FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.

  • 26 Replies
  • 1950 Views
At the end of this video, a light is placed on a trolley and slowly backed up to represent a flat earth sunset.

Quote
Shadows under clouds PROVE Flat Earth







Notice as the trolley backs up, the light never goes below the horizon. Never appears to sink below the horizon.  Never sets.  The light source is never physically blocked from the video camera by the “horizon”.

Hmm.  I guess it would be impossible for a sun to set on a flat earth. 

Also from the video, if it’s a critique on the shadow by Mount Rainier.  The shadow by the mountain is cast in the morning during sunrise.  The shadow is cast while the sun is below the horizon.  Before the body of the sun becomes visible.




Every setup in the video, the sun is always  visible.  Or always above the “horizon”.   This is not a fair comparison of a Mount Rainier sunrise and the shadow that is visible before the body of the sun becomes visible.  A shadow created while the sun is still physically blocked from view. 

The set up is a little sketchy too.  There are many imagines of deep clouds stretching towards the sun for the Mountain Rainier shadow.  In the experiment of the video, the box used as cloud cover ends right at the cutout used for the mountain.



As far as scale, who knows.

For the video. Even with the light 6 foot above the ground, and 30 feet away from the cutout.  The light is always visibly there above the mountain cutout.  The guy in the video can’t make the horizon physically block the light acting like the sun.

So this scale thing bleeds into the next part.

An individual tried to use the referenced video that ignores the shadow of Mount Rainier is visible before sunrise to “debunk” this cloud shadow.


The photo was before 7:47 am.

The actual sunrise time was 8:00 am.

The brightest spot in each photo was a shaft of light.  Not the actual sun as it was still below the horizon.

Tha shaft of light radiating up from the sun below the horizon was seen in real time.  It’s not from my lens nor cellphone case. 





So.  This shadow is was made while the sun was below and physically blocked from view by the horizon.

Now.  For flat earth that would have to be from a sun 300 to 3000 miles above the clouds for my photo. In the video compared to a light 6 feet off the ground for a six inch mountain.  Hmm scale is off a bit.  For my photo, a good amount of clouds between the horizon and shadow.  Vs the video where the “sun” is anyways above the cardboard mountain cutout. With no “overhang” of clouds between the cutout and the light source.

But… the sun wasn’t above the clouds when I took the picture of the cloud shadow angling up into the sky.  The sun was relatively below the clouds illuminating them from bottom to top, and creating a shadow before sunrise.

The picture was taken about 1500 miles off the east coast somewhere in the Midwest.  So the sun was a good bit up in the sky for the east coast while I saw the clouds illuminated from the bottom up.

On the flat earth, you would get into this situation.



For this to happen on a flat earth.  How does the video account for on a flat earth one person close to the cloud would see the cloud illuminate top down with the cloud’s shadow on the ground.  But a father away person would have to simultaneously see the cloud illuminated bottom up with no cloud shadow on the ground.

The video.  If light source is low enough to a relatively large object that has light “cloud” cover between it and the light source, you can get this.



A large mass shadow from the base to the overhang with the light source visible in the background.

Which isn’t really like this.



The bulk of the shadow projected upward with the base of the mount in equal twilight as the tree line before the sun is even visible and below the horizon.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2023, 12:00:17 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17952
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2023, 02:01:59 PM »
The video that you quoted at least proves that light physics isn't behaving in the way RE'ers think it is, which disproves anything else you have to say about it. While it does not simulate every aspect of sunset, it does discredit your version of things, which ignores the possibility that shadows can project based on how the mountain sees the sun due to perspective, or that the shadows can project from distant surface reflection. If you want to make a claim about what "should" happen, then you should have something more than you mumbling about your imagination.

The fallacy in these arguments is that they are based on the limited imagination of what one thinks is a perfect world with idealized physics. Logic is not a substitute for reality. Your assumptions and axioms can be wrong or limited, and requires confirmatory tests like what is seen in the video.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #2 on: July 22, 2023, 03:26:35 PM »
The video that you quoted at least proves that light physics isn't behaving in the way RE'ers think it is, which disproves anything else you have to say about it.


Again.


My photos of the cloud projecting a shadow skyward with the sun still below the horizon with considerable cloud cover between the horizon and the cloud over uneven terrain lined with trees?


Vs a video with a light source above the “horizon”, with no effort for scale (light source of 6 foot above a 6 in cutout vs a sun to 300 miles to 3000 miles above the cloud/mountain for a flat earth simulation.  Hmmm. Why can’t FE’s figure out the distance to the sun. The distance changes as it’s convenient. Where the “setting sun” on the trolley in the video never goes below the horizon), the “cloud cover” in the video ends right at the cutout, over a white even highly reflective floor, using a light source more like a spot light than a ball of light.

  The set up is a mockery of what is witnessed in nature. 

And the video is sloppy, not many clear views, is vague in many shots.

While it does not simulate every aspect of sunset,

Except the photos of Mount Rainier and my cloud shadow are at sun rise where there is a shadow cast before the sun is ever physically visible. Ever physically above the horizon. 



it does discredit your version of thing’s

How does a simulation of the light source in the sky for sunset with no effort at scale discredit why the mountain and cloud make shadows into the sky at morning before the sun is visible.  Before the sun is physically above the horizon


Which as nothing to do when the trolley with a light on it was backed up to simulate a “sunset”, the light source never went below the “horizon”.  The “horizon” never blocked the light. How is that like a mountain or a cloud making skyward shadows before the sun ever rises and is visible in the sky?

And never addresses this situation.

On the flat earth, you would get into this situation.



For this to happen on a flat earth.  How does the video account for on a flat earth one person close to the cloud would see the cloud illuminate top down with the cloud’s shadow on the ground.  But a father away person would have to simultaneously see the cloud illuminated bottom up with no cloud shadow on the ground.


which ignores the possibility that shadows can project based on how the mountain sees the sun due to perspective, or that the shadows can project from distant surface reflection.

I do agree that as the flashlight/flood light is backed away at a closer relative distance to the cutout than the sun to the mountain/cloud the shadow will grow.

But there should also be something simulating clouds getting closer to the horizon in the direction of the video light source.  Shrugs. 

Is this:



The same effect as this?



I would say no.  With considerable differences in the relative positioning and scale of the light source.




Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2023, 03:46:38 PM »

While it does not simulate every aspect of sunset,

As far as clouds at actual sunset illuminated from the bottom up.



Not quiet the same effect as this,

Even with the advantage of a white even reflective floor. 

And another thing.  Why does it look like the clouds in the distance keep dropping to the point they get blocked by the horizon?



Funny the floor “rising” up never reaches the ceiling to block the doorway.  In addition to the ceiling never really “lowering” to the floor to block the doorway. 🤔

 
« Last Edit: July 22, 2023, 03:49:10 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17952
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2023, 03:49:00 PM »
Quote from: DataOverFlow2022
The set up is a mockery of what is witnessed in nature.

I don't see that you are doing any specific experimentation to prove or disprove the axioms involved. Consider whether you have provided anything approaching an artificial experiment in your arguments.

You have made statements and assumptions on how things work or should work, and have 'logically' concluded that you are correct. Logic is insufficient, of course. In 350 BC. Aristotle saw flies buzzing around rotting meat and came up with the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, which concluded that flies would spontaneously generate from nothing in the presence of rotting meat.

Observation and assumption and 'logical deduction' for the workings of the world marked a period of human ignorance known as the Dark Ages. Theories like the Spontaneous Generation of various life forms (along with Aristotle's Round Earth) were taught by the school system as fact, based on observation and assumption. It wasn't until experiments in 1668 with Francesco Redi that the theory of Spontaneous Generation was challenged with experiments of placing meat in covered and uncovered jars that we begun to understand that we can't simply assume things or operate on 'logical' deduction. It wasn't until the mid 1800's until the Theory of Spontaneous Generation was fully abolished with additional experimentation, and mankind learned that they were incredible fools on the basic operation of life for the past 2000 years.

See this quote from Giovanni Comandé, The Rotting Meat Error: From Galileo to Aristotle in Data Mining? -

Quote
“ From 400 BC, with Aristotle, and until the mid-19th century (1830–1850 AD), many scientists have claimed that some organisms can be generated spontaneously from non-living matter, citing larvae as an example and the flies that are generated on decomposing meat. Aristotle had observed the correlation between the rotting of meat, the appearing of larvae on it and the developing of flies. Upon his repeated observations, he found a correlation that developed in a theory (the theory of spontaneous generation). This theory proved wrong (the ‘rotting meat error’ in our story) because it grew out of correlations ‘statistically’ (very) significant but those correlations were wrong ones. Yet, for a long time the theory was constantly applied as ‘scientific’ understanding since Aristotelian logic applied well to it. ”

A grotesque example of humanity's ignorance.

With the Scientific Method we learned that we can't simply assume a bunch of stuff. Each of your assumptions must be demonstrated explicitly in an artificial situation. Observation is limited, since in nature what you are observing is often the product of many different mechanisms which must be separated artificially. Such is the fallacy of the 'soft' observational sciences of Astronomy and other sciences.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2023, 04:15:35 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2023, 04:02:48 PM »
Consider whether you have provided anything approaching an experiment in your argument.

The video experiment needs to duplicate what is witnessed in nature.

Needs to be representative of the light source.  A ball of light vs a spotlight/ flashlight.

Needs to create the shadow with the light source below the horizon with the light source blocked from view.

And understand the shadow was created before the sun rose in the morning.  Not a shadow created while the sun was still in the sky during sunset.

Funny backing up the light on the trolley to simulate “sunset” never created a situation where the light set below the “horizon” to become blocked from view by the “horizon”.



You have made statements,

No.  I pointed out how the video isn’t representative as a model.


assumptions oh how things work or should work, and have 'logically' concluded that you are correct. Logic is insufficient, of course. In 300 BC. Ancient Greece Aristotle saw flies buzzing around rotting meat and came up with the Theory of Spontaneous Generation, which concluded that flies would spontaneously generate from nothing in the presence of rotting meat.
[

Observation and assumption and 'logical deduction' for the workings of the world marked a period of human ignorance known as the Dark Ages. It wasn't until experiments in 1668 with Francesco Redi that the theory was challenged with experiments of placing meat in covered and uncovered jars that we begun to understand that we can't simply assume things or operate on 'logical' deduction. It wasn't until the 1800's until the Theory of Spontaneous Generation was fully abolished with additional experimentation, and mankind learned that they were incredible fools on the basic operation of life for the past 2000 years.

 “ From 400 BC, with Aristotle, and until the mid-19th century (1830–1850 AD), many scientists have claimed that some organisms can be generated spontaneously from non-living matter, citing larvae as an example and the flies that are generated on decomposing meat. Aristotle had observed the correlation between the rotting of meat, the appearing of larvae on it and the developing of flies. Upon his repeated observations, he found a correlation that developed in a theory (the theory of spontaneous generation). This theory proved wrong (the ‘rotting meat error’ in our story) because it grew out of correlations ‘statistically’ (very) significant but those correlations were wrong ones. Yet, for a long time the theory was constantly applied as ‘scientific’ understanding since Aristotelian logic applied well to it. ” —[img=https://web.archive.org/web/20211129084413/https://edpl.lexxion.eu/data/article/13095/pdf/edpl_2018_03-005.pdf Giovanni Comandé, The Rotting Meat Error: From Galileo to Aristotle in Data Mining?]http://Pathetic.

With the Scientific Method we learned that we can't simply assume a bunch of stuff. Each of your assumptions must be demonstrated explicitly in an artificial situation. Observation is limited, as what you observing is often the product of many different mechanisms which must be separated. Such is the fallacy of the observational science of Astronomy.

Which is totally off topic and doesn’t address the shortcomings of the video.

Nor does or address this concern if the world was flat.

On the flat earth, you would get into this situation.



For this to happen on a flat earth.  How does the video account for on a flat earth one person close to the cloud would see the cloud illuminate top down with the cloud’s shadow on the ground.  But a father away person would have to simultaneously see the cloud illuminated bottom up with no cloud shadow on the ground.


The video literally shows a light backed up on a trolley to simulate “sunset.”  But seemed to forget that sunset is where the sun literally sinks below the horizon to become physically blocked from view.

So the video failed to model a representative scale.  Or as math proves, backing a light up on a trolley over a flat plane will never result in the flat plane blocking the light from view as long as the light and observer are above the same plane.
« Last Edit: July 22, 2023, 04:12:12 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2023, 06:13:16 PM »
The video that you quoted at least proves that light physics isn't behaving in the way RE'ers think it is
How?
We know that light can refract and diffract, as well as reflecting off such a smooth white floor at a low angle.

We can also see them using an opaque barrier, rather than something even remotely resembling clouds.

The angles involved are nothing like what FEers claim Earth and the sun are.
Look at how "high" the light is compared to how far away it is.

And suspiciously, when they are doing it with the trolley jack and black carpet, their hand appears to twist something, and they don't show the position of the jack at the end. I wonder why?

And even that still required the trolley to be much further away given its height than what the sun is claimed to be on a FE.

So no, it doesn't disprove the RE model, or using this as an argument against the FE model.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2023, 05:13:50 AM »
Always creating new topics and fleeing discussions.

Tsk tsk.



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2023, 06:33:24 AM »
Always creating new topics and fleeing discussions.

Tsk tsk.


How is it fleeing.

Most site’s mediators would have split the thread up anyway.

I can cut  and paste this in the other thread if you like.

But this thread is about the video accidentally showing a sunset doesn’t work on a FE earth with the trolley, and the other numbers shortcomings of the video.  And how the video doesn’t cover all aspects.

The video is debunked.

Sorry.


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17952
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2023, 09:33:01 AM »
The video isn't addressing the sun setting beneath or into the horizon. It is specifically addressing the RE claim that a light source higher than a mountain on a flat plane can't create a shadow that points "upwards" at the cloud deck.

In the artificial experiment the light source only needs to lower to a point to where the light appears to be below the top of the cardboard mountain. When it does so, the shadow points upwards onto the cardboard cloud deck. Obviously, this RE claim regarding the Mt. Rainier picture has been debunked. It did not consider that the projection of shadows operates differently than they think it does, or that the light could also be reflected from the distant surface to cause the shadow to point upwards.

While the experiment is presently in a state where there could be multiple explanations to why the phenomenon occurs, and follow up experiments which artificially deducts variables would be nice, it is enough to see that the position you have taken for years on the Mt. Rainier picture with the shadow and cloud deck was flawed. This is just like the flies on rotting meat reference showcasing humanity's ignorance for 2000 years, except in this case it reflects on you RE bunch who have made these arguments for the past ten years. You just assume things and make wild declarations of the truth without bothering to test your axioms in an artificial experiment.

Experiments are required for truth, not logic. Science without demonstrative experimentation is known as pseudoscience and is shunned in the hard sciences. You are engaging in pseudoscience when you rely on arguments based on "logic" and "rationality".
« Last Edit: July 23, 2023, 10:11:44 AM by Tom Bishop »

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2023, 11:28:35 AM »
The video isn't addressing the sun setting beneath or into the horizon.


Well.  Good thing I tried the experiment on my own.  Using the “logic” of scale.


Played around with earth maps showing day, night, and sun’s position.  For around I think 46.9 n latitude where civil twilight was falling, found the sun was directly overhead about 6000 miles away.

So edge of darkness to where the sun is directly overhead is about 6000 miles.  So I wanted to scale the experiment where 40 feet represented the 6000 miles distance for a mountain in twilight to where the sun was directly overhead.  Directly overhead should be the position of the sun above the FE. 
 
6000 / 40 makes each foot scaled to 150 miles.  For a sun 300 miles above the earth, that makes for a light source 2 foot above the floor for my scaled model.

Mount Rainer is something like 14,000 feet in altitude. I was able to cut a small triangle about 5/16” tall.  On my scale 40 feet equals 6000 miles, my 5/16” tall mountain cutout by scale is equivalent to something like 3.9 miles of altitude.

The setup drawn out.




So.  The light placed a few inches over 2 foot to represent a sun about 300 miles above the earth.  That’s where it ended up when placed on the box. So just went with it. 



My little mountain.



The mountain setup with the cloud on a little platform to get my camera low enough to take a picture of the cloud underside.  The setup was 40 feet from the flashlight.



Used cooking parchment paper for the cloud.  It let me do some interesting things.  Like teepee or droop the cloud over the mountain to force a shadow.

Top side of the parchment paper looking down.  Cardboard mountain underneath casting shadow on angled down paper.



Then I could work the paper flat.  What happen to the shadow?





I guess the cardboard mountain with the light source higher than the cutout might approach a shadow casted near parallel with the floor / ground. But not cast upward?

How to test?  Cut a notch in the cloud to see the mountain.  Crease the paper representing the cloud so it angles upward, then downward to the point it’s below the top of the cutout mountain like this.



There is no shadow on the upward angle.  The shadow of the mountain is not cast until the downward angle after the crease where the paper is at or below the simulated peak.

This makes sense..


This doesn’t make sense


So. By experiment.  Yes, a light source higher than the peak of the cutout can be moved far enough back so the shadow may approach being parallel with the ground.  As long as the light source is higher than the cutout peak, it’s not going to cause a shadow to be cast upward.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2023, 11:49:26 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2023, 11:46:56 AM »
The video isn't addressing the sun setting beneath or into the horizon.

Now.  What was the title of the thread?

FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.

For the light source simulated 6000 miles away.  40 feet equal to 6000 miles. Camera a little below the platform for the cutout mountain.





Hmm.  Can see the light source representing the sun still above the horizon.

Moved the flashlight 70 feet away from the mountain cutout. 

1 foot = 150 miles.  70 foot would be scaled to 10,500 miles.





Now how would the sun ever set on a flat earth?





*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2023, 11:49:44 AM »
The logic of scale makes your experiment incorrect. Air affects both the path and intensity of light. Air is not transparent.

If you knew why people believe the earth is round you'd realize this. This is exactly why you aren't qualified to design these experiments.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #13 on: July 23, 2023, 12:20:36 PM »
The logic of scale makes your experiment incorrect. Air affects both the path and intensity of light. Air is not transparent.

If you knew why people believe the earth is round you'd realize this. This is exactly why you aren't qualified to design these experiments.

There was no conditions that would cause temperatures that would cause a significant temperature inversion leading to great error in the hallway from refraction.  There was no sign of a “mirage”.

I would have to say a laser range finder used in the hallway would be extremely accurate.  Thus the effects you’re trying to vaguely invoke are negligible.  Especially for the small shadow.

So how does it affect the video that is debunked. 

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17952
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #14 on: July 23, 2023, 12:43:20 PM »
It looks like the shadow might be cast upwards in your lower quality version of the experiment to me. Right above the peak, there is a dark area on the cloud deck.



Right after posting the image you said:

Quote
I guess the cardboard mountain with the light source higher than the cutout might approach a shadow casted near parallel with the floor / ground. But not cast upward?

Looks like you missed that there is a dark area right above the peak.
« Last Edit: July 23, 2023, 12:44:54 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Username

  • Administrator
  • 17693
  • President of The Flat Earth Society
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #15 on: July 23, 2023, 01:32:22 PM »
There was no conditions that would cause temperatures that would cause a significant temperature inversion leading to great error in the hallway from refraction.  There was no sign of a “mirage”.
Yes, we have already established using your "logic" of scale is incorrect because it ignores several independent variables including but not limited to those mentioned by myself.
The illusion is shattered if we ask what goes on behind the scenes.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #16 on: July 23, 2023, 01:34:04 PM »
It looks like the shadow might be cast upwards in your lower quality version of the experiment to me. Right above the peak, there is a dark area on the cloud deck.



Right after posting the image you said:

Quote
I guess the cardboard mountain with the light source higher than the cutout might approach a shadow casted near parallel with the floor / ground. But not cast upward?

Looks like you missed that there is a dark area right above the peak.


This? Just a crease in the paper.  A “uneven cloud bottom”.




With the overhead shot. Light shining left to right.



Vs when a shadow is present from the paper having a downward angle drooped down the cutout.



Where your post in noway invalidates my conclusion of, “So. By experiment.  Yes, a light source higher than the peak of the cutout can be moved far enough back so the shadow may approach being parallel with the ground.  As long as the light source is higher than the cutout peak, it’s not going to cause a shadow to be cast upward.”

And still no answer how a flat earth would block the sun from view at sunset.


This still needs addressed.

On the flat earth, you would get into this situation.



For this to happen on a flat earth.  How does the video account for on a flat earth one person close to the cloud would see the cloud illuminate top down with the cloud’s shadow on the ground.  But a father away person would have to simultaneously see the cloud illuminated bottom up with no cloud shadow on the ground.



Now.

Is this wrong?




If you think otherwise.

How far back do I need to move this light source which is taller than the cap until the shadow of the cap is larger than the cap itself?  Please show calculations.

Anyway.

Dragged the light 30 feet back keeping it on the ground.  Had to adjust the head to keep the brightest part of the light on the cap.




Video of dragging the flashlight back on the floor.



Zoomed picture with flashlight at final position.



Cap moved closer to ruler, flashlight still at final position.




Remember the light above the cap needs to produce an extreme upward shadow like this.

« Last Edit: July 23, 2023, 02:13:08 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #17 on: July 23, 2023, 01:43:39 PM »
There was no conditions that would cause temperatures that would cause a significant temperature inversion leading to great error in the hallway from refraction.  There was no sign of a “mirage”.
Yes, we have already established using your "logic" of scale is incorrect because it ignores several independent variables including but not limited to those mentioned by myself.

You created a false narrative you can’t back. Or even explain in any detail.

Sorry. 


If you want to play.  How is the scale of the mountain off when I failed conservatively where the cutout is relatively taller by altitude in the model compared to real life.  Where my model again failed conservatively and used the ridiculous FE notion the sun being 300 miles above the earth.  That would put the sun in the Van Allen belts. 

Any “concerns” you have about “error” is eliminated by giving the advantage to FE by making the mountain cutout relatively larger than the actual mountain. Also by failing conservatively by using the lower common cited altitude of the sun in the FE model.  The mountain cutout is even on a pedestal shorting the distance of the peak to the light by height, reducing the angle of the light.


« Last Edit: July 23, 2023, 01:45:17 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #18 on: July 23, 2023, 03:31:59 PM »
The video isn't addressing the sun setting beneath or into the horizon. It is specifically addressing the RE claim that a light source higher than a mountain on a flat plane can't create a shadow that points "upwards" at the cloud deck.
The claim is more specific than that.
It is specifically addressing the claimed FE geometry.
Where a light, allegedly 5000 km high, and above a point around 10 000 km in the distance, casts light upwards to project a shadow onto a semi-transparent object it is above.

This setup doesn't simulate that at all.
It has it over a very shiny white floor, and has the light much lower down than it should be in the FE model, and the ratio of altitude to distance is wrong, and it doesn't have a semi-transparent layer to simulate the clouds.

In short, it fails in basically all aspects.

But more importantly, the thread wasn't actually focusing on that claim.
Instead, the title states that this demonstrates the sun shouldn't set on a FE.
As perspective making things appear lower, can't make them appear lower than eye level (for those objects it would make them appear higher) so there is no way for perspective to make the sun set.

In the artificial experiment the light source only needs to lower to a point to where the light appears to be below the top of the cardboard mountain. When it does so, the shadow points upwards onto the cardboard cloud deck.
No it doesn't.
It has it much further away, and on a shiny surface. (Which also raises the question of just how level the "cloud" is? Is it actually level, or does it point down at a slight angle so when the "sun" is far enough away a downwards shadow can hit it?)
It certainly does not demonstrate that as soon as the light appears below the top of the mountain the shadow points upwards.

It fact, right near 8:30, we see just that. Initially, there is no upwards shadow at all, and as the light drops below, it doesn't instantly switch to casting a shadow upwards all over the cardboard.
Instead, it takes a bit longer for the shadow to appear, and even then it is only over a small portion, with far more in darkness.
Almost as if the cardboard is actually bent, being supported by the peak and sagging down.

Obviously, this RE claim regarding the Mt. Rainier picture has been debunked.
No it hasn't, for the many reasons stated above.

Science without demonstrative experimentation is known as pseudoscience and is shunned in the hard sciences.
Like the FE.

Optics is quite well established, and the argument is based upon loads of experiments on optics.
Mainly all the experiments which demonstrate how baring refraction, reflection and diffraction, light will travel in a straight line, with a shadow cast based upon that straight line.

Refraction wouldn't help as unless there is a particular disturbance the light would curve downwards due to the natural gradient of the atmosphere.
So all that is left is diffraction and reflection.
Reflection of a nice shiny floor would help.
But far less so at the angles needed for a FE.
And diffraction likewise wouldn't help with the angles needed for a FE.

Why not say what you really want? That light magically bends for no reason at all, with absolutely no experimental evidence to support this other than observations which demonstrate Earth is round?

It looks like the shadow might be cast upwards in your lower quality version of the experiment to me. Right above the peak, there is a dark area on the cloud deck.
Which in no way appears to be coming from the mountain, and is likely because the paper isn't perfectly flat.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #19 on: July 24, 2023, 06:35:43 AM »
FIRST POST IS TOO DAMN LONG TO QUOTE.

Pay attention to the fan as the trolley goes back. Do you notice how the shadow appears to "set"? Now, had you watched BOTH of my videos rather than simply the one, you would not be posing the question.

Why not? Because this video only deals in whether it is possible to make upward shadow on a flat and level surface. While pointing out the "flaw", you nonetheless must note that they did what they set out to do. The exact point is that light is needed for this shadow, and they weren't going to go out of distance when they needed the light to be at the right distance.

Now, if they extended this shed to a larger space than a football field (zoning is a real issue though), you would find that as you pull the trolley back and back, light diminishes.  If he build a shed as light as three footbal fields, you would probably reach a point where the light of the trolley could not be seen over the overhead lights.



You can see in the flashlight night picture the gradient of light breakdown. You can see in your own pictures how light shrinks and reduces in intensity. As I have said before, the theory that light somehow does not disperse is built on wishful thinking.



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #20 on: July 24, 2023, 06:59:53 AM »


trolley goes back. Do you notice how the shadow appears to "set"? Now, had you watched BOTH of my videos rather than simply the one, you would not be posing the question.

If your debunked video represents reality, why doesn’t the light on the trolley ever become blocked by the “horizon”?

Is it one? The experiment in your debunked video doesn’t represent scale.  So is a bad junk science setup?

Or two.  It’s impossible for a sun to set and become physically blocked from view for a flat earth.

Again..

Quote
Now.  What was the title of the thread?

FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.

For the light source simulated 6000 miles away.  40 feet equal to 6000 miles. Camera a little below the platform for the cutout mountain.





Hmm.  Can see the light source representing the sun still above the horizon.

Moved the flashlight 70 feet away from the mountain cutout. 

1 foot = 150 miles.  70 foot would be scaled to 10,500 miles.





Now how would the sun ever set on a flat earth?





Why not? Because this video only deals in whether it is possible to make upward shadow on a flat and level surface.

And it’s not possible to make an “upward” shadow when the light source is above the object casting the shadow.

Again..

This is really the heart of the matter concerning the shadow.

This makes sense..


This doesn’t make sense


If you think otherwise.

How far back do I need to move this light source which is taller than the cap until the shadow of the cap is larger than the cap itself?  Please show calculations.

Anyway.

Dragged the light 30 feet back keeping it on the ground.  Had to adjust the head to keep the brightest part of the light on the cap.




Video of dragging the flashlight back on the floor.



Zoomed picture with flashlight at final position.



Cap moved closer to ruler, flashlight still at final position.




Remember the light above the cap needs to produce an extreme upward shadow like this.



All evidence and documentation points to my conclusion.

So. By experiment.  Yes, a light source higher than the peak of the cutout can be moved far enough back so the shadow may approach being parallel with the ground.  As long as the light source is higher than the cutout peak, it’s not going to cause a shadow to be cast upward


And why do you Flat Earther’s ignore this part of the argument?

On the flat earth, you would get into this situation.



For this to happen on a flat earth.  How does the video account for on a flat earth one person close to the cloud would see the cloud illuminate top down with the cloud’s shadow on the ground.  But a father away person would have to simultaneously see the cloud illuminated bottom up with no cloud shadow on the ground.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #21 on: July 24, 2023, 08:19:06 AM »


And it’s not possible to make an “upward” shadow when the light source is above the object casting the shadow.

Again..

This is really the heart of the matter concerning the shadow.

This makes sense..


This doesn’t make sense




But you fail to answer why the video shows it as per timesramp

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #22 on: July 24, 2023, 11:34:17 AM »


And it’s not possible to make an “upward” shadow when the light source is above the object casting the shadow.

Again..

This is really the heart of the matter concerning the shadow.

This makes sense..


This doesn’t make sense




But you fail to answer why the video shows it as per timesramp


The video fails to make its case.

Fails to “explain” the impossible. 


And you only quoted a small portion of my argument.

If you think otherwise.

How far back do I need to move this light source which is taller than the cap until the shadow of the cap is larger than the cap itself?  Please show calculations.

Anyway.

Dragged the light 30 feet back keeping it on the ground.  Had to adjust the head to keep the brightest part of the light on the cap.




Video of dragging the flashlight back on the floor.



Zoomed picture with flashlight at final position.



Cap moved closer to ruler, flashlight still at final position.




Remember the light above the cap needs to produce an extreme upward shadow like this.

« Last Edit: July 24, 2023, 11:37:18 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #23 on: July 24, 2023, 02:17:25 PM »
Pay attention to the fan as the trolley goes back.
The fan is above the light.
So focusing on it is irrelevant.

But even then, notice how it just approaches level, and never magically goes down?

While pointing out the "flaw", you nonetheless must note that they did what they set out to do. The exact point is that light is needed for this shadow, and they weren't going to go out of distance when they needed the light to be at the right distance.
Yet the distance used doesn't match the FE at all, and still has the sun visible, not set.

Now, if they extended this shed to a larger space than a football field (zoning is a real issue though), you would find that as you pull the trolley back and back, light diminishes.
If he build a shed as light as three footbal fields, you would probably reach a point where the light of the trolley could not be seen over the overhead lights.
Yes, it would fade, possibly fading into the background with all the bright lights around. Unlike the sun which is still quite bright when it sets; and where you then have darkness after it sets.

Again, the sun doesn't fade out or shrink, it sets. Quite different.

What are the overhead lights on the football stadium meant to represent in the FE fantasy?


Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2023, 06:47:58 AM »


trolley goes back. Do you notice how the shadow appears to "set"? Now, had you watched BOTH of my videos rather than simply the one, you would not be posing the question.

If your debunked video represents reality, why doesn’t the light on the trolley ever become blocked by the “horizon”?


Because unlike the "curvature" the horizon isn't blocking anything. Take a look at YOUR light pictures. They are slowly fading into smaller and smaller dots. Now, the sun doesn't shrink like these lights (explained in the sun shrink video, which you supposedly watched along with the other video ??? ) but the point is, our sun disappears due to angle not obstruction. I've told you this several times, but you don't listen. But even if it didn't, light does not continue indefinitely. It disperses.

You will be able to test this yourself. Find a perfectly level path that has a traffic light. Now walk away from it in a straight line. Without going over any hill, the light does fade until you cannot tell whether the light is red or green.

Better yet, since your experiments seem to like to go small or go home (seriously most of these are incredibly underwhelming), let's use a candle. According to internet rumor, you can see a burning candle for 30 miles.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/07/31/72658/how-far-can-the-human-eye-see-a-candle-flame/

TechnologyReview mythbusted that though. The actual  distance you can see a candle was 2.76 km (about 1.7 miles).

No horizon obstruction, no curvature, well within the 3 miles or so of usual vision. You just stop seeing light after a certain distance.



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2023, 08:02:10 AM »


Because unlike the "curvature" the horizon isn't blocking anything. Take a look at YOUR light pictures. They are slowly fading into smaller and smaller dots. Now, the sun doesn't shrink like these lights (explained in the sun shrink video, which you supposedly watched along with the other video ??? ) but the point is, our sun disappears due to angle not obstruction.

One.  To block a light you need to physically block it with a barrier.  You can bring stars invisible to the naked eye into view with a telescope and its ability to gather more light than the human eye.  If the sun simply became too “faint”, a large light gathering device  like a telescope should bring it back into view.

The sun even at its “faintest” is still brighter than any night time star or planet.  The sun isn’t going too “faint” to see, it is physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth.

Quote
Now.  What was the title of the thread?

FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.

For the light source simulated 6000 miles away.  40 feet equal to 6000 miles. Camera a little below the platform for the cutout mountain.





Hmm.  Can see the light source representing the sun still above the horizon.

Moved the flashlight 70 feet away from the mountain cutout. 

1 foot = 150 miles.  70 foot would be scaled to 10,500 miles.





Now how would the sun ever set on a flat earth?


With every advantage to the FE model, at a scaled distance of 10,500 miles the simulated sun is clearly well above the floor acting as the horizon.  Not too faint to see, not physically blocked from view where a telescope wouldn’t bring it into view.




I've told you this several times, but you don't listen.


No.  You spout utter nonsense
« Last Edit: July 26, 2023, 07:09:08 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 21969
Re: FE Video Accidentally Proves Sun Doesn’t Set On a Flat Earth.
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2023, 02:41:25 PM »
Because unlike the "curvature" the horizon isn't blocking anything.
i.e. without curvature, you would not be able to have the sun blocked by Earth, so the sun wouldn't set.

our sun disappears due to angle not obstruction. I've told you this several times
But you failed to explain just what this should mean.

The sun is clearly observed to appear to set, appearing to set into Earth, with Earth apparently blocking the view.

https://www.technologyreview.com/2015/07/31/72658/how-far-can-the-human-eye-see-a-candle-flame/
light does not continue indefinitely. It disperses.
[/quote]
That is saying it does continue forever, it just gets weaker with distance.
This is known as the inverse square law.

If that explained the sun setting, that means the sun should fade to a point; rather than appearing to be obstructed by Earth.

TechnologyReview mythbusted that though. The actual  distance you can see a candle was 2.76 km (about 1.7 miles).
No, they didn't.
They used a single candle, made a few observations, and then calculated how far away it should be. The number allegedly calculated was 2576, but then they say 2.7 km.
The link you provided also has no explanation on what calculations they did to arrive at this number.
If you read the paper, the actual distance calculated is 6.2 km.

They then discuss "A mythical creature whose night vision luminosity function is the same as our day vision luminosity function would observe the candle flame to be comparable in brightness to Vega at 338 m times the square root of 0.2312, or about 162.5 m. A 6th magnitude star with the spectral energy distribution of Vega would be 15.85 times more distant, or 2576 m".

So the link doesn't even get that correct.
And note that the 6.2 km is still beyond the standard 5 km to the horizon.
Your ability to see distant lights has NOTHING to do with the horizon.

But even then, your dishonesty still knows no bounds.
Light follows an inverse square law. So if you double the distance, you cut the intensity of the light by a factor of 4.
So if this particular candle can be see as comparable to a star from a distance of 162.5 m, and it blurs into the background at a distance of 2576 m, that is a factor of 15.6.
And if we make it even more favourable for you, by entirely ignoring the vertical distance (which would just make it worse), and consider that the sun can be seen above the horizon, much brighter than this comparatively faint star, when it is above a point 10 000 km away, then it would need to go to being above a point 156 000 km away.
That means it wouldn't be anywhere near the FE.

Yet again, this shows that is NOT why the sun appears to set.

Again, the sun does NOT fade to a point and vanish. Instead it appears to go below Earth with Earth blocking the view.

And this is just using the unaided eye.
It doesn't even discuss the possibility of using a telescope.

If your delusional BS was true, then after the sun sets, you should be able to use a telescope and still see it. But you can't, as if something is blocking the view.

No horizon obstruction, no curvature, well within the 3 miles or so of usual vision. You just stop seeing light after a certain distance.
There is no magical limit of vision.
And the light doesn't stop being seen. Instead, it stops being able to be made out compared to the background.