Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

You literally don't understand my explanations, hence pictures where you talk about how the sun is still in line of sight.

I repeatedly explain what this parabola does,

We get it, apply it, and find it doesn’t predict what is actually witnessed in real life, is useless, and that you have to contradict yourself..

Like the simple fact I witnessed lobster boats going out to sea down a river and had to fight the tide coming in to get out of the river to the sea.

Or…

Third, you've never learned was east and west are on a FE map

Because it doesn’t work on flat earth for what is actually east and west and how those directions are relative to actual land masses. 



The pink arrow on the map off the US East coast should point east to where the sun rises on the equinox.  The relative direction of the pink arrow should point to the coast of Portugal/Spain.  Going the general direction of the pink arrow doesn’t take you to south.  If the earth was flat, traveling any direction would eventually take you to the supposed ice wall. Traveling due east or due west for much of the world does not lead to the Arctic or to the Antarctic.  FE fails at relative direction of land masses to each other as they are known.


  Where the sun on a flat earth would have to rise north / south for large areas of the world where in the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west.

Thing is, like most woke globalists,

Which has nothing to do with…

The sun does shrink, but not always, as you yourself probably "proved" with your Seeing No Shrinkage This Week thread.

If you think the above, then you need too…



Bulma.  Say a live in Norther Ohio.

Draw an overhead flat earth map showing the relative location of Ohio and draw the path of the sun over that flat earth map for march 20th 2025.

Bulma, writing checks they can’t cash.

24hour rotation.
angular movement changing at a rate of 24hours.
say it with me -
at
    a
        rate
             of
                  24
                        hooooooooooooooooours

Say it with me.

1000+ mph means each hour (to a total of roughly 24,000+ miles) 1000+ miles is spun. This means each minute, you are moving 17miles away. "But but it spins once a day!" Yes, it spins once at a rate of 24,000+ mpd.

Now you put that lazyboy or whatever it was with rocks on top, and spin it 17 ft (to put it in scale) away.

Tell me how many minutes is should take for this rock pile to fall.

The fact that you can even build a rock cairn should immediately let you know that this is nonsense.

But sure. 24 hours per (24,000+ mile) rotation.
 "But but the Earth is so big that..."

---

Bulma.  Say a live in Norther Ohio.

Nobody "theoretically" lives in Northern Ohio. I'm gonna say... Findlay.

I can't draw decent maps of continents. Perhaps you've noticed that my flat Earth maps never legit include America, South America, Europe, or Asia (I can sometimes draw Australia or Africa tho). Tell you what. You draw a latitude map with full quality continents and countries with latitude and longitude and your location as a dot (so I can egg your house) on a flat Earth map, and I will trace any path you want. I don't care.

But the thing is, even were the sun's path elliptical rather than circular, it doesn't invalidate FE. You have to prove not that the sun's path is off course from what flat Earthers think (the prediction fallacy), but that we are looking at a still sun orbited by Earth when in fact it looks the other way around.


(On the fallacy that RE gives people magical prediction powers)

Real proof involves proving motion exists on Earth, and that over time there has been a change in stars. There hasn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(constellation)
Orion is mentioned by Ptolemy in the second century. It, and other constellations haven't changed in at least 1800 years.
The zodiac constellations date back to 14th century BC, which dates back to earlier Babylonian star catalogues. If the Earth really followed as the sun moved around the galaxy, the stars and constellations should have changed. We can rule out that the sun moves around the galaxy. So either the Earth moves in an endless orbit around a completely still sun (we can sort out those problems later), or the sun moves in an endless orbit around a completely still Earth. But there is no expanding universe, no coming Heat Death, no nonsense about stars dying. The universe, if it exists (rather than just Earth), is everlasting.

Speed is not a force you feel

Acceleration is.

So what is the change in speed?

Say it with me.

1000+ mph means each hour (to a total of roughly 24,000+ miles) 1000+ miles is spun. This means each minute, you are moving 17miles away. "But but it spins once a day!" Yes, it spins once at a rate of 24,000+ mpd.

Yes, 1037 mph at the equator.  How fast does it spin at 40 degrees north latitude?  How fast at the north pole?  Regardless of the mph, the earth spins at a constant 15 degrees per hour, which is 1/2 as fast as the hour hand on a clock.

Say it with me.

Bulma, there is no conspiracy in the fact people use the heliocentric model because it creates reliability.

From why there are at times incoming tides that boats have to fight against when going to sea, why lift needs to be generated for heavier than air craft to fly, weight is a real downforce and used in weight limits for bridges, why celestial south has meaning, how accelerometers work in a smartphone, to why you can sail and travel due east and stay on the equator where on a flat earth you would have to end up at an ice wall. 

Say it with me.

No.  Understanding the heliocentric solar system lead to major advances that left FE cold. 

Your explanations are not simple.

They rely on special pleading.

Where?
Just what part of what explanation you have been provided is not simple?
What part requires special pleading?

So far you have claimed and outright lied about it every time.
You are yet to provide a single example.

You literally don't understand my explanations, hence pictures where you talk about how the sun is still in line of sight.

No, I DO understand your convoluted BS. Hence pictures like this:


Clearly showing how your BS doesn't work.

And what's your response? Just ignore it or make excuses for why you shouldn't have to address it.

Likewise, you can't actually explain your parabola, you just keep asserting it with no explanation at all.
You can't explain what magic stops us from seeing the sun.

You throw around fake pictures of a lowered horizon.

No, you are shown a real picture which shows you are wrong so you lie about it.
Including using entirely circular reasoning to dismiss it because it shows you are wrong.

I talk about how light works or buoyancy works

No, you spout crap which doesn't explain anything, and I point out massive issues your BS can't address.
Like how we know it isn't simply larger wavelengths can go further, because of various coloured filters which selectively allow some wavelengths to pass; and how we know your BS claims about bouncy are BS because you can't justify why it would make anything go down at a particular rate nor can you address the pressure gradient.

I bet that I could walk down the street, and ask a person to track the sun's relative angle from the onlooker from its rise to noon to set, and draw lines outward from a person to the sun, and then draw a semicircle connecting these lines. They would come up with the exact same idea as proposed in the parabola.

No, they wouldn't.
They would come up with something more like this:


Notice that there is no parabola here?
Notice that you don't have the sun magically remaining the same altitude throughout the day and magically projecting onto a parabola?

This is using simple line of sight.
None of your convoluted BS is present.
This is consistent with the RE model, where the sun, relative to the observer, goes below Earth and gets blocked from view by Earth.

take a look at that, decide that not the sky but the Earth must be round

No, we don't.
That is another pathetic lie from you.
We take a look at that and think Earth is blocking the view to the sun.
That, along with the fact that other people, elsewhere on Earth can see the sun, shows beyond any sane doubt that Earth is round.

But because you can't refute this, you need to repeatedly lie and strawman the RE and REers to pretend people just think crap.

Yet we have no evidence of this motion

Except things like large scale weather systems, Focault's pendulum (something very simple you can do at home), laser ring gyroscopes, the Eovtos effect, countless satellites including those in a geostationary orbit; and the fact that it is bar far the simpler explanation.

and can even stack stones up and expect them the next day to stay put

Just like ships can do with cannonballs, and how cargo can be loaded into a plane and expect to be fine during takeoff, flight and landing.
Again, you appeal to dishonest BS which shows no problem with the RE model.

And again, you deflect because you can't defend your pathetic BS.

Say it with me.

Say it with me: Your speed is irrelevant.
Speed doesn't magically make things fall over.
You don't find yourself flying to the back of a plane while it cruises at roughly 1000 km/h.

Stop repeating the same refuted BS.

Tell me how many minutes is should take for this rock pile to fall.

Tell me what force is trying to make it fall.

The fact that you can even build a rock cairn should immediately let you know that this is nonsense.

Quite the opposite.
The fact you continually appeal to this refuted BS lets me know that basically everything you say is nonsense.

You have to prove not that the sun's path is off course from what flat Earthers think

If we are showing the FE model is wrong, that is what we need to do.
You say the sun remains in the tropics.
This puts it north of anyone south of the tropics. Yet during the southern summer it is observed to rise south of east and set south of west.

On the equinox, everyone on a given longitude can see the sun due east at the same time. Accounting for a minor error in angle, this puts the sun well off Earth.

but that we are looking at a still sun orbited by Earth when in fact it looks the other way around.

No, we don't.
We need to show how this model works to produce the results observed, while your BS does not.
That is how you prove that your BS is wrong and this model is right.

But again, this is primarily about the shape of Earth; not if it is Earth rotating or the sun following an insane path.

As for your BS it looks the other way around (it certainly isn't a fact); HOW?

Again you act like a complete imbecile that doesn't understand anything.
If you had the slightest understanding of geometry, you would understand which one is moving, it looks the same.

You can even try this yourself, but of course you don't want to because it shows you are spouting pure BS.

Real proof involves proving motion exists on Earth

And it has been done, countless times.

that over time there has been a change in stars.

And there has been.
As you want to use wikipedia, how about this for a source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star
Notice how the north pole star has changed over time?

How about following your line, and going to one of the stars in Orion?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellatrix
Notice how it lists a proper motion and parallax?

Yet again, you just ignore everything that shows you are a lying POS.

If the Earth really followed as the sun moved around the galaxy, the stars and constellations should have changed.

And the question is "By how much?"
That is the question you keep ignoring, so you can keep ignoring reality.
And again, this is where distance matters, which you also ignore.
This has been explained to you countless times, yet you just keep repeating the same refuted BS.

So no, we can't rule out reality, no matter how much you want to, on the basis of nothing more than your wilful ignorance.

Now care to explain how your magic parabola works? Especially with reference to the images above?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 15, 2025, 06:10:23 AM

Say it with me.

1000+ mph means each hour (to a total of roughly 24,000+ miles) 1000+ miles is spun. This means each minute, you are moving 17miles away. "But but it spins once a day!" Yes, it spins once at a rate of 24,000+ mpd.

Yes, 1037 mph at the equator.  How fast does it spin at 40 degrees north latitude?  How fast at the north pole?  Regardless of the mph, the earth spins at a constant 15 degrees per hour, which is 1/2 as fast as the hour hand on a clock.

Mmmmm. I have a rock and a book Tao te Ching. 15° is enough for it to slide.

I'm not sure the rotation speed with 40° latitude. But I've heard at the North Pole that it rotates not at all. They have a time lapse of the North Pole, where they show it going sideways.

So supposedly because of this rotation, the sun arcs. Just one problem. This video? It's fake! Other videos show the midnight sun, and it does in fact arc up and down.


So anywhere on Earth, the sun rises and sets, and the arc is due not to rotation, but the horizon vs width of latitude. Let me explain, the reason the sun sets for half a year and stays midnight sun near North Pole for half a year is that we are talking about a circular path around a center point. If you draw a series of circles where light touches, the nearest will never have light move away while it circles, then outward there will be points where it does move away.
So the premise to The Fake Experiment is that on a sphere,  a midnight sun should also prove that the South Pole is a center point. Aside from camera glitches and weird inconsistencies, this doesn't bear out with climate though. Let's talk about parts of Alaska where you can see midnight sun. During the summer, the ice thaws, and you get lush fertile countryside and awesome crops. This is because of cool humid weather and constant sun. Then the land is covered in a blanket of constant snow. Does something similar happen in the islands near Antarctic Circle? No, kinda they are blighted looking. I believe this is mentioned in Eric Dubay's seasons video. You can claim all you want that there is a midnight sun, you can show fake videos. But the ecology is quite different.

You know the vomitcomet?
Where the plane and rhe peiple are falling at the same speed?
Are they feel any relative force?
Or are they moving together?
Are they moving slowly or fast?
Does the speed of their movement mean theyre being flung off each other?
At what point will the people "feel" the force?  - its when the accellerati9m between the two change.
When the plane pulls up.

You know what the vomit comet does prove?

That zero gravity, as they put it, can be utterly faked. And that motion hoists things aloft.

Meanwhile, nevermind if I'm taking ridiculously tiny steps, effectively shuffling forward at a snail's pace. I nonetheless feel angles, and feel a difference of 8 inches over the course of a mile.

8 inches of snow, in case you missed it is this much (the width).

It's enough to go over most boots. Over two miles, 32 inches is this much.

Over 3 miles, 72 inches

Meanwhile, AI lies about height. When I ask, then ask it to clarify in inches.

The Earth's curvature over 3 miles is approximately 6.5 feet, as it curves about 8 inches per mile.

The Earth's curvature is approximately 8 inches per mile, so over 3 miles, the curvature would be about 24 inches

24 inches is not 6.5 ft. But 72 inches (the projected height here)

is alot closer. Yes, you should be able to see a 6 ft curve.

These seemingly reasonable measurements of rotation, angle, curvature, and speed fall apart when pushed to any rational standard.

Having not been in the vomit comet, but having been in Gravitron, it was not moving that fast. Oh sure, you scale rotations per minute  by its small size then upscale. But again, if I placed a file cabinet in Kansas, used a tiny carjack to lift it off the ground, and put it on a ladder that can hold it and then waited a minute, the fact that this file cabinet doesn't flying backwards 17 miles according to the change ought to be enough for you. You play games with numbers.

Quote from: markjo on May 15, 2025, 09:14:36 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 15, 2025, 06:10:23 AM

Say it with me.

1000+ mph means each hour (to a total of roughly 24,000+ miles) 1000+ miles is spun. This means each minute, you are moving 17miles away. "But but it spins once a day!" Yes, it spins once at a rate of 24,000+ mpd.

Yes, 1037 mph at the equator.  How fast does it spin at 40 degrees north latitude?  How fast at the north pole?  Regardless of the mph, the earth spins at a constant 15 degrees per hour, which is 1/2 as fast as the hour hand on a clock.

Mmmmm. I have a rock and a book Tao te Ching. 15° is enough for it to slide.

Which has what to do with angular velocity?

I'm not sure the rotation speed with 40° latitude.

I’ll give you a hint, it’s a good bit less than 1000 mph.

But I've heard at the North Pole that it rotates not at all.

You heard wrong.  It, like the rest of the round earth, rotates once per day.  However, since it’s one end of the axis of rotation, its linear speed is zero.

They have a time lapse of the North Pole, where they show it going sideways.

So supposedly because of this rotation, the sun arcs. Just one problem. This video? It's fake! Other videos show the midnight sun, and it does in fact arc up and down.

You do realize that the poles are not the only places that get a midnight sun, don’t you?   The second video was obviously not at the north pole, so I’m not sure why you would think that the views should be the same.

Meanwhile, nevermind if I'm taking ridiculously tiny steps, effectively shuffling forward at a snail's pace. I nonetheless feel angles, and feel a difference of 8 inches over the course of a mile.

You can feel an angle of 30 arc seconds?  Wow, I am impressed.

idiot don't try and gish over to CGI fakery.




no
it proves your claim we should be flying off the earth at 1,000mph is wrong.
because there is no noticable relative change in mph because it happens over a span of 24hrs.

all the forward motion is just like the vomit comet where we're traveling together at the same speed.
the plane (earth) and the people (people).



if the plane had infinte air to fly down, and spiraled at a rate of 24hours - how long do you think before all the people were "upside down" compared to the plane

You know what the vomit comet does prove?

Why would there be a conspiracy the earth is spherical and that is why things like over the horizon radar was developed.  To solve a problem not solved by line of sight radar.  To literally fill the gap left by line of sight radar.  And not having over the horizon radar is a tactical disadvantage. 

Bulma, there is no conspiracy that understanding the heliocentric reality leads to advances and leaves FE cold. 

Yes, you should be able to see a 6 ft curve.

It’s called the real and measurable dip of the horizon jackass. 

Mmmmm. I have a rock and a book Tao te Ching. 15° is enough for it to slide.

That angle alone is entirely meaningless.
The question is what is it measured relative to?
And the answer to that is it is 15 degrees from perpendicular to straight down.
Guess what? Earth rotating wont change that angle.

But I've heard at the North Pole that it rotates not at all.

Which just further demonstrates the complete lack of understanding or blatant dishonesty on your part.
It does still rotate, but the tangential velocity is 0.
Perhaps if you stopped being a lying POS, and tried to honestly represent rotation in the form of angular velocity or period of rotation rather than continually appealing to a linear speed, you would understand.
All of Earth rotates at roughly 1 revolution per day.

So supposedly because of this rotation, the sun arcs. Just one problem. This video? It's fake! Other videos show the midnight sun, and it does in fact arc up and down.

And yet again you just assert delusional BS with a complete lack of understanding.

Other videos showing the midnight sun going up and down in no way shows ALL do.
Even a very basic understanding would show that.
At the north pole or the south pole, it doesn't arc up and down.
But move away from the pole and it does.
Move far enough away and it arcs down so much that Earth blocks the view.

So do you have any actual basis to dismiss it as fake?
No.
You just look for excuses to reject reality.

And again do you know what makes it truly pathetic?
There is no reason for it to arc in either model at the north pole.
So you argument is really useless.

So anywhere on Earth, the sun rises and sets, and the arc is due not to rotation

No, all the evidence which can show one way or another clearly indicates it is due to rotation.

Let me explain

If you want to explain, actually explain.
Don't just provide vague crap that explains nothing or ignores the vast majority of the world.

If you draw a series of circles where light touches, the nearest will never have light move away while it circles, then outward there will be points where it does move away.

The problem with that is that the equator is always receiving roughly 12 hours of daylight.
So that circle needs to touch points directly opposite each other on the equator.
That means those circles will ALWAYS overlap the north pole.


That means no period of darkness for the north pole, EVER.

And it fails to explains what magic causes these circles.
We know it can't be your parabola.

And notice what else that fails to explain?
Why the sun should always be going up and down.

So yet again, you fail to explain anything.

So the premise to The Fake Experiment is that on a sphere

You mean the real experiment you cannot show any fault with and just desperately lie about repeatedly?

this doesn't bear out with climate though.

Your failure to understand the climate, and willingness to just accept the lies of a known conman rather than thinking for yourself has no impact on reality.

Let's talk about parts of Alaska

So a fundamentally different region with different land and ocean boundaries, making it an extremely dishonest comparison?

That zero gravity, as they put it, can be utterly faked.

In what way is that "faked"?
Creating a zero-g environment is not faking it.

And that motion hoists things aloft.

You mean very specific motion which is consistent with free fall due to gravity?

I nonetheless feel angles

Again, angles relative to what?

feel a difference of 8 inches over the course of a mile.

Pure BS.
Please tell us exactly what way you magically feel a difference of 8 inches over 1 mile.
That is 1 part in 7920.
That would be equivalent to feeling 1 mm over a distance of 8 m.
It is pure BS.
If people could feel that there would be no need for levels.

Your comparisons to snow are more dishonest BS showing a complete lack of critical thinking.
That is 8 inches of a distance of 0.
Quite different to 8 inches of a distance of 63360 inches.

Meanwhile, AI lies about height

As explained to you before, it just generates crap.

Yes, you should be able to see a 6 ft curve.

And just what are you expecting to see?

Do you mean you should see the ground 6 ft below you?
That is what is expected on a flat Earth. On a round Earth it would be 12 ft below.
So the drop expected for a RE is roughly twice that for a FE.
Yet you claim you can't see either.

These seemingly reasonable measurements of rotation, angle, curvature, and speed fall apart when pushed to any rational standard.

I am yet to see you even attempt that.
So far all of your standards have been dishonest BS.

having been in Gravitron, it was not moving that fast.

And how did you determine that?

Quickly checking wiki, it goes at 24 RPM That is almost 1 rotation every 2 seconds.
And from what I can see its radius is something like 7 m.
And it cheats with an angled floor, but lets ignore that.

Importantly, we can also consider how to scale it up. Rather than just acting like scaling it up to Earth will magically produce the same results.
There are several ways to express the inwards acceleration to maintain a circular path.
Perhaps the simplest is a=omega^2*r.
24 RPM is a way to express omega, as it is an angular velocity.
Importantly note that this is squared.
That means if you want to have the same acceleration, if you multiply the radius by a factor of 4, you need to divide the rotation rate by 2.
If you divide the rotation rate by 10, you multiply the radius by 100
i.e. the factor by which you multiply the radius is the square of the factor by which you divide the angular velocity.

So taking our 7 m radius and increasing it to 7000 km (a simplified stand in for Earth 6371 km radius), we get a factor of 1 million.
That means for the rotation we divide by 1000.
So we take our 24 RPM, and divide by 1000.
Well, first lets convert to revolutions per day, taking it as 24 hours for simplicity.
That is 34560 revolutions per day.
Now divide that by the factor of 1000 we need, and we end up with ~34.5 revolutions per day.

i.e. if you were honest and understood the math behind it, you would recognise that to scale up the graviton to the size of Earth, you would need the rotation speed to be roughly 34.5 revolutions per day.
That is 1.44 revolutions per hour.

Earth is rotating much more slowly.
So your comparison is dishonest BS.

We can also go the other way.
Lets imagine taking Earth and scaling it down to the gravitron.
So 1 take the 1 revolution per day and scale it up by a factor of 1000. That is 1000 revolutions per day, or 41.7 per hour, or 0.7 per minute.

Try having the graviton spin at that rate and see how you feel.

the fact that this file cabinet doesn't flying backwards 17 miles according to the change ought to be enough for you. You play games with numbers.

No, YOU are the one playing games with numbers.
Like now, where you appeal to 17 miles pulled without any justification.
Why should the cabinet fly backwards 17 miles?
You just dishonestly appeal to big numbers to pretend it should be obvious, yet you cannot explain just why it should act like that.
You can do the same thing on a plane, and you don't see it fly straight to the back of the plane.
That, along with time on trains and in cars and so on, is enough for me to see you are spouting ourtight BS and that you are displaying a complete lack any critical thinking at all.

Calling out your dishonesty by showing what the numbers actually are is not playing games. It is called being honest. You should try it some time.

And you play these games to deflect from your complete inability to show any fault with the RE model and your complete inability to defend your model.

The RE solution to FE: make the sun as big as it probably is on a RE model, then superimpose it on a FE system.

The FE solution to RE: make the actual size of the sun about as big as the moon. Tighten the radius of its outer light so it only crosses the North Pole around summer seasons.

It isn't hard.

"(blubbers) But... the sun rises and sets all year long in the southern hemisphere!" Yes, we've seen your map with the entire region of light for the sun. Not how it works.

When you put a flashlight face down down, there are three sections of light. Let's compare that to the seasons.
Focal center: where the sun is centered
Inner Ring: Areas the get sunlight, e.g. sunrise and sunset.
Outer Ring: Areas that get sunlight but not enough to make a go of things

In summer, the focal center is in Tropic of Cancer, the outer ring constantly moves across the North Pole and upper regions, while rising and setting on wider regions than a tiny dot in the middle.
In the winter, the focal center is in the Tropic of Capricorn, and moves faster (thing of it like swinging a pendulum, if you swing it slowly, it tends to center, but it widens outward the more you swing it), and lowermost regions including what you call the continent of Antarctica get sun all season long. So, midnight sun in Antarctica? That's only if Earth is a sphere, because the midnight sun is the outer ring of light converging on a center point like it does in the northern hemisphere. If however, the outer ring moves around a wide rim, then you have different story. Hence, the push to make TFE videos.

Now, I could show you a video here, where Eric disputes many discrepancies in TFE. Like these ones.


But I'm not going to, no, no, I'm not going to. Instead, I'm gonna point out that without looking at such things, we already know there isn't a midnight sun because regions adjacent to the Arctic Circle like Alaska and Canada (Fairbanks, for instance) get a midnight sun, and are quite fertile, while the supposed midnight sun doesn't give southern regions anything like that. The sun is too busy racing around a wide area. So again, without me watching any videos of the southern hemisphere sunset, I still know that there's something weird about this. Fairbanks is 65°N, so we're look for a place around 65°S. Nope, only thing there is Antarctica 62 parallel down to what they say is 90th parallel. But the only reason for a higher speed sun is if you're doing a wide rim thing.

Just as a heads up, the outer ring of light can stretch from about...
67°N to 67°S (though not necessarily that wide)
Where did I get that number?
Easy. 90°N/S -23 (the Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn) means the sun only has to be that big.

This means at summer the outer rim stretches to 90° N (a center point), and 65°N onward can see it all day too. Everywhere below 44°S latitude should get very short days. I was in South Africa (only 30°S or so), so I never saw this. At spring and fall, we approach the center where most of the world but those outside 67° gets normal days. Then in winter, everywhere above 44°N gets miserable winters while as you can see above, the Antarctic rim is much wider than a dot in the center. A faster speed is needed to cover the wider area.

As I'm sure you know, this is consistent with North Dakota, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and much of Russia. It's not consistent with much of Europe, which is why I sorta suspect Europe might be distorting its size similar to the  new woke maps that make Africa look like a huge continent because representation. Yeah that sorta thing screws with accurate latitude.

Here's  the woke "proportional map of the world."

When you stretch countries for political reasons, you screw with accurate understanding of the real latitude and longitude.

Now.  Draw the sun’s path on the picture for the equinox and show how for me in Ohio how the sun can stay the same apparent size throughout the day.  Rise due east and set due west.  And show how the sun can also rise due east and set due west for California, Hawaii, Japan, China, India, Russia, turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain.

FE is a crap show that can’t “solve” one problem without contradicting itself in several other areas. 

The RE solution to FE:

Where RE doesn’t contradict itself over several proofs..

Activity: Measuring the Earth's Curvature II
One of the first people to make a very accurate measurement of the circumference of the Earth was Eratosthenes, a Greek philosopher who lived in Alexandria around 250B.C. He was told that on a certain day during the summer (June 21) in a town called Syene, which was 4900 stadia (1 stadia = 0.16 kilometers) to the south of Alexandria, the sunlight shown directly down the well shafts so that you could see all the way to the bottom. Eratosthenes knew that the sun was never quite high enough in the sky to see the bottom of wells in Alexandria and he was able to calculate that in fact it was about 7 degrees too low. Knowing that the sun was 7 degrees lower at its highpoint in Alexandria than in Syene and assuming that the sun's rays were parallel when they hit the Earth, Eratosthenes was able to calculate the circumference of the Earth using a simple proportion: C/4900 stadia = 360 degrees/ 7 degrees. This gives an answer of 252,000 stadia or 40,320 km, which is very close to today's measurements of 40,030 km.

With the help of another classroom and teacher who is located far (several hundred miles), to the North or South of you, your class can perform a similar experiment. Alternatively, one student or a group of students who travel for spring break could perform this experiment during their trip. Contact information for interested teachers can be submitted and received here:



https://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/teachersguide/MeasECAct2.html

Seems like an easy thing to do with all the talking head flat earthers over the works with YouTube channels.

But I guess there are several other proofs that already prove’s the earth is spherical.

There is a person on YouTube,
Jos Leys? The individual likes to do computer models and set them to music. 

The individual also shows flat earth modeling vs reality.  Usually for sun and shadows.

Debunking flat Earth using only a stick.

The below video by the same person shows the actual path the stick shadow traveled in France for a time around the equinox.

Or…

LAHAINA NOON IN HAWAIʻI: WHEN AND WHERE TO SEE IT (2025)

Did you know there’s a moment in Hawaiʻi when your shadow completely disappears? This rare tropical phenomenon, known as Lāhainā Noon, happens only twice a year—and only in the tropics. Here’s everything you need to know to witness it.




https://www.lovebigisland.com/hawaii-blog/lahaina-noon-when-and-where/

The RE solution to FE: make the sun as big as it probably is on a RE model, then superimpose it on a FE system.

No, the RE pointing out the massive problems with the FE model, demonstrate no matter how you make it, it doesn't work.

The diagram I provided demonstrates a very simple fact, that if the equator has ~12 hours of daylight, i.e. half a day, then it is impossible for a north pole centred FE model, with the ability to see the sun based simply upon the distance to it, to ever have the north pole in darkness.

The FE solution to RE: make the actual size of the sun about as big as the moon. Tighten the radius of its outer light so it only crosses the North Pole around summer seasons.

This does NOTHING to address the problems.
So what you really have:
The FE solution to any problem: Ignore it or lie about it or deflect.

And that is exactly what you have done here.
You have entirely ignored the fact that we know it isn't distance based like you keep wanting to pretend.
So you just spout irrelevant crap.

the sun rises and sets all year long in the southern hemisphere!

No, not the issue that was raised.
The issue that was actually raised:
In the southern summer we observe the sun rising south of east and setting south of west.
Including in places further south than the tropics.
Also a massive problem, the further south you are the more daylight you get.

You can't address either of these problems, so you just spam crap.
I know how a flashlight works, you need to defy that.
Try actually drawing a picture of the daylight region during the southern summer, and try to explain how you get that from a flashlight.

So, midnight sun in Antarctica? That's only if Earth is a sphere

i.e. reality.
You not liking reality doesn't make it fake.

Now, I could show you a video here, where Eric disputes many discrepancies in TFE. Like these ones.

You mean a video where your conman cult leader blatantly lies to everyone, and you just accept it without any critical thinking.

Instead, I'm gonna point out that without looking at such things, we already know there isn't a midnight sun because regions adjacent to the Arctic Circle like Alaska and Canada (Fairbanks, for instance) get a midnight sun, and are quite fertile, while the supposed midnight sun doesn't give southern regions anything like that.

You mean you will yet again lie to everyone.
Lets try that more honestly shall we.
During the northern summer, we see the equator receives roughly 12 hours of daylight. As you go further north, you get more hours of daylight. As you go further south, you get less hours of daylight.
Extrapolating this to the Arctic circle, you get 24 hours of daylight, and to the Antarctic circle, you get none. (at least at the peak of summer).
Likewise, during the southern summer, we see the equator receives roughly 12 hours of daylight. As you go further south, you get more hours of daylight. As you go further north, you get less hours of daylight.
Extrapolating this to the Arctic circle, you get 24 hours of daylight, and to the Antarctic circle, you get none. (at least at the peak of summer).

And we do see this behaviour. For example, Punta Arenas, near Cape Horn, on the 21st of December 2024 had sunrise at 5:12 am and sunset at 10:11 pm. This gives them almost 17.5 hours of daylight.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/chile/punta-arenas?month=12&year=2024
This makes no sense at all on your model.

And your pathetic attempt at a refutation is built upon a blatant lie.
Regions adjacent to, but outside, the Artic circle, do NOT get a midnight sun.
It is regions INSIDE the circle that do.
Fairbanks for instance on the 21st of June had the sun rise at 2:57 am and set the next day at 12:47 am.
Now you could try to play semantics of technically the sun was visible at "midnight" in the sense of 12 am, but that is just a result of the time zone. They did not have one at midnight solar time. The key part missing is it not setting at all. They did not get a 24 hour sun.
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/usa/fairbanks?month=6&year=2024
And this isn't surprising given they are not inside the Artic Circle, but they are quite close at almost 65 degrees north.

Meanwhile, the furthest south populated region is Punta Arenas, at a latitude of 53 degrees south.

If you want to get close to the Antarctic circle, you need to get close to Antarctica.

And again, notice absolutely no attempt by you to explain how such a far south location can get so much daylight.
As if you know your model is pure BS and you need to lie to everyone about it.

without me watching any videos of the southern hemisphere sunset, I still know that there's something weird about this.

You know don't.
What you mean is without watching you know you are desperate to reject it at all costs because it shows your delusional fantasy is wrong.

But the only reason for a higher speed sun is if you're doing a wide rim thing.

What higher speed sun?
Are you just dishonestly applying entirely circular reasoning where you say the sun is moving faster because your BS needs it to?

Just as a heads up, the outer ring of light can stretch from about...

Again, instead of just uselessly providing numbers, try drawing it.

None of the crap you are spouting in any way addresses the issue.

Again, nice and simple, get a picture which roughly represents what you think the layout of the continents are.
Then draw the circle illuminated by the sun during the peak of the southern summer.
This must give places on the equator roughly 12 hours of daylight.
It must have the north pole in darkness, in fact, everywhere inside the Arctic circle must be in darkness.
It must give places south of the equator more light the further south you go.
Try actually drawing to see that it can't work.

All it takes is considering a single line of longitude.
e.g. consider the one going from the north pole, straight down in an image, at roughly 6 am for these people.
We know the sun is directly right of the north pole. And we know a location on the Arctic circle to the right has darkness.
We know the point on the equator is just having the sun rise.
And we know a point further south has had the sun rise some time ago.
i.e. we can get an image like this:

Where your BS requires r1>r2>r3.
Yet by looking at the image it is incredibly clear that r3>r2>r1.

i.e. YOUR BS CANNOT WORK!

Again if you want to pretend your FE fantasy can work, you need to address this.
This has been raised before and you have said you will just ignore it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 17, 2025, 06:52:59 AM

Now.  Draw the sun’s path on the picture for the equinox and show how for me in Ohio how the sun can stay the same apparent size throughout the day.  Rise due east and set due west.  And show how the sun can also rise due east and set due west for California, Hawaii, Japan, China, India, Russia, turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain.

FE is a crap show that can’t “solve” one problem without contradicting itself in several other areas.

The way you ask for things is so much like you think you're ruler of the world. As if as a globalist, you expect "lesser peoples" to cooperate. Ohio sucks. It's a backwards nowhere state and I'm categorically refusing to waste time on your request.
Had you actually bothered to watch these videos, you'd notice there is some change in size. You just haven't been looking directly at the sun, so you didn't notice it. I'm gonna need you to burn out your retinas.

"But it stays the same all day!" No it doesn't. Take a picture and use a copypasted box. There will be minor shifts in size over the course of the day.

---

And you default to old fart shill. Who sticks lines in the ground and it goes all bowl-shaped.


I'm sorry, but you don't understand your own theory.

If he found that it bulged outward that would be consistent with this outward sectional bulge.


But an inward or flat view is consistent with flat Earth.

The way you ask for things is so much like you think you're ruler of the world.

No, it is like we think you are spouting pure BS you cannot justify, so we make simple requests which show your model is crap.

Had you actually bothered to watch these videos, you'd notice there is some change in size.

What videos?
I'm yet to see one which shows an actual change in apparent size of the sun.
There are plenty showing varying amounts of glare, but and right near the horizon you can have the sun start to get distorted as it passes through so much atmosphere, but none really showing any change in size of the sun.

I'm sorry, but you don't understand your own theory.

Yet you can't explain anything wrong with it.
Are you sure it isn't YOU who doesn't understand?

If he found that it bulged outward that would be consistent with this outward sectional bulge.

Why? Try actually explaining it from the model, rather than just baseless assertions.

But an inward or flat view is consistent with flat Earth.

No. A flat Earth should not produce a straight line for the shadow.
This is simple geometry.
And something you can easily test yourself.

And you yet again ignore the massive problems with your delusional BS.


None of the crap you are spouting in any way addresses the issue.

Again, nice and simple, get a picture which roughly represents what you think the layout of the continents are.
Then draw the circle illuminated by the sun during the peak of the southern summer.
This must give places on the equator roughly 12 hours of daylight.
It must have the north pole in darkness, in fact, everywhere inside the Arctic circle must be in darkness.
It must give places south of the equator more light the further south you go.
Try actually drawing to see that it can't work.

All it takes is considering a single line of longitude.
e.g. consider the one going from the north pole, straight down in an image, at roughly 6 am for these people.
We know the sun is directly right of the north pole. And we know a location on the Arctic circle to the right has darkness.
We know the point on the equator is just having the sun rise.
And we know a point further south has had the sun rise some time ago.
i.e. we can get an image like this:

Where your BS requires r1>r2>r3.
Yet by looking at the image it is incredibly clear that r3>r2>r1.

i.e. YOUR BS CANNOT WORK!

Again if you want to pretend your FE fantasy can work, you need to address this.
This has been raised before and you have said you will just ignore it.

Now.  Draw the sun’s path on the picture for the equinox and show how for me in Ohio how the sun can stay the same apparent size throughout the day.  Rise due east and set due west.  And show how the sun can also rise due east and set due west for California, Hawaii, Japan, China, India, Russia, turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain.

FE is a crap show that can’t “solve” one problem without contradicting itself in several other areas.


Bulma, I just asked you a direct and simple question.  You can’t complete the task because it doesn’t work for a flat earth.  Everyone sees through your flack, and it’s just flack to cover FE fails to match reality. 

 

Mark your house on that map with a dot, and I'll even make it an animation.

If it will get you to stfu about Ohio.

I've driven through Ohio. It is a fucking dump of a state.

They had a "scenic overlook" that was a corn field in one direction, and a highway in another.

Oh wait, no, I'm thinking of that other state...


Oklahoma. The other showtune state.

In any case, your state's only claim to fame is dumpy woke cities and skyline chili. Virginia is the proper state.

"Go and subdue! Britain you stayed too long!"
https://www.movers.com/moving-guides/us-state-profiles/twostates-compare.aspx
Virginia outranks Ohio in lower crime, gas prices, cost of living, and overall economy. You only outrank Virginia in belief most people are honest. Which is just that, a belief. Your state's people aren't honest or trustworthy (as noted from crime), you're just more gullible! And we even have a better showtune.
Now shut up about your stinky state and give me a dot on the map that I can cross the sun over it. A nice black dot if you will.

I've driven through Ohio. It is a fucking dump of a state.

The request..


Draw the sun’s path on the picture for the equinox and show how for me in Ohio how the sun can stay the same apparent size throughout the day.  Rise due east and set due west.  And show how the sun can also rise due east and set due west for California, Hawaii, Japan, China, India, Russia, turkey, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Great Britain.

FE is a crap show that can’t “solve” one problem without contradicting itself in several other areas.



  Bulma, stop playing games. It’s known whatever you draw to make a path for the sun above a flat earth is going to require the sun to change absolute size for most people around the globe where in reality the sun doesn’t change apparent size.

The path of the sun over a flat earth would also require the sun to rise in other directions than east for large areas of the globe.  So flat earth can’t model how the sun rises due east and sets due west for the majority of the earth on the equinox.

FE is useless at correctly modeling the witnessed daily path of the sun.  FE fails and is useless.

You couldn't put a fucking simple dot on a map. It was one simple request, and you who has been telling me that I need to do this model, you couldn't manage that one thing. You proceed to make demands of people and do not stop nagging until you get your way, like a spoiled fucking child. All take and no give.

Now, I had to adjust a few times, because the midnight sun starts at the 65 N line, but I think I got it. Now, because of your attitude, I moved from about 8 frames (or even 12) to only 4.

Every 6 hours, basically.

---

Summer.

As you'll note, the entire 24 hours, the pole never loses sunlight. And for least 12 hours, the sections of the northern hemisphere get sun, but so does much of Africa and South America. There probably is some sun, but we're talking about short days with mostly bitter cold in such areas.

---

Fall

---

Winter

Sunlight to much of Canada. No need for huge circles or a long bar. Winter inversion means that summer in southern hemisphere.

---

Spring

---

Then back to summer. No, I do not care that the year "starts" in winter, by someone's arbitrary decision. We're starting it with the midnight sun, then showing how indeed you cannot get a midnight sun south of the equator by a simple light overhead. You can through a complicated dome model (Eric Dubay has someone show it), but you know, I'm pretty sure Occam's razor says they were in a CGI room and leave it at that.

Lemme guess, you'll make your little chevron thing to "prove" that the sun angles a bit or something. That's not a proof. It's because you said so. None of that has anything to do with sun size, in the same way as the swinging a door open or closed doesn't create the same noticeable distortion as for instance yanking a door off its hinges and throwing it 20 ft away.

Loser. Your state sucks, so you want to take it out on me, instead of doing something like moving.

That's Rowbotham you fucking dunce. Dubay? He showed you can learn how to use Adobe Illustrator.

You got to hold yourself to higher standard than these dunces brother.

You couldn't put a fucking simple dot on a map.

For me in Ohio,  the sun would have to change apparent size.  It doesn’t.   The sun would have to do a circle and travel a circuit like a race car on a circular track.  And would have to travel north / south for large areas of the world.

And the North Star is visible from all places for your track of the sun in the northern hemisphere.  So in reality the sun should also always be visible. 



FE simply fails to correctly model what is witnessed in reality regarding the sun’s path.  Flat earth fails.  The heliocentric solar system. Is reliable.

To post otherwise is a lie.


Post with actual path of sun and areas of sunlight.



This is interesting.  The position of the sun during the equinox on March 20 - 21.

Where the sun rises due east and sets due west for a majority of the world.










If you try to map it out on a flat earth, the sun has to rise other than due east and set due west for large areas. 





  Bulma.  The FE fails to explain how the sun rises due east and sets due west for a majority of the world on the equinox. The heliocentric model explains it quite well and results in accurate predictions.  For FE, the sun would have to rise south to north for the USA.  Flat earth is a useless model and repeatedly debunked. 
[/quote]

None of that has anything to do with sun size, in the same way as the swinging a door open or closed doesn't create the same noticeable distortion as for instance yanking a door off its hinges and throwing it 20 ft away.

Wrong.




The FE model, the sun would change distance from me in Ohio through the day. 

Where watching the sun in Ohio would be like watching an airplane from the infield of an airplane pylon race.



The sun on a flat earth model for someone in Ohio requires the sun to drastically change apparent size through the day.  Especially if you posted this..

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

If you think the sun “sets” in the flat earth model by involving vanishing point.  The sun would have to change apparent size through the day and shrink in apparent size all afternoon. 


The actual area of sunlight by the way..






FE fails and is a hot messy contradiction.