Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

This is finally a good question. After alot of bad questions.

The higher up in the atmosphere, the thinner it is. Air being necessary to conduct heat, low air density means low temperature and low temperature variance.

Actually, air doesn't really conduct heat very well.  Still air is actually a very good insulator (hence fiberglass and foam type home insulation).  Air tends to transfer heat by convection currents (think convection oven/air fryer).

But you didn't answer my question.  Doesn't the dome trap the sun's heat?

Which leads to a next question. Why is it hot in the desert then? Well, a desert has low humidity but the air density is normal.

Deserts are determined by rainfall, not temperature.  Many deserts can get quite cold, especially at night.

In a vacuum, it is difficult to impossible to light a fire, except through the use of oxidizers.
On the other end of the spectrum, very high air pressure, adding heat would likely cause a mini explosion.

With regard to your latter question, suppose you have an open concept mansion. 100 x 100 ft with a 50 ft from ground to roof and separate rooms only upstairs.  You light a fire in the fireplace of the northern area of the house.

The first law of thermodynamics is a formulation of the law of conservation of energy in the context of thermodynamic processes. The law distinguishes two principal forms of energy transfer, heat and thermodynamic work, that modify a thermodynamic system containing a constant amount of matter. The law also defines the internal energy of a system, an extensive property for taking account of the balance of heat and work in the system. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but it can be transformed from one form to another. In an isolated system the sum of all forms of energy is constant.

What this means is that heat tends to scatter to fill a space, heating slowly over a larger space. But this doesn't fully answer what is going on, for the fireplace is fixed. So let's instead use a heating unit, and move it to different spaces in the house. This results in the source of heat being localized as slightly hotter over the course of the day. But would heat build? Not really. Recall the high ceilings. Heat builds in a closed space, but it also rises. In thinner air, heat tends to be less intense. There is also the matter that the amount of heat cannot exceed the total energy of the source of heat.

Deserts are defined by humidity.

There are cold deserts and hot deserts. And even some deserts where it is very hot during the day but cold at night.

In a vacuum, it is difficult to impossible to light a fire, except through the use of oxidizers.
On the other end of the spectrum, very high air pressure, adding heat would likely cause a mini explosion.

Are you saying that the sun is a fire burning inside the atmosphere contained within the dome?  Aren't you afraid that the sun will consume all the oxygen?

What this means is that heat tends to scatter to fill a space, heating slowly over a larger space.

So now you're saying that the dome does trap the heat from the sun and the temperature should eventually equalize all over the plane?  You're right, the FE sun makes no sense.

Quote from: Themightykabool on December 03, 2024, 10:01:46 AM

blackplague was because people kept gathering at church...
so who was wrong?

You did not just fucking say that to me.

Rats and fleas were the primary cause of the Black Plague.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-black-death-how-rats-fleas-germs-almost-wiped-out-europe-19745
Secondary was the stunning lack of hygiene in the Middle Ages.

Now, history.com is trying to tell everyone that it was humans, based on a book by Barney Sloane. Other websites have snatched up the idea, that humans somehow caused the problem. Even though Black Plague has not recurred before or since. At all. Evey year, we have a new strain of flu and cold that some people die of, despite coming up with vaccines for cold and flu nearly every year.  When people die anyway, they claim "We used the wrong vaccine" instead of "herp derp, our vaccines maybe don't work."  Black plague only occurred in the extreme filth that created rat infested cities, and just because Sloane doesn't see rat skeletons in evidence doesn't mean with didn't have thousands of them burned to ash when people discovered they were the cause.

Now, as for your accusation that it was people meeting in church, kindly fuck off. Do you know what doctors and nurses were doing during the Black Plague? Most of them were fleeing the city. Meaning there were alot less people to treat Black Plague, and it was much worse than it could have been. Do you know what Christians were doing when the Black Plague hit? Historically, the have always been the last to go, helping the sick even when they were at risk of death themselves.
https://credomag.com/2020/04/christian-mercy-in-a-time-of-plague/
Which in turn meant that some were carriers, but anyway.

Were they perfect? No, in some cases, Christians also started pogroms against Jews because their hygiene helped keep them free of illness. Which is kinda the point. Hygiene and not vaccines was what ultimately stopped the Black Plague. Just as typhoid was spread through terrible sewage systems, and people discovered the effectiveness of alcohol.  The drunks were the last to get sick, the ladies near where the sewage collected were first.

Clean cities have everything to do with it.

And since assholes like Malthus and his order of Satanic secret societies want this filth to limit human population, I think I can instead that it was due to globalists meeting together in their long Masonic robes that people died.


Demographic studies, at work.

it started with rats but continued on because of human gatherings
but sure
feel free to be absolutist in my statement without the context of post outbreak - the "leaders" told people to gather up at the church.
it is incorrect in the way i presented it.
i concede if your point is rats and fleas.

see how that honesty works?

This is finally a good question. After alot of bad questions.

You have a very strange idea of what makes a "good question".
Why not be honest? It is finally a question you think you can answer; rather than one which trivially shows you are wrong, which you can't answer at all and you need to deflect from at all costs.
And you happily latch onto it to run off to another issue to avoid the issue you cannot address.

Again, you still refuse to address the actual situation that is being discussed.
You continue to flee like a lying coward.
You still provide no explanation for how your delusional BS would work to produce what is observed, the sun illuminating the clouds, from below.
You still provide no explanation for how this can't work on the RE like you claimed.
You still provide no explanation for how the sun manages to magically "angle" itself to appear lower.
You still provide no justification at all for how everything is wrong, rather than just accepting that your garbage model doesn't work.

Do you understand that the diagram you provided before was pure BS? Are you going to admit that? Or are you just going to ignore it and move on, pretending you weren't blatantly lying to everyone to pretend there was a problem with the RE when there wasn't?

Well, they say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and BB you personify that, I think you missed the whole point of the Malthus quote, (nothing new there!).

If taken in context of the rest of the essay where he was proposing the raising of the age of marriage and celibacy to lower the number of children born in a world he saw as destined to overpopulation and subsequently outstripping the ability to feed itself.

In the preceding chapter he states;
“If after all, however, these arguments should appear insufficient; if we reprobate the idea of endeavouring to encourage the virtue of moral restraint among the poor, from a fear of producing vice; and if we think, that to facilitate marriage by all possible means is a point of the first consequence to the morality and happiness of the people; let us act consistently, and before we proceed, endeavour to make ourselves acquainted with the mode by which alone we can effect our object.”

The quote you have was an ironic projection of what they should do if his proposed methods of population control were not taken up, along the lines of Swift’s “A modest proposal.” Where he suggested eating the excess children to ameliorate the same problem, it’s satire.

But don’t let your ignorance and lack of understanding get in the way of a good story, carry on.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 03, 2024, 08:03:20 PM

In a vacuum, it is difficult to impossible to light a fire, except through the use of oxidizers.
On the other end of the spectrum, very high air pressure, adding heat would likely cause a mini explosion.

Are you saying that the sun is a fire burning inside the atmosphere contained within the dome?  Aren't you afraid that the sun will consume all the oxygen?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 03, 2024, 08:03:20 PM

What this means is that heat tends to scatter to fill a space, heating slowly over a larger space.

So now you're saying that the dome does trap the heat from the sun and the temperature should eventually equalize all over the plane?  You're right, the FE sun makes no sense.

It's canonically a light in the sky. A ball of fire would have mass. The sun has no mass. 


This is from the Mafia Nanny webcomic. A kid is given a model duck pond for drawing sunlight. The thing on the post is a mirror or spotlight or what have you. It moves along the rim. The point being, the mirror (?) is not a real object with a position within the duck pond area.

Thinking of it as a ball of plasma will completely doom you to misunderstanding. As will the idea that this circle is 100% indicative of how things work. Models are guides, not reality. But when I say that the sun/moon is a hot or cold light, that is actually what I mean. Not an object casting light, not light from a distant star. It's a prop in a stage. A spotlight.

It's canonically a light in the sky. A ball of fire would have mass. The sun has no mass.

So you are going for pure magic?

Thinking of it as a ball of plasma will completely doom you to misunderstanding. As will the idea that this circle is 100% indicative of how things work. Models are guides, not reality. But when I say that the sun/moon is a hot or cold light, that is actually what I mean. Not an object casting light, not light from a distant star. It's a prop in a stage. A spotlight.

You mean it will "doom" us to understanding the FE model doesn't work?
Maybe you can take that crappy model and use it to show how the sun can illuminate a cloud from below? i.e. the issue you continue to flee from?

Again, you still refuse to address the actual situation that is being discussed.
You continue to flee like a lying coward.
You still provide no explanation for how your delusional BS would work to produce what is observed, the sun illuminating the clouds, from below.
You still provide no explanation for how this can't work on the RE like you claimed.
You still provide no explanation for how the sun manages to magically "angle" itself to appear lower.
You still provide no justification at all for how everything is wrong, rather than just accepting that your garbage model doesn't work.

Do you understand that the diagram you provided before was pure BS? Are you going to admit that? Or are you just going to ignore it and move on, pretending you weren't blatantly lying to everyone to pretend there was a problem with the RE when there wasn't?

It's canonically a light in the sky. A ball of fire would have mass. The sun has no mass. 


This is from the Mafia Nanny webcomic.

So your "evidence" is from... a comic book?  And you have the nerve to call RET a fantasy.

I never said it was evidence.

But you guys appear to need models to wrap your head around ideas.

You lack the ability to visualize, and this is why idiots can tell you something at age six and you won't be able to test it.

Also, where is it written that there are rules about what is and isn't acceptable data?

"It's from an accredited source," you say.


Appeal to authority fallacy.

Some guy named Dave calls himself Professor, and you believe him? I'm not impressed with funny outfits, titles, or pieces of paper. I happen to know that I could make a degree myself with a simple printer. I could make it look older than it was by soaking it in an acid like cider vinegar.


I am decidedly not Catholic. People in funny hats nor lab coats impress me. It's their ability to form coherent arguments.

The sun arcs around the sky, casting shadows identical enough to this flat circular space. If we were to instead use a moving area and a still, would the light hit the same points the same way? No, it would not.

The point is that this is probably based on how artistic models are. The genre is romance, and there are not fantasy elements, and they seem to have done research on other aspects of art, not to mention they themselves are artists.

Is this 100% accurate? No. But it's accurate enough for artists to get somewhat good shadows.

I never said it was evidence.

But you guys appear to need models to wrap your head around ideas.

Well constructed models can go a long way to show how things work.  Something that FE can't quite seem to pull off.

You lack the ability to visualize, and this is why idiots can tell you something at age six and you won't be able to test it.

I can visualize unicorns farting rainbows, but that doesn't make them real.

Also, where is it written that there are rules about what is and isn't acceptable data?

You tell me because FE'ers tend to reject all RE data.  Maybe you need to tell us what RE data is acceptable.

I can visualize unicorns farting rainbows, but that doesn't make them real.

That's hilarious.

You see, the model that the kid in this manga got was an accurate representation of shadows that can observably be seen on a typical day. In other words, they are a model of what can be seen. The shadows in the 9am position, if they were not in fact accurate to real shadows at 9am, would make for poor art.

Meanwhile, you imagine a world that cannot in fact be seen by your own eyes but instead you need (doctored) pictures to show you. You are literally talking about something that is a unicorn. "These things exist, but I can't show them to you."

You can't show me have gravity sticks water to a ball.
You can't show me how water curves.
You can't show me where the Earth curves on the all too apparently flat Earth.
You can't show the 8 in/mile curve, nor that all matter falls at the same rate. I can actually time a feather vs an anvil and they do not in fact fall at the same rate.
You cannot show me where it is "obvious" that the Earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.

You are chasing fucking unicorns because of pictures you have seen.

I do not believe in unicorns. I do not try to use math to extrapolate anything beyond my field of vision.
This is because I know extrapolating the unseen is guessing.

I also do not believe in UFOs, climate change, or dinosaurs. I have never actually seen any of these things. Nor do I believe in the framework behind them. There are no dinosaurs because evolution doesn't work this way, and because reptiles are not relatives of birds. They do not have much in common in either bones or organs. Birds have gizzards and a lightweight skeletal system. Reptiles have lungs, hearts, and more organs in common with mammals than birds. I don't believe in UFOs, because for ships to fly through space, they must not only fly through a vacuum but they need to bypass whatever membrane separates air from a vacuum (were there no such barrier, air would diffuse). And I don't believe in climate change because I have only seen destructive effects of deforestation. Never any sign that burning anything affects anything. In fact, that was the conclusion of Christianity. No amount of cooking animals can atone for any sin.

As an adult, the only time that I visualize things that aren't so is when making artwork or writing fiction. Otherwise, I stick to the same sort of visualization that real (not people with a piece of paper) designers and engineers are capable of. That of constructing models from what I see and understand.

A fantasy world map.

A fantasy bounty hunter identification.

On the right is the family crest (based on the Hojo seal), on the left is the town seal.
And yes, "Brahmin" is an intentional incorrect spelling. She called out the information out orally, and then signed her name.

Maybe you need to tell us what RE data is acceptable.

Why should I accept any of your "data"? You've already done me the dishonor of refusing to accept any of my data. So I no longer care what I use. I can now use anime as readily as any other source. But if you must insist, pictures can be doctored, videos can be doctored, and deep fake is to such an extent that we can have Kamala Harris or Trump doing things that they actually never did. So really? I trust my own eyes and my own intuition, and nothing you can say at all will convince me beyond that. Hell, given that there are completely convincing holographs like that vocaloid bitch with blue hair, not even that some days.

I can readily see a straight horizon in all directions. That's a flat circle. Like in the art model.

If you can't accept what your own eyes tell you, there's no hope of convincing you.

Here's your unicorn. Knock yourself out.


 

But you guys appear to need models to wrap your head around ideas.
You lack the ability to visualize, and this is why idiots can tell you something at age six and you won't be able to test it.

I can visualise things which work, such as the RE model.
What I can't visualise is your fantasy working without magic.

Your explanations amount to nothing. They do not explain the issue at all.

Models are useful for demonstrating things. Either what should happen or what should not. And they give clear things to then ask further questions about.

e.g. I can easily visualise the sun being a ball in the sky moving over a flat plane appear smaller and lower as it does so.
I can easily visualise how that would shine on a cloud from above, getting closer and closer to the side (but never below) as it gets further away.
I can also easily visualise how if light was magic, and it magically went below the clouds and then bent back up it would strike the cloud from below.
I can also easily visualise how for a RE, the sun can directly illuminate the cloud from below.

That is why you were asked for models, to make a clear representation where the faults can be discussed or to actually explain things.

Also, where is it written that there are rules about what is and isn't acceptable data?

Who said anything about that?

The sun arcs around the sky, casting shadows identical enough to this flat circular space.

No, it doesn't.
It arcs up and down, casting shadows as if it was circling around in a plane at an angle to the surface.

If we were to instead use a moving area and a still, would the light hit the same points the same way?

Do you mean a moving area and a still light source?
Then it entirely depends on the motion.
If the motion is equivalent, then yes they do.
That is because what matters is the relative position.

e.g. if you had the sun circling above, tracing a perfect circle about an axis at a smooth constant rate; and then decided to switch it so the sun was stationary, and Earth instead was rotating about that axis in the opposite direction; you get the same shadows.

Meanwhile, you imagine a world that cannot in fact be seen by your own eyes but instead you need (doctored) pictures to show you. You are literally talking about something that is a unicorn.

No, we are talking about reality. A world you can see by opening your eyes.

You can't show me have gravity sticks water to a ball.

You have been told what you need for that, and provided alternative means to see gravity.

You can't show me how water curves.

Sure we can, such as by long distance viewing where objects appear to have sunk into the water with the bottom obscured.

You can't show me where the Earth curves on the all too apparently flat Earth.

Yes we can. It's called the horizon.

You can't show the 8 in/mile curve

This requires accurate measurements. The simplest way to do it is to measure the angle of dip to the horizon with varying elevation.

I can actually time a feather vs an anvil and they do not in fact fall at the same rate.

In air, or a vacuum?

You cannot show me where it is "obvious" that the Earth goes around the sun and not the other way around.

Because simple visual observations can't tell.

I do not believe in unicorns.

Instead you just believe in something even more ridiculous.

I do not try to use math to extrapolate anything beyond my field of vision.

i.e. you choose to remain wilfully ignorant about so many things.

There are no dinosaurs because evolution doesn't work this way, and because reptiles are not relatives of birds.

Notice how that is circular?
You dismiss evolution because reptiles are not related to birds, but you say they are not related because you dismiss evolution.

they must not only fly through a vacuum but they need to bypass whatever membrane separates air from a vacuum (were there no such barrier, air would diffuse).

i.e. you choose to remain wilfully ignorant of the pressure gradient observed in all fluids, which clearly demonstrates that with the appropriate situation, no membrane is needed.

And I don't believe in climate change because I have only seen destructive effects of deforestation.

i.e. you don't believe in it because you remain wilfully ignorant of the past.

That of constructing models from what I see and understand.

i.e. you have no interest in understanding anything.
You have no interest in trying to make a model of something you don't understand to try to understand it.
Instead you will just dismiss it with whatever BS you can think of.

Why should I accept any of your "data"?

To be a rational human being?

You've already done me the dishonor of refusing to accept any of my data.

What data?
I'm yet to see you present anything that would come remotely close to data.

I can readily see a straight horizon in all directions. That's a flat circle. Like in the art model.

Notice the key part - a flat circle.
Compare this to a ball and a table.
For a ball, we also see a flat circle as the horizon.
For a table, we see the edge of the table, so unless it is a circular table, it doesn't produce a circular horizon.

So if you try to actually understand, you would see this observation clearly demonstrates Earth is round.

If you can't accept what your own eyes tell you, there's no hope of convincing you.

I do accept what my own eyes tell me, and that includes things like me seeing the horizon resulting in my eyes telling me that Earth is round.

This includes my eyes seeing light being cast upwards onto clouds from below telling me the sun is BELOW the clouds, not above. While not directly telling me Earth is round, it at least consistent with a RE and tells me the common FE model with the sun circling overhead is wrong.
This includes the moon (much easier than the sun because you don't have issues with glare from how bright the sun is), being seen to remain the same size while its elevation changes, telling me that it is circling and going below. Again, consistent with the RE model and telling me the RE model is wrong.

So I do trust my eyes. Perhaps you should try it some time.
Stop trying to come up with BS to explain it away, see the sun going down and accept that it is (relative to you).

Actions have consequences.

When you call all of my stuff delusional BS, like the big lie over and over hoping someone will believe you (who has been brainwashed by the elementary and secondary school system) rather than me, who is "deluded" or that's it maybe I'm "brainwashed" for arriving to a conclusion on my own (because that totally makes sense), then I stop caring what sources I use.

So here, let's use Professor Dave against you:

Wrong about flat Earth,

admits he is not a professor,

just an arrogant asshole.


Oh and notice that James Tour has organic chem models on his side, but Dave has drawn nothing on his side. Like RE ppl everywhere, he just resorts to talking over ppl and calling them stupid. They ask him "show me the chemistry" and he doesn't. Clueless. They ask him "what was the percentage, you got everything else written down" he doesn't know. Because what he has written down is data shilling for Big Global. A person who actually knows the material will not need to quote from a page.

I'm going to vacation. I'd hoped to see family but they not coming to this one. Anyway, Clueless Dave seems like a good fit for you.

So whatever delusional BS that I've supposedly said (oh wait, I said nothing, I just got youtube quotes, the equivalent of showing students a movie the day before summer vacation), I'm sure it will keep.

After all, you've made it  quite clear that whether I show graphs, formulas, diagrams, or youtube videos, all of it is equally BS.

Amazing

Spectacular!


Because we re able to communicate through words and pictures we re morons.
Yet your inability to descrube a parabolic air lensing feature that optically shifts objects is our fault...

Amazig!


Also unicorns and dinosaurs yet your god exists.
Cool!

Idiocracy wasn't just a documentary, it was a goal.

My God exists.

How do I know this? Because I have actually seen him. No, not like this.

I have seen him in the people I've met. Mostly hot girls. Sorry, God, that's just how I roll.

But even if I hadn't, I have a historical record of a people favored by God. They mention in depth how they routinely get overthrown when worshiping foreign gods. If God were not there, it wouldn't matter what they did. Instead, you and I both know that the Jews have been driven from place to place.
But even without that, I can see nature all around me.
In short, there simply isn't any need to have special pleading pictures (like with your fantasy unicorn  shot of the curve) because God is in this picture.

And this picture

And this picture.

And especially this picture.


No requirement to look beyond the horizon.

Dinosaur bones are plaster "replicas" of what museum owners hope that audiences will like. In a vault, they supposedly have a few bones. Supposedly.


Oh and by the way...


Unicorns are narwhal tusks. Or maybe those are unicorns, and we've been lied to all this time. Regardless, it doesn't matter to me, because real narwhals (or unicorns) are up north, and require a drive or flight to Canada and above.

Speaking of which. Unicorn vs Narwhal

I don’t think there is any subject that you have held forth on where you show anything more than the shallowest understanding of, it’s quite a feat.

You obviously have a lively mind, but it is riddled with conspirituality, a mishmash of religious dogma, anti-science and prejudice.

I have a horrible vision of the future where the age of enlightenment is drowned under this rising sludge, the streets filled with crazed flagellants following increasingly strident prophets to various dead deities, craving for a revelation that never comes.

And I used to have such hope for the future.

except your god is based on feelings and other people's stories.
so by that logic space is also valid because of people's stories and feelings.


unicorn is in the bible.
apotosaurus is in the bible.




models are used to design buildings, computers, anatomy, chemicals, cars, toys, planes, AND EVEN STORY BOARDS!
so you scoff at how triangles and circles work, can't comprehend how the sun shines "up" to light up the bottom of a cloud-despite circles and triangles, and yet we're to believe your parabola model which doesn't provide any measurable correlation to what is seen.

by your own words -
                       what
                                   is
                                               seen.

so why?
why is that you continue this contradiction and double standard?
becuase you're a Contradictorian?

Actions have consequences.

Yes, and you repeatedly spouting the same refuted BS has the consequence of people calling you out on it.

for arriving to a conclusion on my own

Again, it is NOT because you reach a conclusion on your own.
It is because you make an assumption and then reject or ignore anything that goes against it, where you continue to ignore the problems raised about your "conclusions" and continue to lie about the RE and the FE.

After all, you've made it  quite clear that whether I show graphs, formulas, diagrams, or youtube videos, all of it is equally BS.

You mean diagrams that don't address the issue raised, or are quite literally pure BS where you just draw what you want with no explanation of what magic causes it, where simple questions are then asked of you and flee like the lying coward you are?

For example this BS of yours:

Where you magically have the light from the sun magically restricted to a tiny spot, and when that was pointed out and simple questions were asked like what is magically restricting the sun to only shine there, you just entirely ignored them and fled.

Or your useless diagrams, showing the sun appearing below the clouds, as if that addresses the issue of how it shines light upwards onto clouds from below when it is above them.
You seem to fail to understand the difference between angular position and physical position.

Or your BS where you try to "explain" how the sun can magically appear to sink without shrinking by providing a diagram where you just arbitrarily draw the sun at a lower angle but the same size.

Have you considered that it is because you just keep posting BS rather than addressing the issues raised?

As you said, actions have consequences.

If you don't want what you post to be called BS, then stop posting BS and fleeing from it and starting defending what you post.

My God exists.
How do I know this? Because I have actually seen him.

Just like little kids see their imaginary friends.

Countless people claim to have seen their contradictory gods.

]
I have seen him in the people I've met. Mostly hot girls.

So you haven't seen him. You have seen hot girls, and then projected your need for an imaginary friend onto them.

But again, God has nothing to do with the topic.

Yet again you flee from your inability to address the issues and instead cling to a safety blanket.

No requirement to look beyond the horizon.

i.e. the very thing you continue to avoid because it your shows your fantasy is wrong.

Again, you still refuse to address the actual situation that is being discussed.
You continue to flee like a lying coward.
You still provide no explanation for how your delusional BS would work to produce what is observed, the sun illuminating the clouds, from below.
You still provide no explanation for how this can't work on the RE like you claimed.
You still provide no explanation for how the sun manages to magically "angle" itself to appear lower.
You still provide no justification at all for how everything is wrong, rather than just accepting that your garbage model doesn't work.

Do you understand that the diagram you provided before was pure BS? Are you going to admit that? Or are you just going to ignore it and move on, pretending you weren't blatantly lying to everyone to pretend there was a problem with the RE when there wasn't?