Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Who in general do not have to adjust to curve.

This entirely depends on what they are doing.
If they are just covering a tiny area, then they don't need to. Especially if they aren't caring about altitude.
But other times, they do need to adjust for the curve.

and what works.

And what works is the RE model.
What doesn't work is your fantasy.

Does a pilot need to adjust downward to avoid moving into the upper atmosphere?

No, but what they do need to do is make sure they are going in the right direction. Typically using routes calculated based upon great circles of the RE.

You can plainly see ... that she is flying over mountains level without making any adjustments.

We actually see lots of small adjustments.
But yet again you can't actually explain just what you are expecting to see.
If she is flying over a round Earth, ignoring minor adjustments, she is going to have the plane trimmed so it will follow the curve. That means no additional adjustments need to be made.
With the minor adjustments the same thing happens. The plane is trimmed to maintain attitude and altitude, and that will include following the curve with no extra adjustments made.
That is because this trimming and minor adjustments are made based upon the behaviour of the plane, rather than being calculated requiring exact knowledge of the atmospheric conditions.

You would need sudden adjustments if Earth was a cube, not a sphere.

You mean stargazers? That's not actual science. Astronomy is a discipline that like anthropology or paleontology, is heavily guarded by gatekeepers.

No, it isn't.
Pretty much anyone can get a telescope and start making observations. That is quite different to going to a location and digging up a skeleton.

But regardless of what you want to call them, what they do is based upon the fact Earth is round.
It doesn't work if Earth is flat.

They were not genius level astronomers calculating the location of moving satellites in space that were timed to position in place with Earth's rotation.

The calculations are relatively simple, and because the satellite is geostationary, you just need to know the angular separation between the point on Earth below the satellite and the location of the dish, and the angle to it.
With these calculations again being based upon Earth being round.

One thing they don't have is advanced math or science degrees needed to pinpoint objects above a sphere.

Just because you are too stupid and wilfully ignorant to understand the math doesn't mean you need an advanced math degree.

You can send radio without such adjustments.

Under specific circumstances which requires radio waves which reflect off the ionosphere.
If Earth was flat, any would work.

I do not have confirmation bias at all. When Dubay says nonsense, I recognize it as nonsense.

You most certainly do.
Because it isn't if he says nonsense.
It is if what he says goes along with your delusional fantasy.

But you are correct, people can indeed be fed the wrong information.

And you are a great example of that, gobbling up as much as possible to cling to your delusional fantasy.

So if a globe is indeed the most accurate model for measuring Earth, then to navigate, you need to throw away the compass, paper map, and every tool but a large globe, and a pencil.

Why?

Yet again you just assert crap.

It is not Eric Dubay's words that I trust.

No, it is your delusional fantasy. If something is consistent with it (or would confirm it) you accept it.
But if it shows you are wrong, you reject it.
That is confirmation bias.

It is two round trips across America ...

With you still yet to explain how these magically show Earth is flat.

Instead you just rely upon your wilful ignorance and confirmation bias.

Real science uses the scientific method.

Something you refuse to use.
Instead using the religious method of rejecting anything that goes against your beliefs.

consensus

There is a fundamental difference between saying this is true because a lot of people believe it, and saying a lot of people who understand the science behind it accept it as true.
Even when there with things which went against consensus, that consensus was changed by evidence or rational arguments.
And that is something you can't present. You have no evidence nor rational arguments to support your BS. You just have pathetic lies and dismissal of evidence.

Actual followers of the scientific method question things even if they are the only one to do so.

And there is a difference between questioning and rejecting.
You just reject things which go against your delusional beliefs; while never seeming to question your delusional beliefs.

My pursuit of the scientific method comes as a direct result of my faith.

You mean your complete rejection of the scientific method?

For the same reason I might ask you "why are there unicorns in only shades of white and black?"

The fundamental distinction there being that you are appealing to complete crap; while we are appealing to something you can verify yourself but choose not to.

Your wilful ignorance of the measurable angle of dip to the horizon doesn't make it go away.
It just means you are choosing to remain wilfully ignorant, entirely discarding the scientific method, and lying to everyone.

There isn't a noticeable drop.

There IS a measurable and detectable drop!
Again, you can verify it yourself
You have been provided plenty of images showing this.

if I were to build a continuous roadway such as maybe Route 40 what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension

Why?
Yet again you assert pure crap with no justification.
Why should there be any tension?

The best case argument for you is if someone pre-fabricated that road in perfectly straight sections and joined it together perfectly aligned and put it in place.
But that never happened.

More importantly, even if it did, just what tension would there be?
Assuming the road is 1 m thick, the strain, as a percentage, will only be roughly 0.0000002 = 0.00002 %
This is basically nothing.
As a comparison, if you laid the road so it was set at 30 C, and let it cool to just 29 C, a change of a single degree, that would cause a strain of ~0.00003 = 0.003 %.

That is over 100 times the strain due to the curvature of Earth for a 1 m deep road.
So if the curve was going to be an issue, a tiny change in temperature would destroy the road.

Yet again, you are just lying to everyone.
There is nothing in that BS you are spouting which shows any problem at all for a RE.

And I don't remember any drop.

And what drop were you expecting, and how were you trying to measure it?

We have to leave the debate open

And it is open. But that doesn't mean you get to replace it with pathetic crap.

I discovered that Pasteur actually faked many of his results

Did you? Or did you just read paranoid crap which you accepted without question?
The important thing here is that you can recreate the experiments to test them themselves.

Later abiogenesis basically retried the exact experiment

No, a fundamentally different one.


Meanwhile, look at you still spamming pathetic crap to avoid the fact you can't explain the sun at all.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 30, 2025, 06:19:52 AM

But no such issue happens. No adjustment in fact happens. They measure the road is level.

I have no idea why FE’ers think that flat or level roads should be a gotcha for RE.  Where I live, most roads are neither flat nor level.  They tend to follow the undulations of the hills and valleys of the area.   My guess is that the only time that they would worry about the shape of the earth is when they survey the path of the road, and that’s only to make sure that the maps are accurate over any significant distance.

Where I live, most roads are neither flat nor level.

What I see when I look at RE'ers is an unwillingness to truly explore. They accuse FE'ers of confirmation bias, but the truth is they are very sheltered, and tend to accept what they are taught. When further surrounded by "evidence" they tend to see it as proof of the whole, instead of exploring the whole.

Usually. Then there are the proselytizes who start out economically desperate, and have a need to defend something they don't even agree to avoid going back to misery.
An Flat Earther is someone you can't even understand. When offered money to sell out their principles, they say "Not for any amount of money." Or like me, they take the money, and being completely immoral, don't accept the idea that money equals a contract, "Thanks for offering me that bribe, but the Earth is still flat." Whether the bribe is $1000 or $100 trillion. Obviously, the bribes stop coming after that, but I've probably already spent the money, so you can't ask for it back. I can only get into debt and starve to death once, right?

Where I live now has a small hill to the west (maybe 750 ft at its top), then the road flattens out for awhile.  To the east, we head toward the coastline. There's few hills and such near Richmond, but the worst hill is in the middle of Richmond near a place called Shockoe Bottom. I avoid that area like the plague, as you have stoplights and side streets on a downhills slope, and if your brakes fail you're in for a world of hurt.
Thing is, unlike most people who dove right into the work world, and never left their comfortable prison, I kinda ditched a couple of times to go exploring/run away. Seen the countryside. It's not all hill.

By the way.

The average elevation of all land on Earth is about 840 meters (2,755 feet) above sea level, while the average depth of the oceans is approximately 3,688 meters (12,100 feet) below sea level. When considering both land and water, the overall average elevation is around -1,200 meters (-3,937 feet) relative to sea level.

The average elevation is a valley. Not a hill. Want me to draw it out for you?
                                                                            Outside
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  higher sky
.....................................................................  sky
_________________________________________  sea
\                                                                       /
  \                                                                   /
    \                                                               /
      \________________________________/  average elevation


Here's a 1534 Biblical depiction of Earth.

Classical Bible depiction before Round Earthers made them stupid.



Hmmm. You toss violently on a ball, you sit calmly on a circle. Circles are flat.

Even the 1534 one though, if you have a smart device, hold it level, you can see that it's a circle, not a sphere. The people of the Bible had to go miles and miles on foot. They are no idiots. They remember personally from their feet killing them what that felt like.

You driving back and forth on a few hills think you understand everything.

What I see when I look at RE'ers is an unwillingness to truly explore.

Because you are desperate to look for excuses to dismiss them.
When I look at FEers like you, I see an unwillingness to explore intellectually, and unwillingness to do any experiments.

And yet again, you demonstrate that.
Do you even understand the point being made?
Of course you do, you are just lying to everyone by pretending to not understand it.
An you will use it as yet another excuse to flee and run off on another pathetic tangent to avoid admitting you lied to everyone yet again.

It is really quite simple, if the curvature of Earth was going to be the problem for the RE you want to pretend it is, it would be a much greater problem for roads over a hill.
Yet plenty of roads exist over hills.

An Flat Earther is someone you can't even understand.

No, we understand. We just recognise you are full of shit.

Or like me ... being completely immoral

That sums you up quite well. You certainly don't demonstrate any sense of morality, being willing to blatantly lie to people repeatedly.

The average elevation is a valley. Not a hill. Want me to draw it out for you?

Now try to do that with a level of understanding.
Water sits on top of the land.
So if you were to smooth out the land, you would end up with the land sitting at a particular level, and the water sitting on top of it.
This tells you nothing about the shape of it.
It doesn't magically make it into a bowl.

Here's a 1534 Biblical depiction of Earth.

i.e. here is a pile of complete and utter garbage which in no way represents reality.

Classical Bible depiction before Round Earthers made them stupid.

No, that comes even after people realised the Biblical depiction of Earth is stupid.
We didn't make it stupid. It was stupid all by itself.

Now care to try addressing the topic at hand? Your complete inability to explain the perspective of the sun?
Or do you want to continue showing everyone how dishonest, immoral and stupid you are?

Desperate nothing. Day after day they talk about how in Ohio or Montana or Vermont, golly, the roads are so hilly. The Earth must be flat based on that. Yeah, and I can do a survey of 58 Amish and Muslim people, and conclude there is a 78% majority of people who accept flat Earth. This is called a limited pool.

You love to pin me as "desperate" because it supports your own delusion, of people struggling to build a lie to keep together their little cult. Yes, that's right, we're all sitting in yurts talking about removing the leaven from our lives while growing out thick beards and refusing to play that English music. The only people desperate her I see is you guys, taking massive time out of your day to go into full denial mode.

Desperate nothing.

By the person that posts useless, false, and meaningless idiotic arguments like the below.

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop. But no such issue happens. No adjustment in fact happens. They measure the road is level.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on March 20, 2025, 08:34:42 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 20, 2025, 06:07:07 AM

As for stupid meme about a beach ball or basketball looking flat when you look at a tiny piece under a microscope, there is a bit of a gaping hole in your logic.

The below with a camera with a built in zoom lens with a macro lens adapter shows just because you think it looks flat isn’t evidence of it being actually flat.



The same case that has been proven many times in different ways.

Quote

Measures “flat” with a straight edge with a small frame of reference.



The tank actually is big enough to have a gentle curve.



What should the curve look like to a person 6 foot tall for an earth 30,000 times, or more, greater in diameter than the tank?

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on February 20, 2025, 02:09:22 PM

Materials and roads follow “curvature” more extreme than the gentle curvature of the earth.  With little or no problem. 

Bulma.  Why do you use pointless and right out false assurances that kills your credibility?

Your supposed points are stupid, and your arguments on built on lies. 

You love to pin me as "desperate"

I would post attention whore where this is the only place you get attention for your stupid random thoughts.  And willing to play the fool for that attention , and being la menace to people that would like an honest debate that makes them think where you resort to lies, stupidity, and derailing threads. 

Bulma, you combating the earth is indeed spherical with lies and stupidity doesn’t change the fact the earth is spherical.

Bulma, you don’t even seem genuine in your belief in FE.  It seems more about you trolling for attention.

Or you wouldn’t post obviously false statements like..

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop. But no such issue happens. No adjustment in fact happens. They measure the road is level.

Desperate nothing. Day after day they talk about how in Ohio or Montana or Vermont, golly, the roads are so hilly. The Earth must be flat based on that.

It’s the FE argument that civil engineers and surveyors design long stretches of roads, railroad tracks, canals and the like without taking the earth’s curvature into account, therefore the earth is flat.  I’m saying that they don’t need to take curvature into account because it’s already baked into the local terrain. 

Desperate nothing.

Again, your posts continually reek of desperation with you lying to people again and again.
Just look at what you are doing now:

Day after day they talk about how in Ohio or Montana or Vermont, golly, the roads are so hilly. The Earth must be flat based on that.

No one is suggesting anything like that.
Again, the appeal to hilly roads is showing how your claim that the curvature of Earth would make laying roads impossible is nothing more than pathetic, desperate BS.

But because you have no honest response to that, you just lie and deflect.

You love to pin me as "desperate"

For the simple reason that you continually act desperate.
So pathetic and desperate you cannot honestly respond to a comment, you cannot answer simple questions.
Instead you appear to deflect at all costs.

taking massive time out of your day to go into full denial mode.

There you go projecting again.
I am yet to go into denial mode for anything. But look at how often you do.
You are the one that needs to repeatedly deny what we see with our own eyes, because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.
You are the one that needs to repeatedly deny mountains of evidence, because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.

And you are desperate for people who visit this site to believe your stuff.

Despite the claim that people "universally" accepted RE as far back as the Middle Ages, the truth is, the only "proof" of space started with NASA and space exploration. And later with TFE. But when cracks are starting to form in the moon landing, ISS, and even in TFE, that narrative is falling apart.
To be specific, you can look into the history of green screen, and they were able to fully place people on a background as far back a Ben Hur, which is years before CGI as you put it. And most of the lore of outer space having antigravity comes from a Russian science fiction. It's just a bunch of people and props cut and pasted on grayscale sand. ISS is no better. One of the things Flat Earthers talk about is how incredibly unsafe living conditions would be if this were real. They should be living in their filth, and the random objects they toss around ought to be hitting exposed panels and causing electrical fires. There are no emergency locks between rooms, no protective covers, everything is sooooo happy, like they are just goofing off at the beach not on a multi-million dollar facility, that is one collision with floating space debris away from fiery explosion. FFS, they need to do this much testing for air planes, and the stuff are very fucking serious. TFE experiment entire videos and articles about it.

You are desperate. If people believe FE or not, I will still be living with my folks. If NASA gets defunded, you would be out of a job.

It’s the FE argument that civil engineers and surveyors design long stretches of roads, railroad tracks, canals and the like without taking the earth’s curvature into account, therefore the earth is flat.  I’m saying that they don’t need to take curvature into account because it’s already baked into the local terrain.

On a perfectly flat straight road, the road rises to my eyes. If I then blindfold myself and walk on said road, I discover that the road is level.  When building said road they could conceivably build a 6 ft hill to match what the eyes appear to do, but they discover that this adjustment does not in fact surrounding land.

And you are desperate for people who visit this site to believe your stuff.

Nope, that would still be you.
I don't really care if crazy people like you don't accept reality.

Despite the claim that people "universally" accepted RE as far back as the Middle Ages

Not universally, just the vast majority that had anything to do with needing to know the shape of Earth.
But yes, there would be always be crazy people.

the only "proof" of space started with NASA and space exploration.

Wrong again.
Space is a logical consequence of the pressure gradient of the atmosphere.

Not to mention the countless objects observed above Earth.

And notice how yet again, you have gone and switched. Instead of talking about Earth, you deflect to space.
You can show Earth is round without any discussion of space.

But that isn't surprising, given this entire post of yours is yet another pathetic deflection from your inability to defend your garbage.

when cracks are starting to form

You claim this, yet instead of even attempting to provide any, you just resort to lies and excuses.

most of the lore of outer space having antigravity comes from a Russian science fiction

Wrong again.
Firstly, it is your strawman that space is magically antigravity.

In reality, it is simply free fall.
And even Newton realised what it would be.

It's just

No, that is what you have to desperately claim to pretend your fantasy is real.

One of the things Flat Earthers talk about is how incredibly unsafe living conditions would be if this were real.

Yes, they like spouting complete and utter crap with no basis at all.

All because they can't actually defend their crap.
Just look at the desperation from you, all because you can't explain the perspective of the sun.
Because you know you have no chance you instead need to appeal to baseless claims about how you might be able to fake something and how you think the ISS is bad.

You are desperate.

Yet you can't demonstrate that in any way.
Instead you just resort to more pathetic, desperate claims.

If NASA gets defunded, you would be out of a job.

NASA doesn't fund me.
I know you are so desperate for your delusional fantasy to be true that you need to pretend everyone who opposes it is funded by NASA and paid to oppose it; but that is just your desperation talking.

On a perfectly flat straight road, the road rises to my eyes.

And where did you find such a road, and how did you verify that it was straight and that it rises to your eyes?
Did you use any accurate instrument? I highly doubt it. Because plenty of evidence shows that it does NOT rise to your eyes.

And yet again, that does nothing to address the issue at hand.

And you are desperate for people who visit this site to believe your stuff.

These items work..

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 29, 2024, 09:22:14 PM

You're just guessing,

Nope.

Funny that two people in the United States over 2000 miles apart can watch the moon at the same instance, rise and set times that match the radius of a earth of 3,963 miles, with enough parallax to calculate the distance to the moon.  Backed by lunar and solar eclipses.

So.  There are these simple but relatively accurate star atlases for the night sky.  They are based off month and time.  They are dial types that show the night sky for a certain time of year.

Northern hemisphere





Southern hemisphere



I would find it hard to believe that standard Star Atlas for the southern hemisphere would be accurate for a flat earth?

Been over comets..

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






This pic below is probably my best one exposure. 


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

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




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

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

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

Been over why celestial South Pole has meaning and a reliable direction south..

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



And not this..

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

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

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

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

??

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

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






The celestial South Pole is meaningless on a flat earth

The reason a dial star atlas of the southern hemisphere is accurate is due to the fact the earth is demonstrably spherical which results in persons looks south from Africa, Australia, or South America where they all look to the same southern celestial pole.  And they see the one celestial constellation the Southern cross circling the southern celestial pole. 

Been over Lahaina noon.

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/

Path of the sun..

For a flat earth, the sun would orbit the northern celestial pole like this…



So time lapse photography should result in the sun making a circle around the celestial North Pole like one nights worth of star trails?  Similar like this?


https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5cd57d59ca525b7e9eae595c/a3311d67-06f0-460b-8122-3b19dc423ff8/Startrail+northern+light+w+watermark.jpg

The sun should circle the celestial North Pole on a FE.

But the sun does this…. For six months…


media.9news.com/assets/KUSA/images/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c/7fbcc9eb-dbf7-4c4e-b6e8-b7282b27549c_1140x641.jpg


Again.  Flat earth soundly debunked…

Been over the sun should change in apparent size and does not.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 28, 2025, 07:14:49 PM

So.  The sun on a FE should get farther away from me, and this should be apparent by the sun shrinking in size all afternoon.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 30, 2025, 06:48:02 AM

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

As pointed out and is obvious.  Your representation of the sun’s path doesn’t explain actual hours of daylight witnessed.

Requires the sun to rise and set north / south for large areas of the globe where those areas witness a due east sunrise and a due west sunset.

The sun circling overhead to a person just beside the path would change distance greatly and thus apparent size like an airplane being watched by a spectator at the edge of a pylon race.





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


Yet then stays the same apparent size all afternoon. 

Notice something else about your picture?

 

The bottom of the picture rises up, like the arrow pointing up.  And the ceiling never gets below eye level.


And yet the setting sun goes below eye level.  And isn’t shrinking in apparent size like the doors in your photo.



Bulma, congrats!  You alone debunked FE again.

😂😂😂😂

The way the do because the earth is spherical.

While Bulma you post stupid erroneous lies like these…

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop. But no such issue happens. No adjustment in fact happens. They measure the road is level.

The Southern Cross btw does not "point south". It is like a NES gamepad, allowing the viewer to find W, N, E, S directions.

Bulma.  You respond to demonstrable proof the earth is spherical with nonsensical lies.

It’s pretty pitiful.  Reeking of my desperation.  Something that gives you false self image of superiority.

Quote

You are desperate.

Yet you can't demonstrate that in any way.
Instead you just resort to more pathetic, desperate claims.

You claim that I cannot demonstrate, what? That you are desperate? Sure can. Look at the way you pick apart my text, searching for flaws. Finding no flaws, you take text out of context and address points as though they are distinct from the surrounding text, nitpicking to the most minor degree not only sentences but fragments of sentences. Like...

green

Aha! You said the screen was green when actually it was often other colors!

The best evidence of desperation is in your willingness to microanalyze sentences for imagined flaws. You literally have a quote for "it just."

The second best evidence is an evidence of conspiracy. Now, the dictionary mentions the definition of the word as "An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act." Usually they focus on the illegality of the action. But when most people use the term, they mean technically legal but wrongful or subversive. For instance, the newspapers trying to paint Trump as a heartless man for ending immigration, is a conspiracy to cover the true reason for such immigration with lies about humanitarian action. Cheap labor and sex trafficking, these are things that politicians, media, businesses, and NGO interests all collude together to perform.
So when we say conspiracy, what we mean is when the truth is distorted to support an agenda. When groups of people all work together. And would know it, this is indeed what happens. "Satellite"  companies fly various blimps and other hidden satellites. These are never reported by radar workers (who sign a nondisclosure, and then double down on nonsense). Media occasionally reports on a satellite falling to the ground, talking about how that red cord is the "parachute" not the helium balloon that held up the device.

We should see a nearby tree if this were the case, but instead we have a carefully zoomed in shot that doesn't show our surroundings. From another angle.

The nearest tree is about 30 ft away, and here the cord appears straight up. Were it really a parachute, we should see it appear to pull toward a tree, not dangle straight up.
Then there are multiple school institutions that teach this as science, multiple Hollywood  films where flat Earth is mentioned only to be quickly dismissed, and multiple magazines that basically propagandize young kids.

And it is so unbelievably obvious that you are indeed on NASA payroll.

You claim that I cannot demonstrate, what?

Which has nothing to do with…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 30, 2025, 06:19:52 AM

what I should expect to happen is some sort of tension while trying to wrap a level road to this "clearly visible" drop. But no such issue happens. No adjustment in fact happens. They measure the road is level.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on June 03, 2025, 06:29:20 AM

The Southern Cross btw does not "point south". It is like a NES gamepad, allowing the viewer to find W, N, E, S directions.

Bulma.  You respond to demonstrable proof the earth is spherical with nonsensical lies.

It’s pretty pitiful.  Reeking of my desperation.  Something that gives you false self image of superiority.

And it is so unbelievably obvious that you are indeed on NASA payroll.

Link to my post before your nonsensical reply to the context of that post.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91587.msg2442911#msg2442911

Where that argument in no way uses nor relies on manmade satellites and NASA.

Why do you post stupid things in the context your replies have nothing to do with what is actually provided. 

You claim that I cannot demonstrate, what? That you are desperate?

Yes.
Instead you need to make up fantasies, and entirely ignore all the problems with your crap.

Finding no flaws, you take text out of context and address points as though they are distinct from the surrounding text, nitpicking to the most minor degree not only sentences but fragments of sentences.

Pure BS.
I have repeatedly demonstrated flaws, which you then just flee from, almost acting like you never made the post originally so you don't respond at all.
There are plenty of examples in this thread alone.

Here is one you fled like the lying coward you are:

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 19, 2025, 07:40:35 PM

Lemme guess, you'll make your little chevron thing to "prove" that the sun angles a bit or something.

No. I'll point out the fact that you have failed to provide a model which actually matches the observed daylight patterns.
Again, this relates directly to the diagram I provided before:

Again, this is talking about the southern summer.
We know the Arctic circle gets darkness, which means the distance r1 shown in that diagram has to be greater than or equal to the size of your circle of illumination.
But we also know the equator receives 12 hours, meaning r2 has to be roughly that distance. and we know that south of the equator they get more daylight, so r3 has to be shorter.

There is simply no way to have your model work with a circle of illumination from the sun.
Such a model would require r1>=r2>r3.
But a quite simple observation of the picture shows the opposite, that r3>r2>r1.

This shows beyond any doubt that your model cannot work.

Or how about this one:

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 27, 2025, 06:37:35 PM

The model I draw for parabola is a shorthand.
This...is actually this.

Even though they are fundamentally different?
In one, you literally have the shining straight down onto your parabola to then appear in a completely different location to where it is.
In the other you now have the sun going at an angle.
You also throw on a completely useless set of red lines which mean nothing.

And if you did it honestly, you would draw in the line to either side of the sun and show how it appear to shrink:

Notice how the angle subtended for the sun, and the corresponding part of the arc you have drawn in, is larger for the sun directly above than off to the side?
That means it should appear smaller.

Yet again you are demonstrating your own desperation with you just making up crap.
And even more so in that you are yet again just desperately trying to attack rather than defending your failed model.

The second best evidence is an evidence of conspiracy.

Yet you can't provide any, and instead need to lie about that as well.

Media occasionally reports on a satellite falling to the ground, talking about how that red cord is the "parachute" not the helium balloon that held up the device.

And another pathetic lie that reeks of desperation.
It doesn't take a genius to see the words "Space Selfie" on it and do a tiny bit of digging to find the Samsung publicity stunt which was using a weather balloon from long before this article.

But that wont stop desperate lying scum like you from lying to everyone by pretending it is a satellite.

And what even further reeks of desperation is how you have to invent a story around it and lie about it repeatedly, acting like they only want to give a super close zoom shot rather than a wide angle shot, and blatantly lie about something that is clearly not going straight up somehow magically going straight up.

But don't worry, there are more examples, like this one:

And it is so unbelievably obvious that you are indeed on NASA payroll.

Again, you assert complete crap with no justification at all.

Again, care to stop with the pathetic desperation and instead try explaining how the sun sets in your delusional fantasy?
Care to try explaining how during the southern summer, the equator still gets 12 hours of daylight, and the further south you go you get more, and the further north you go you get less?

None of it works in your fantasy. So you desperately attack others.

Bulma.  You respond to demonstrable proof the earth is spherical with nonsensical lies.

There is no "demonstrable proof."

What your so-called proof actually is, would be alot of nonsense and lies.

We can demonstrate that satellites (and thus the entire lie of RE) falls apart with a simple observation that something is floating above the satellite, as seen above. We can demonstrate that any serious test of curvature fails by the fact that time lapses on an observably flat surface doesn't cause roll down an imaginary drop. We can demonstrate by taking a picture of a compass sitting edgewise that where it comes to rest, it stays at rest because there are no minor motions  over time from Earth's orbit and rotation. We can demonstrate that our stars are the same year after year, unless the Lord finally decides to end the physical world, so star maps work for centuries. Oh yes, and we can see how objects in the sky over a two mile stretch what we have walked back and forth hundreds of times appears to arc like it is going up and down a hill, with the effect more pronounced at 30,000 ft than at eye level.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 19, 2025, 07:40:35 PM

Lemme guess, you'll make your little chevron thing to "prove" that the sun angles a bit or something.

No. I'll point out the fact that you have failed to provide a model which actually matches the observed daylight patterns.
Again, this relates directly to the diagram I provided before:

Again, this is talking about the southern summer.
We know the Arctic circle gets darkness, which means the distance r1 shown in that diagram has to be greater than or equal to the size of your circle of illumination.
But we also know the equator receives 12 hours, meaning r2 has to be roughly that distance. and we know that south of the equator they get more daylight, so r3 has to be shorter.

There is simply no way to have your model work with a circle of illumination from the sun.
Such a model would require r1>=r2>r3.
But a quite simple observation of the picture shows the opposite, that r3>r2>r1.

This shows beyond any doubt that your model cannot work.

You claim that you are not desperate, yet you go out of your way to measure lengths of radius to create a problem with a model. Almost as thought you need the model not to work. In actual fact, we don't need a tiny dot to stretch a line to those radii. We draw a simple circle around the sun, we have the sun orbit on a semicircle crossing from below Africa to below Russia at the same latitude. There to there takes 12 hours at that latitude, even though it measures out somewhere on the sea.

You're expecting this model to "work" as in be 100% accurate to how it is drawn. But the way the sky works isn't real. I've told you this. I've told you that it's a giant Platonic Cave. You don't fucking listen.
You cannot measure the Earth by the timing of the sky. You can't do it on a globe (it would be the same length of time, north and south because on a sphere the width and thus radius of rotation is the same on same latitudes north/south regardless of tilt) and you can't do it on a flat Earth if you're being strictly technical (day length should probably stretch out based on widening latitudes). Instead, we make a 12 hour parabola where the sun passes through the continent of South America (basically make a circle with r1 as the width), and I give zero fucks about where radius 1 is equal to 2 or 3 or 4 or 5. The parabola is always centered on the onlooker. Real life time dilation. The sun and its radius passes through the radius it can seen, and a much smaller radius that we see the rest of the world.

Or how about this one:

Quote from: JackBlack on May 28, 2025, 01:08:03 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 27, 2025, 06:37:35 PM

The model I draw for parabola is a shorthand.
This...is actually this.

Even though they are fundamentally different?
In one, you literally have the shining straight down onto your parabola to then appear in a completely different location to where it is.
In the other you now have the sun going at an angle.
You also throw on a completely useless set of red lines which mean nothing.

And if you did it honestly, you would draw in the line to either side of the sun and show how it appear to shrink:

Notice how the angle subtended for the sun, and the corresponding part of the arc you have drawn in, is larger for the sun directly above than off to the side?
That means it should appear smaller.

Yet again you are demonstrating your own desperation with you just making up crap.
And even more so in that you are yet again just desperately trying to attack rather than defending your failed model.

Even though they are fundamentally different? Fuck yes. Even if they are so different that you cannot believe why I draw those who pictures together. I'm trying to explain to you that models are abstractions. You can't get it through yourmoreck skull that the Earth is not literally a sphere, any more than a flat Earth literally looks like the Gleason map.

If you lot were religious, I'd need to explain that Christ's blood and body isn't actually the bread and wine but a symbolic remembering of Jesus Christ. Likewise, I explain until I'm sleep-deprived and/or having a headache that these maps are about representation. In RE were actual reality, all of the southern hemisphere  should appear to someone who flew down through the sky near the equator to be upside down. If FE were literal reality, then digging downward according to any maps that are not globes would entail falling through an endless pit. Do you get it? Maps are models. They don't need to be perfect. What they do need to be is accurate representation of how seasons, sky, tides, etc work. Tides in particular are royally screwed by the concept of RE, because there is simply no way for tides to move back and forth if they are accounted either by rotation or the moon. Both of these are in a single direction linear pattern. The moon ebbs and flows back and forth each day.

 But the way the sky works isn't real. I've told you this.

Bulma, your false assurances isn’t reality at all.  Objects change apparent size as they get closer or farther from the viewer.

We been over this repeatedly…


Been over the sun should change in apparent size throughout the day for FE, and does not.  Flat earth debunked. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 28, 2025, 07:14:49 PM

So.  The sun on a FE should get farther away from me, and this should be apparent by the sun shrinking in size all afternoon.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 30, 2025, 06:48:02 AM

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

As pointed out and is obvious.  Your representation of the sun’s path doesn’t explain actual hours of daylight witnessed.

Requires the sun to rise and set north / south for large areas of the globe where those areas witness a due east sunrise and a due west sunset.

The sun circling overhead to a person just beside the path would change distance greatly and thus apparent size like an airplane being watched by a spectator at the edge of a pylon race.





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


Yet then stays the same apparent size all afternoon. 

Notice something else about your picture?

 

The bottom of the picture rises up, like the arrow pointing up.  And the ceiling never gets below eye level.


And yet the setting sun goes below eye level.  And isn’t shrinking in apparent size like the doors in your photo.



Bulma, congrats!  You alone debunked FE again.

😂😂😂😂

Flat earth debunked and dead.  Except little trolls that can’t accept the fact the earth is spherical. 

What your so-called proof actually is, would be alot of nonsense and lies.

Then why do you need to continually flee from it and spout so much nonsense and lies about the RE model and/or reality?

We can demonstrate that satellites (and thus the entire lie of RE) falls apart with a simple observation that something is floating above the satellite, as seen above.

No, you can't.
Instead you can blatantly lie to everyone, by pretending a stunt by Samsung using a weather balloon is magically a satellite.
And notice the complete lack of any logic behind that?
Even if someone was pretending a weather balloon was a satellite, that does not mean all satellites are fake.
And even if satellites were fake, that does not make the entirety of a RE fall apart.
Earth was known to be round long before satellites existed.

So that entire claim of yours is nothing more than nonsense and lies.

We can demonstrate that any serious test of curvature fails by the fact that time lapses on an observably flat surface doesn't cause roll down an imaginary drop.

I fail to understand just what you are trying to explain here.
Why kind of time lapse?
Who cares about observable flat surfaces when we are talking about a round surface?

We can demonstrate by taking a picture of a compass sitting edgewise that where it comes to rest, it stays at rest because there are no minor motions

No, you can't.
Yet again you spout more nonsense and lies.
Firstly how do you show it has "come to rest"?
You are baselessly asserting that Earth is stationary to pretend it has come to rest.

The only basis would be rest relative to whatever it is sitting on.
But you can do the same with an object in a plane or a car or a train.
You cannot show no motion. If you understood mechanics you would know that is impossible.

But instead you just lie to everyone about it.

And again, more nonsense from you where you entirely lack the logical connection between the statements.
Even if that BS did work, all you get is that Earth is stationary, not that it is flat.

We can demonstrate that our stars are the same year after year, unless the Lord finally decides to end the physical world, so star maps work for centuries.

No, you can't, instead you can lie to everyone by claiming such BS.
Instead, we know that the relative position of stars change.

The most simple and direct example is the pole star:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star
It has not always been Polaris.

And again, if that BS worked, all it would do is show Earth is stationary, not flat.
You still have no explanation for how these star maps based upon a round Earth would work on a flat Earth.

Oh yes, and we can see how objects in the sky over a two mile stretch what we have walked back and forth hundreds of times appears to arc like it is going up and down a hill

Again, what are you trying to say here?

If you are referring to objects quite close, like clouds, then no, we observe them changing in angular size and people who understand simple geometry understand how that works, and how it is completely different to the sun and moon and stars.
Instead, they appear to be circling us.

You claim that you are not desperate, yet you go out of your way to measure lengths of radius to create a problem with a model.

Now try that again honestly.
I am not desperate, because I can easily take an aspect of your model and show how it does not work!
Your BS doesn't work.

When it is so trivial to show how your model fails entirely, why would I need to be desperate.
And then compare that to your response, where you just repeatedly flee from it.
That shows desperation on YOUR part, not mine.

In actual fact, we don't need a tiny dot to stretch a line to those radii. We draw a simple circle around the sun, we have the sun orbit on a semicircle crossing from below Africa to below Russia at the same latitude. There to there takes 12 hours at that latitude, even though it measures out somewhere on the sea.

You mean you will spout vague crap, while entirely failing to have anything actually work.
Try actually drawing that circle, and showing how it gives the amount of daylight hours required.

This is just one simple example, which has already been explained which you refuse to address.
The sun at this time, would be at the point marked by the red circle.
It is not visible from the north pole, or anywhere north of the arctic circle.
That means it cannot possibly reach the points on the equator or south of the equator that can see the sun.

You're expecting this model to "work" as in be 100% accurate to how it is drawn.

No, I am explaining how the model isn't even remotely accurate.

But the way the sky works isn't real. I've told you this. I've told you that it's a giant Platonic Cave. You don't fucking listen.

i.e. it is your imaginary BS which doesn't work in reality at all, which you cannot explain at all.
And the problem isn't me not listening, it is you repeatedly contradicting yourself.
You say it is pure magic, then switch back to just saying the sun is illuminating a circle around itself, because your model doesn't work so you need to repeatedly switch back and forth between magic BS you can't explain at all and pretending to explain it by appealing to things that don't work.

If you don't want me to bring up things like this, then stop pretending the sun is visible based upon the distance to it.
Leave it as your pure magic, and try explaining it or admit you have no explanation and are just relying upon magic.

e.g. don't say BS like this:

In a flat Earth, it's a simple matter of light having a radius.

Again, the image above shows it is NOT simply a matter of light having a radius.

You can't do it on a globe (it would be the same length of time, north and south because on a sphere the width and thus radius of rotation is the same on same latitudes north/south regardless of tilt)

And there you go lying yet again.
How many times must this lie of yours be refuted before you stop spouting it?
e.g.

Just consider the extreme of of your stupidity.
You are saying that if Earth was tilted by 90 degrees, so during the northern summer the north pole was directly facing the sun, that somehow rotating it about an axis passing through the north pole, would magically make it night.
That makes no sense at all.
Sane, intelligent people that understand the model instead recognise that in such a hypothetical case, no amount of rotation would make the sun set for the north pole. Instead what you need to do is move Earth along its orbit, so 1/4 of the way around, the north pole would now be facing 90 degrees away from the sun and be at sunset, then another 1/4 of the way around, the north pole would be facing away and have midnight.

Likewise, those sane, intelligent people who understand the model, understand that the tilt of Earth changes the position of the terminator line, meaning those in the region tilted towards the sun will have more than 12 hours while those in the region tilted away will have less.

It truly is quite simple, consider the image here:

We will have the sun off to the left, so the region of Earth illuminated is the left half.
The position of Earth there is so 0 degrees east is to the left and the north pole is near the top, and then the sun at the equator is visible from a region stretching from 90 degrees west to 90 degrees east.
If we don't have Earth tilted, so the axis of rotation is vertical, then the terminator is a line going from the north pole to the south pole remaining at 90 degrees west on one side, and 90 degrees east on the other.
That gives 12 hours of daylight, because that 12 hours of rotation would take a place which was at where 90 degrees west is in the diagram to where 90 degrees east is.
The other way of thinking about it is you have 180 degrees illuminated at that latitude.

But if you then tilt it so the north pole is pointing somewhat towards the sun, so the axis is now the diagonal line passing through the centre, we see that now the northern hemisphere has the terminator further west than 90 degrees and further east than 90 degrees.
So it covers more than 180 degrees, so it will take longer to go from sunrise to sunset.
Conversely, the southern hemisphere has the opposite effect, where the terminator is closer to 0 degrees, so less than 180 degrees is illuminated, so it will be less than 12 hours of daylight.

And what was your response? Like the pathetic, desperate, lying POS you are, you just ignore it entirely, only to bring up the same refuted lies again later.

and you can't do it on a flat Earth

i.e. the FE doesn't work to explain it at all.
The model entirely fails.

I give zero fucks about where radius 1 is equal to 2 or 3 or 4 or 5.

i.e. you do not care if your model fails.

The parabola is always centered on the onlooker.

And with it being 5 km in radius, has no chance of seeing the sun.
Yet again, you appeal to pure magic which you cannot explain at all.

Even though they are fundamentally different? Fuck yes.

i.e. you do not have a consistent, coherent model.
Instead, you repeatedly switch back and forth between different piles of refuted crap to pretend to have an explanation.

I'm trying to explain to you that models are abstractions.

I understand that models are abstractions.
But I also understand that models should be able to give you useful information from them in order to be useful models.
And that if you are switching between different models for different purposes, they should be compatible, not fundamentally different.

You can't get it through yourmoreck skull that the Earth is not literally a sphere

It is certainly quite close to a sphere.
And unlike your crap, that model actually works and is consistent.

In RE were actual reality, all of the southern hemisphere  should appear to someone who flew down through the sky near the equator to be upside down.

No, if your pathetic strawman of it was real.

Maps are models. They don't need to be perfect. What they do need to be is accurate representation of how seasons, sky, tides, etc work.

And for a RE, it works fine.
But for your BS it entirely fails.

Tides in particular are royally screwed by the concept of RE

No, that is just another pathetic lie from you, and one which has nothing to do with the perspective of the sun.
And to try to support that lie, you appeal to another lie of tides moving "back and forth", with no evidence to support that.
Again, try to focus ont he sun.

It's consistent? How interesting!

So when I ask why there isn't a 90° change in the direction the sun hits the Earth every three months (not consistent, btw), you don't tell me that every other day or so is sidereal?

Or where I look at a tides chart and then a lunar timing chart and they are not at all synced, that's consistent?

Or when I see the same stars all the time, and you tell me that I shouldn't because the Earth moving around the galaxy while the sun lets the Earth and moon follow (meaning there should never be the same position of Earth because at any moment, they are a different location in the galaxy), this makes you able to predict things because your model is consistent.

RIGHT...



You know what's consistent? On a flat motionless Earth, we see the same yearly pattern of seasons. We see the same patterns of tides. We see the same moon and sun, and we don't need to worry about a Big Crunch or Heat Death of the Universe, because the Heavens and the Earth are by design. They are not going anywhere, and if it's cooler or warmer this year or that year, I don't have to worry about Earth's supposed wobble or tilt. The berries are ripe, the pool heats up, I can expect certain patterns. Every day is slightly different, but there are consistent things that happen.

It's consistent? How interesting!

So when I ask why there isn't a 90° change in the direction the sun hits the Earth every three months (not consistent, btw), you don't tell me that every other day or so is sidereal?

It’s because every day is a solar day.  Sidereal days are pretty much only used by astronomers.

Or where I look at a tides chart and then a lunar timing chart and they are not at all synced, that's consistent?

That probably means that you don’t understand the sun’s influence on tides.

Or when I see the same stars all the time, and you tell me that I shouldn't because the Earth moving around the galaxy while the sun lets the Earth and moon follow (meaning there should never be the same position of Earth because at any moment, they are a different location in the galaxy), this makes you able to predict things because your model is consistent.

We are able to predict things because astronomers have, over the course of several thousand years, been able to discover patterns and cycles of the various celestial bodies and then eventually work out mathematical models that explain those patterns and cycles.

 you don't tell me that every other day or so is sidereal?

Which you have been shown how you butcher the idea with total disregard for truth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 14, 2025, 05:43:55 AM

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

Is that how a solar day is calculated?


Since you like AI.



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

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

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 14, 2025, 05:43:55 AM

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

Video.  Perfectly explains sidereal vs solar day.

Quote

Sidereal Day versus Solar Day

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

Where Bulma you’re changing the subject again.

 But the way the sky works isn't real. I've told you this.

Bulma, your false assurances isn’t reality at all.  Objects change apparent size as they get closer or farther from the viewer.

We been over this repeatedly…


Been over the sun should change in apparent size throughout the day for FE, and does not.  Flat earth debunked. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 28, 2025, 07:14:49 PM

So.  The sun on a FE should get farther away from me, and this should be apparent by the sun shrinking in size all afternoon.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 30, 2025, 06:48:02 AM

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

As pointed out and is obvious.  Your representation of the sun’s path doesn’t explain actual hours of daylight witnessed.

Requires the sun to rise and set north / south for large areas of the globe where those areas witness a due east sunrise and a due west sunset.

The sun circling overhead to a person just beside the path would change distance greatly and thus apparent size like an airplane being watched by a spectator at the edge of a pylon race.





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


Yet then stays the same apparent size all afternoon. 

Notice something else about your picture?

 

The bottom of the picture rises up, like the arrow pointing up.  And the ceiling never gets below eye level.


And yet the setting sun goes below eye level.  And isn’t shrinking in apparent size like the doors in your photo.



Bulma, congrats!  You alone debunked FE again.

😂😂😂😂

Flat earth debunked and dead.  Except little trolls that can’t accept the fact the earth is spherical.

Every day is slightly different, but there are consistent things that happen.

Then by areas that experiences the rising and setting sun through the year, why is solar noon the same definition? 

Anyway, we know the earth is spherical..

The earth curves from dip of the horizon to the way the distances involved in battleship combat the horizon physical block ships from view bottom up.

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.

Where the above shows the amount of curvature known as dip of the horizon can be measured

So when I ask why there isn't a 90° change in the direction the sun hits the Earth every three months (not consistent, btw), you don't tell me that every other day or so is sidereal?

No, I don't.
That is your pathetic strawman.
Instead, I correctly say that the period of rotation of Earth is approximately 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds. That is known a sidereal day.
A mean solar day is 24 hours.
These are different methods of measuring time.
I am not saying you switch back and forth.
It is more like lunar months, vs calendar months.
We do not switch back and forth between the 2, instead, they are 2 different systems which can be used to track time independently.

If you are tracking time based upon sidereal days, then the stars (other than the sun) roughly maintain their position at a given time. But the sun appears to circle, going roughly 90 degrees every 1/4 of a year.
If instead you are tracking time based upon solar days, then the sun roughly maintains its position at a given time, and instead all the other stars appear to circle, going roughly 90 degrees every 1/4 of a year.

This is not a problem.
This is not an inconsistency.
This is exactly what is expected from an honest understanding of the model.

But because you are a desparate, pathetic, lying POS, trying to attack reality at all costs, you feel the need to repeatedly lie about this and pretend it is some sort of contradiction.

Or where I look at a tides chart and then a lunar timing chart and they are not at all synced, that's consistent?

You mean something you are yet to demonstrate and also need to lie about? And again is not related to sunrise and so on.

Or when I see the same stars all the time, and you tell me that I shouldn't because the Earth moving around the galaxy

No, again, that is your strawman where you entirely ignore scale. And again, not related to sunrise and so on.

You know what's consistent?

The RE model which you are yet to demonstrate any flaw with, instead needing to pathetic, desperate lies.

Do you know what isn't?
Your pile of garbage where you need to repeatedly contradict yourself.

On a flat motionless Earth, we see the same yearly pattern of seasons. We see the same patterns of tides. We see the same moon and sun

Yet you can't explain any of it.

Yet again, you can't explain the observed pattern of daylight hours, especially how the further south you go the more daylight you get during the southern summer, while the equator always gets ~12 hours.
You can't even explain why the sun rises or sets.

You have nothing except pathetic crap to pretend to have an explanation, where you then flee from any pushback.

Meanwhile, your attacks against the RE are pathetic and easy to show what is wrong with them, with you then fleeing from the refutation of your pathetic BS.

So the RE model remains consistent and actually works to explain reality; while the FE models you present repeatedly contradict themselves or each other, and fail to match reality and fail to explain what happens in reality.

Yet you can't explain any of it.

You can't explain it. You come up with fanciful, reasonable-sounding "scientific" reasons that fail to deliver.

Last night, we saw Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. And they told us over and over again that this mystical object was about mathematics. But the math wasn't actually there, and we were left with an object that travels through time because reasons.

It’s because every day is a solar day.  Sidereal days are pretty much only used by astronomers.

Actually no. Sidereal days are used because they are a rule patch. As Eric Dubay, myself, and other flat Earthers have noticed

given the same orbit and rotation, a particular location (you house, markjo) will experience a sunrise at 6am and around 6pm in the summer, given 12 hour day. Because the angle at which the sun hits a rotating Earth is different at different times, this means the timing of sunrise and sunset is hours different. So in the fall, noon for sunrise, midnight for sunset. In the winter, the 180° difference from original position means sun rises at 6pm and sets at 6am. In spring, sun rises at midnight and sets at noon. Then back to original position.
This never happens.
The RE high priests say it never happens because half of the days are solar and half are sidereal. But this would make them 45° off each season. And regardless of whether you have half or all as sidereal days, there are 5° extra that need to be accounted for because we have insisted that days are based on 365 day calendar, instead of making a calendar Harvest Moon style and basing it on four seasons. 360° is the degrees of both flat circles and spheres. 365° circles are geometrically impossible. Seasonal irregularity is based on lags in the motion of the sun and moon. Nothing more mystical than that.

But thank you for telling me that all days are actually solar days.

That probably means that you don’t understand the sun’s influence on tides.

Ahhh, I see, when I point out that the moon is off sync with tides, you tell me "But did you know the sun also affects the tides?" Even though according to your model, the sun does not orbit Earth. Regardless, it has no relevance to a constantly rotating in one direction Earth that somehow has tides moving back and forth.
A far simpler explanation than "The heavens rule all!" is that water drifts forward to one shore, and back to another shore, and people who had nothing better to do than to estimate tides did the measurements, then (because it was a trade secret) blamed it on the sun and moon.

We are able to predict things because astronomers have, over the course of several thousand years, been able to discover patterns and cycles of the various celestial bodies and then eventually work out mathematical models that explain those patterns and cycles.

Oh? You personally can predict all of these things?

You don't just read a chart?

Okay, name the next tide that will have day and an hour that is a prime number. And then tell me exactly how many feet it is.  If that number isn't also a prime number, you have to keep trying until you find one.

These patterns have nothing to do with the stars. The tides are to do with tides. The moon is to do with the moon. "Gravity" is a fiction made up by astrologers to sell us on the idea that Cancer or Capricorn can affect our destiny. The stars have no pull on any factor of our daily lives. What we give power over us, has power over us.
For example, my nephew was convinced he had already lost a gave of Risk, when there was still time to expand outward. Sure enough, he managed to sabotage his gave and was cornered in Japan. Had he said, "There is hope, I will go and attack Alaska," he could have expanded territory and potentially stayed in the game. Or "I'll retake South America." Or a couple more moves. We believe the moon has power over the tides, so despite all proof to the contrary, like a horoscope, we see fulfillment when there is none. "Oh, Leo's prediction sounds like me. They predict a change in my work situation. I will surely be promoted today!" (get fired) "See? The horoscope was right!"

You can't explain it.

This?

 you don't tell me that every other day or so is sidereal?

Which you have been shown how you butcher the idea with total disregard for truth.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 14, 2025, 05:43:55 AM

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

Is that how a solar day is calculated?


Since you like AI.



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

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

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 14, 2025, 05:43:55 AM

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

Video.  Perfectly explains sidereal vs solar day.

Quote

Sidereal Day versus Solar Day

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

It’s been explained to you, it’s been diagramed for, while it’s been repeatedly proven why FE can’t even predict the path of the sun accurately for a person in Ohio.


Anyway, we know the earth is spherical..

The earth curves from dip of the horizon to the way the distances involved in battleship combat the horizon physical block ships from view bottom up.

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.

Where the above shows the amount of curvature known as dip of the horizon can be measured

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

How about instead of babbling about some fantasy Bulma,  why don’t you focus on the meaning of solar noon and how it relates to a solar day.  And why solar noon would drift over time as you imply if the earth rotates at a constant speed. 

Added.

Bulma, if you think the sun is making a circuit above the earth like an airplane at a pylon race.  Then for somebody in Ohio, then would have to greatly change distance and thus the sun would have to greatly change apparent size through the day. 

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

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

Classic missing the point. Also, bother to figure out how quotes work. It appears you quoted yourself.

The fact that it is "measured from one local noon to the next" does not in any way affect the angle of incident of sunlight. Solar noon is based on when the sun is at zenith point. But at a different angle...

That happens at a different time of day.