do not remember the ground doing anything over that amount of distance.

Again.

Has nothing to do with your provable lie the sun doesn’t disappear bottom up at sunset.  Where I can clearly show the sun does disappear bottom up at sunset.

Where it has nothing to do about your babbling about invoking vanish point at sunset.  Where I can prove the sun doesn’t change in apparent size to invoke vanishing point for a sunset.  Where the sun doesn’t noticeably change apparent size to the unaided eye where the flat earth model requires the sun to change apparent size hour by hour.

Where the FE model requires the sun to circle above the earth like a race car on a circular track.  Where the sun for the FE model would have to travel north / south for large parts of the earth.  Where during the equinox the sun for those areas rises due east and sets due west.

FE fails to accurately predict the movements of the sun.  Where the sun is witnessed and documented moving in ways that destroys FEfont]

Just boasting.

You talk and talk, and never prove anything.

Nothing about the flat Earth model ever requires the sun to change size. We are basically watching God perform a magic trick. Only he tells us how he does it (move or less).

It's the motion of a level sun through a domed sky. Now, I've taken lately to make a double back model to more simulate the curving motion but I suppose moving straight on through makes more sense. I don't really care either way. What I do know is that this domed sky is so small that talking about shrinking is just silly. Should an object miles overhead appear to greatly shrink while moving through a space that is only about 10 miles wide on average? It does somewhat in low humidity areas. But mostly you're  talking about a sun  moving over 14,000 miles in a day hitting a tiny zone of about 3 to 100 miles, and appearing stay there.

The RE model requires the Earth to spin and moving like it's running 100 yard dashes at top speed. 66,600 mph to get one increment of year long movement. None of which is ever felt.
Meanwhile, the sun appears close all day long yet is also moving at a large track. The thing is, I can hold a magnifying glass steady, and it will zap something.

Here, let's make a parabola animation. I've got some time, a flashlight and a punchbowl.

Bulma.  You’re lying again.

I have a whole thread showing the sun does not change apparent size in any noticeable way to the unaided eye.   And have video using a telescope and solar filter showing the sun doesn’t change apparent size throughout the day as required by flat earth, and if you want to invoke vanishing point at sunset.  Where I repeatedly posed the sun disappearing bottom up at sunset. 

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


I hope to cause the sunset on my telescope setup this evening. 

The parabola works.



Did I have to flip the image because initially I had it going it the wrong direction?
Yes. Yes I did.
But regardless, the model works. I don't know what sort of retarded things you've been doing to make it not work, but I can see with nothing but a flashlight moving, the sun "climbs" in the sky, and then "descends" in the sky. Here's a fun fact. According to this stop motion animation (I made a video first, but had to frame by frame it because of size and sharing constraints), "should the sun appear smaller as it rises or sets?" It actually looked slightly larger at rise and set, though that may have been an error from me trying to make sure that it stayed on track. The smallest sun in this picture is around when it would be midday. 

Shut up and take it.

Desperate enough that you're bumping your own pathetic thread?

From the looks of this, you're the only person that cares about this.

Far from conclusive proof, you haven't even caught my interest.



The parabola works.

What is that.  You passed the light right over the dome.  And you got it cropped to take out reflections.

Let’s do it more honestly which has been posed before.

For me the sun doesn’t pass over head in the winter…. Where I do pass the light directly over the dome at the end and get 4 reflections of the light moving at odd angles to the light passing over head.





Where the dome doesn’t even act like you need it to.

Where you can answer how clouds act beyond you parabola, clouds that  straddle your parabola.

Where you claim your eye can only perceive three miles out?  So clouds should come into view as little slivers and grow as they get closer.

Where after three miles in altitude, because of your claimed cone of perception, and increase in height should cause the visible area of below to shrink.

Your parabola is meaningless.
[/quote]




Bulma.  You posted your stupid little cropped video in…

The Size of the Sun the Past Few Days - No Proof Dimensions Shrinks
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=93094.msg2441832#msg2441832


Where your posting ofc topic..


That thread is absolute proof the sun doesn’t change apparent size to the unaided eye throughout the day which is what happens in a heliocentric solar system. 

In your flat earth model the sun would have to change considerable distance throughout the day for an observer kicking around town.  So, the apparent size of the sun should grow and shrink through the day.  The sun really needs to shrink in apparent size all afternoon if you want to invoke vanishing point for sunset.  But the sun doesn’t shrink in apparent size to even think about vanishing point.  Using vanishing point for why the sun sets is literally a falsehood based upon zero evidence with the sun documented working in the wrong way.  Your FE view is based on a provable falsehood.

Where your delusional parabola you have no proof of, where there is no proof of how your parabola would interact with clouds, still wouldn’t act the way you need it to to mimic the heliocentric model.

What is that.  You passed the light right over the dome.  And you got it cropped to take out reflections.

Let’s do it more honestly which has been posed before.

Dont'cha mean dishonestly?

Cropped nothing. I placed my Kindle inside the dome, then hit record. The only thing that got cropped for was that I had uneven sizes because the original was a video taken sideways. And no, there aren't a ton of reflections. I pointed it straight down at the sides then traced the line from edge to center (it took about three failed tries, because some missed the center or were too hard an arc.

Meanwhile, your first animation doesn't even remotely approach anything that I would describe as a real arc. It's a strawman.

And your second animation, despite me telling you a couple of times that this is a straight down beam of light, I can see your arm turning the light around the rim, which doesn't work and quite obviously bounces off. One of us understand how the model works, the other is angling it.


Not doing it right, dumbass.

There was slight reflection near the peak and when it set. I did not "crop out" or adjust anything. You can see it. The only cropping was to make all pictures conform to standard sizing, since some pictures were extra long on account having to rotate the picture.

The dome in your case behaved exactly like you needed it to. Amateurish fail, not a true sunrise and sunset.

You want that I should do it again? Fine.
https://old.bitchute.com/video/MMYJfoWbFlwj/
I did it four times. No four way scatter, because unlike you, I wasn't trying to screw up.