Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

Notice these topics are being buried while the topics are about FE changing subjects or dodging questions.

Because you refuse to answer. I wonder why?

Maybe if you actually had answers you could provide them and not have the topic burried.

Meanwhile, what do you have to offer us now?
Just paranoid BS claims that we are trying to hide this.

Why would we want to hide it?
You have repeatedly shown how FEers need to lie about the RE or reality or both to pretend there is a problem; while being completely incapable of defending their dishonest delusional BS.
Just look at how many times you have jumped to a different topic in this thread alone.

Notice these topics are being buried while the topics are about FE changing subjects or dodging questions.

Totally not what you guys are doing, though.

(In a side note, I'm heading out of town tomorrow. So here's a bump for this to still be on page 1 next week)

The foundation of your delusion that light dies as required by your delusion has been exposed as a total lie and totally debunked.

But there is lots of light pollution in my area.



Light dies my ass.  More like bounces around everywhere cause a F’n mess.

Anyway. The Milky Way..

Quote

BEGINNERS GUIDE TO IMAGING THE MILKY WAY

https://www.highpointscientific.com/

Just paranoid BS claims that we are trying to hide this.

It's not paranoid when people actually are doing the thing you claim.

• Accounts of FEer's (there's no apostrophe, that possessive, dammit Data learn English grammar) getting the info they wanted, then hand waving it off
• Eric Dubay Sucks (also known as you suck, and are intimidated by his existence)
• Examples of taboo topics for Flat Earthers
• Proof for flat Earth
• Healthy Skeptical View For Science and Conspiracy Theory
• The one about Hurricane Milton
• FW cosmology

And some of these are brand new topics. So yeah, not only are you trying to bury it with topics that are mainly Data complaining that ppl are no longer interested in topics he wants, supposedly because he hit something "too hot for discussion" but he has about two or theee that are either brand new or necropost.

Should I also start a topic "Accounts of RE trying to bury uncomfy topics"? Or maybe "Accounts of RE trying to flee discussions"?

Sure, why not. I actually can cite specific names. Unlike Data who gets huffy when ignored, and you who does this "this is all just BS" or "you're imagining things."

And some of these are brand new topics.

Which has very little to do with this thread.

Which has nothing to do with how the heliocentric model is accurate and produces useful and reliable equipment and predictions for my hobbies.  Where FE is useless and fails.

Where “RE’rs” are more than happy to stay on topic.  Where the heliocentric model doesn’t ignore any “RE arguments”.

Where Bulms you have to literally derail your own thread and flee.  Seems Bulma you are the one “projecting” your short comings on others. 

It's not paranoid when people actually are doing the thing you claim.

It is paranoid BS.
Nothing is stopping you from ignoring those new posts and instead dealing with the claim here.

Should I also start a topic "Accounts of RE trying to bury uncomfy topics"? Or maybe "Accounts of RE trying to flee discussions"?

No, you should stop with all the pathetic BS and try actually defending your delusional BS for once or be honest for once in your life and admit you cannot defend your BS and you cannot show fault with the RE model.

All you are doing now is making up excuses for why you shouldn't defend your BS.


You still have absolutely no justification at all for how the apparence of sunset on Earth (and phenomenon related to it) are not like a light going around a corner, just like we would expect it to be for the RE model.
You still have absolutely no justification at all for how it would be consistent with a light source getting too far away making it too faint to be seen; now how would it be consistent with a magical parabola.

You still have no defence for any of the BS you have brought up in this thread.
And you seem to know you cannot defend your BS, so you are deflecting/fleeing at all costs.

Nothing is stopping you from ignoring those new posts and instead dealing with the claim here.

And I intend to. While also having hobbies and something resembling a life.

It is paranoid BS.

"You're just imagining things, dear."

Quote

Nothing is stopping you from ignoring those new posts and instead dealing with the claim here.

And I intend to.

Yet here you are, yet again posting in this thread, and still not defending your delusional BS.
It is as if you know you can't and are just looking for whatever excuse you can to avoid it.

You misunderstand. It's not that I can't.

It's that I don't need to.

In an entire week, you had every opportunity to dominate things, to come up with a perfect argument that would put me in my place. Instead, you spent all your energy trying to bury this post.

You have no game.

I keep telling jackB and data - There is no "perfect argument" to an admitted bad faithed actor.



Nothibg left to do but insult you.

You misunderstand. It's not that I can't.

It certainly seems  like you can't.
Your delusional BS remains refuted, with you unable to honestly respond to the refutations.
Once refuted enough you just flee and change topic.

You do this continually.

You still haven't explained how the apparence of the sun at sunset is not like the sun going around a corner as you would expect for the RE model.
You still haven't explained how a sun just moving away into the distance would produce anything like what is observed.
You have still entirely ignored the complete and utter destruction of your delusional parabola BS.
You still haven't been able to defend your lies against the RE model, such as seasons and eclipses.

You remain completely and utterly refuted, with your delusional fantasy shown to be pure BS.

In an entire week, you had every opportunity to dominate things, to come up with a perfect argument that would put me in my place.

Why would I need for you to go away to do that?
I've already done it while you were here.
Look at how terrified you are of actually responding to the arguments which show your claims are pure BS.

You have been shown to be wrong in almost every way. You just refuse to admit it.

As an example, just look at the argument I made back here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2426003#msg2426003
Apparently it is so damaging to your delusional BS you cannot respond at all.

Look at your pathetic response to a different argument here
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2432585#msg2432585
Just dismissing an argument that so clearly shows you are spouting pure BS as "chicken scratch diagram", while ignoring the text explaining the diagram.
You can do nothing to refute it.

You have been dominated. You have been put in your place.
You just keep spouting crap like a crazy child.

No argument will be any better to put you in your place.
What would be required is your parent giving you a time out and taking away your computer privileges. Maybe making you sit in the corner for a while and think about what you have done. And importantly, them denying you access to the computer until you can behave as a normal human being.

Why would I need for you to go away to do that?

The point being, I said before I went away that you have an entire week to come up with something "earth-shaking" and surprise, you didn't.

You still haven't explained how the apparence of the sun at sunset is not like the sun going around a corner as you would expect for the RE model.

I have, earlier. You chose to ignore it.

You still haven't explained how a sun just moving away into the distance would produce anything like what is observed.

Again, I have. You chose to ignore it.

You have still entirely ignored the complete and utter destruction of your delusional parabola BS.

You mean the real destruction? Or the delusional destruction of my parabola? It's easy to believe you did something when you are delusional. Deluded people tend to boast of their accomplishments like this.  So, are you sure?

You still haven't been able to defend your lies against the RE model, such as seasons and eclipses.

I believe that my signature talks about the seasons (you chose to ignore it), and eclipses are discussed by the same person.  Meanwhile, your ready answer for how lunar eclipses work isn't even an eclipse.

This is what I mean by coming up with nothing new over break. Everyone one of those has already been addressed. You had a week to come up with a good challenge, but like Kamala Harris and her lackluster vice presidency, you sat around and let things happen.

The point being, I said before I went away that you have an entire week to come up with something "earth-shaking" and surprise, you didn't.

Again, I don't need to, you are still refuted.

Quote

You still haven't explained how the apparence of the sun at sunset is not like the sun going around a corner as you would expect for the RE model.

I have, earlier. You chose to ignore it.

No, you tried, and had your BS refuted.
Instead of just going around 1 corner, you decided to go around several, and you dismissed a simple diagram explaining why you are wrong as "chicken scratch".
You still have no explanation for why is inconsistent. If you did, you would have provided it here.

i.e. you lied about it here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2432566#msg2432566

You see, if light simply rounded a corner, there should be no afterglow. I can readily prove this by turning on a light, walking into the halfway, and around the corner into the next room. That room is not affected by me turning the light on. It doesn't brighten, it doesn't darken.

i.e. you did NOT simply go around a corner.
Instead you went around a corner into the hallway, and around at least another corner into another room.

Why don't you try drawing the layout, and compare it to this one:


After that, I refuted your BS:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2432581#msg2432581
Including providing more diagrams.
Your only response:

Chicken scribble diagram.

And I responded further, even providing more diagrams:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2432601#msg2432601

So no, you have NOT explained it.
You have spouted pure BS, had that BS refuted and then entirely ignored the problem.

So again, HOW IS THE SUN SET DIFFERENT TO IT GOING AROUND A CORNER?
WHAT OBSERVATION IS DIFFERENT?
Can you honestly answer it, or can you just spout dishonest BS and flee from the refutation.

Quote

You still haven't explained how a sun just moving away into the distance would produce anything like what is observed.

Again, I have. You chose to ignore it.

No, you haven't. You tried and failed and your BS refuted.
You cannot explain what magic allows you to see indirect light which is intrinsically fainter, while not being able to see the direct light.
Instead of attempting to you just deflected to the difference between projection and reflection and appealed to solar eclipses.

Quote

You have still entirely ignored the complete and utter destruction of your delusional parabola BS.

You mean the real destruction?

The real destruction. Apparently so damning you have continually fled from it and have made no attempt to respond.

It's easy to believe you did something when you are delusional. Deluded people tend to boast of their accomplishments like this.

Like you above?

If you think you have answered it, provide the post where you have, and make sure there isn't a subsequent post explaining why that post of your is BS.

I believe that my signature talks about the seasons

Your signature contains plenty of lies.
Talking about seasons and spouting pure BS is not explaining it.

Meanwhile, your ready answer for how lunar eclipses work isn't even an eclipse.

You mean you want to spout more dishonest BS to deflect yet again from your inability to answer the current problems you are facing.

This is what I mean by coming up with nothing new over break.

And this is what I mean by saying I DON'T NEED TO!
The current issues for your BS remain standing with you entirely incapable of addressing them.
Instead, you are doing whatever you can to try to burry it.
Running away for a week and spouting a bunch of dishonest BS will not magically change that.

You had a week to think about how to actually address these, and you come back just complaining I haven't got anything new.
Until you address these they show how your wrong your position is.

Again, can you actually explain how the observed behaviour of the sun is inconsistent with the sun going around a corner?
Can you actually explain (including using the appropriate situation and not a different one) how the sun can't shine light up from below onto clouds just after sunset?
Can you explain how the sun can get too faint to be seen, while we can still see less direct light which has travelled a longer path and must be fainter?
Can you explain how the sun being above the clouds could ever shine light on them from below?

Despite your fucking retarded picture (and your questions that I don't care enough to dignify with a response), which btw  doesn't match up to your previous refraction picture (because it's a lie), on my vacation, I witnessed a train trip to and from Washington DC during sunrise and sunset. 

There's a teeny tiny issue of perspective here, though. The sun being high overhead (96 million miles away in RE model) has a slight problem if being far too high to possibly be seen while inside. On the other hand, the sun projected into a parabola which in turn projects light through glass has no such problem. For much the same reason as a plane can be seen inside as it flies past (the angle is longer than it is high, so it appears low). 



This is because the aforementioned sun on a FE is alot nearer to the ground, and angle with regards to the viewer makes a huge difference.

You fucking needed to. And I gave you opportunities. And you blew it. You could have made some kind of huge question for me to solve. Instead, you think a lame-assed picture is enough to convince anyone.  It's not even clear what this drawing is. Not without wading through your crap.

The sun, again, has a perspective distorted by angle and projection on to a holographic screen. When it appears to set, it is not where you think it is. More importantly, the sunset on this day? Obscured by heavy clouds and forests and the occasional city building. Why is this relevant? Because while the sunrise was awesome and my mom got some great pictures, the sunset was lackluster. In the direction of the sun.

In the opposite direction, however, we got some purple and orange hues. Not hardly as intense as the golden hour or looking into a sunrise or sunset, but these faint purple hues? Completely impossible if the sun was casting direct light. The clouds were in the way in the sky, the terrain was obstructing the view from the ground. Yet the opposite direction was showing light cast from its real position.

Yes, I daresay you did actually waste a good opportunity to put me in my place. This is what comes of telling yourself that you are right, when you actually don't know what you are talking about. But then since you aren't the first person that has told me something dumb today (that would be someone who told me I was "scraping" a pan when I was actually deglazing sausage juice from it), I guess that's to be expected. Good night.

Despite your fucking retarded picture

Do you mean the non-retarded one which shows just how wrong your position is?
The picture you cannot refute at all and need to resort to dismissing?

on my vacation, I witnessed a train trip to and from Washington DC during sunrise and sunset.

And did you bother obtaining any evidence for any of the claims you wish to make?

There's a teeny tiny issue of perspective here, though.

For the RE, there is no issue, as you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate any issue.
For your fantasy, there are massive issues.

The sun being high overhead (96 million miles away in RE model) has a slight problem if being far too high to possibly be seen while inside.

Again, there is no distance where things magically vanish.
If objects are large enough and/or bright enough, you can see them.

And again, the sun is not simply "overhead".
If it is sunrise or sunset, it is nothing like that, as explained repeatedly.
Again:

It is ~150 million km away.
That does not mean it will always be overhead.
Instead, to the observer on the top of that diagram, the sun is closer to directly in front.

Yet again you fail to present any issue for the RE, and instead just lie to everyone.

On the other hand, the sun projected into a parabola

Does not work at all, as repeatedly explained.
It has massive problems which you continually ignore.
If you want to invoke your parabola, explain the massive problems with it.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92610.msg2426003#msg2426003

Until you do, you are just pissing in the wind.
Your parabola cannot work.

You fucking needed to.

No, I didn't. As shown by you yet again spouting the same refuted crap; and yet again appealing to your parabola which remains refuted with you terrified of a simple argument which shows it cannot work.

So no, I do not need to come up with anything new, as your claims remain refuted.
You are still entirely incapable of showing any problems with the RE model, and you are entirely incapable of defending the FE model.

Why would I bother making up some huge question for you to respond to, when there is already plenty here you are yet to deal with.

Instead, you think a lame-assed picture is enough to convince anyone.

Not anyone, just anyone who is honest and has even a basic level of intelligence, and who hasn't been brainwashed.
So that rules you out.

It's not even clear what this drawing is. Not without wading through your crap.

Again, to anyone who is honest and intelligent, it is quite clear.
It is showing a light illuminating a wall so an observer can see the illuminated wall while not being able to see the light directly.

In the context of the discussion it is clear that it is showing what is expected when light rounds a corner, where you are able to see regions illuminated by the light, but not the light directly.

The sun, again, has a perspective distorted by angle and projection on to a holographic screen.

Entirely baseless BS, which simply doesn't work, as explained repeatedly.

More importantly, the sunset on this day? Obscured by heavy clouds and forests and the occasional city building. Why is this relevant?

Because it shows your dishonesty? Where you are claiming to be able to see the sun, when in fact you can't?

my mom got some great pictures

Which you didn't bother showing at all.

Yes, I daresay you did actually waste a good opportunity to put me in my place.

Again, you have been put in your place. You just refuse to accept it.
There is still so much here you are yet to refute.

This is what comes of telling yourself that you are right, when you actually don't know what you are talking about.

Thanks for summing your posts.
You either have no idea what you are talking about or you are intentionally lying to everyone.
But that doesn't stop you smugly acting like you are right, even though you cannot defend your BS, nor refute those who object to it.

But then since you aren't the first person that has told me something dumb today

How could I be, since I haven't told you something dumb.

This also totally not retarded picture puts the sun in and nearby (a near sun more comfortable in FE), rather than out and impossibly far away.

To get a scale model of the different between my model and yours, I have taken the liberty of placing the Round Earth sun on my first picture. No, not really. At the angle where we see the sun set on, as projected only about an inch or so on FE model (not to scale, or I'd need about a 64 or so inch canvas) above, the RE sun must instead be placed... oh about the relative distance in inches between me  in Virginia and my brother in Texas. 96 million inches being about 1515 miles, we have some spare.

So you see, while I can fudge mine (putting it around the Karman Line) to not have to tape  a few pages together, it is literally impossible to draw the RE sun in scale inches. It doesn't even show up. Because of this, it is much higher (farther away) than its supposed angle, which would be more akin to leaning the man almost sideways than moving the sun into just the right position (as a heliocentrist, not a geocentrist, you are not allowed to move the sun if your model is to be credible, so outward is expressed as upward, and viewpoint is expressed as tilt).

That is, even if you put the angle and tilt right, you are fudging the distance by several states' worth of distance. By your own logic, any art project you attempted to scale would necessarily need to account for curvature. You would not be able to see the sun in your own model. Not IRL, not even in a scale model. You are fudging big time. Even if you declare 1 inch = 1,000,000 miles, you still need 96 inches. Better start taping pages together. And all of this taping, kinda a challenge to keep a line straight, no?

When BB does actually do a bit of going out and observes something, see,

In the opposite direction, however, we got some purple and orange hues. Not hardly as intense as the golden hour or looking into a sunrise or sunset, but these faint purple hues?

He found a phenomena called Earth shadow, where the sun sinking below the horizon casts the shadow of the earth on the atmosphere, the orangey light being the belt of Venus, the Raleigh scattering associated with it (https://earthsky.org/tonight/earth-shadow-belt-of-venus-in-east-after-sunset/).
Well done BB, you have proved the earth is round.

Teacher: Okay, children. Today in class, we're going to learn what a rationalization is.
One Student: Is that like when a person makes an explanation to themselves or others that seems reasonable, but is covering a huge delusion or lie?
Teacher: Ummmm, yes. Class dismissed? Go play on the playground.
Students: Yayyy!!!

Earth shadow is a "phenomenon" that is such a tailored explanation. Let's show a spherical object.



Now, obviously, on your sphere in space, the cast shadow goes into the darkness of space, so basically nobody sees this.
According to you, comes at the near edge of the sun's light, roughly point A or point B of this model. Now, Rayleigh scattering is (supposedly) what causes the sky to be blue and is (actually) what causes color to produce cool effects

The sunrise and sunset zones, being at the very edge, so yea, you put this scattering here. But the model says that Rayleigh scattering occurs on the opposite side of a shadowed object. As an example, when sun shines through a cloud following a storm, creating a rainbow. Or when a prism scatters light from its back end. In order from the Earth to create light from its shadow, it would have to be at a much different location (point C). So what we are actually looking at is the zone of highlight, not the area of shadow.
You're also missing the fact that I mentioned both clouds and obstructions here. In essence, you are telling me that while I am standing inside a cave, the sun (and not the total lack of incoming light) is causing shadow inside the cave. This is a full-of-crap explanation. And the reason Rayleigh scattering works is that the assumed location of the sun, and the real location of the sun are completely different. Like so.


I'm putting this in spherical terms so you Roundheads can understand. The real sun is overhead, to the west of the viewer. The perceived sun is behind a set of clouds. Yet the sun's like hits the entire highlight and light area of your RE, then casts shadow. Your shadows and light are in the wrong place, because your explanation is wrong and/or a lie.

This also totally not retarded picture puts the sun in and nearby

It is a not to scale diagram.

It doesn't need to be drawn to scale to show the problem with your BS.
If you like, you can replace the sun in that picture, with an arrow pointing to the direction of the sun.
The argument remains the same.
At sunrise and sunset the sun is NOT overhead as you want to pretend.
Instead, it is overhead a point roughly 90 degrees away from your position, making it roughly 90 degrees away from overhead.

To get a scale model of the different between my model and yours, I have taken the liberty of placing the Round Earth sun on my first picture.

What picture?

not to scale, or I'd need about a 64 or so inch canvas

i.e. you complain about it not being a too scale diagram. You then claim to make a too scale diagram, and then admit it is not too scale, showing just how dishonest your objection is.

it is literally impossible to draw the RE sun in scale inches.

It is entirely possible. It just ends up being ridiculous.
Here is an example for you:
https://www.sun.org/uploads/images/Solar_System_to_scale.jpg
And there are real world models.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_System_model

it is much higher (farther away)

Stop repeating the same BS.
Being further away doesn't magically lift it up above you.

as a heliocentrist, not a geocentrist, you are not allowed to move the sun if your model is to be credible

And if you understood really basic things about reality, you would understand that the distinction is a coordinate transformation.
Just like you can draw the view of someone standing at a train station watching a train go past, or the view of a person inside the train.

so outward is expressed as upward, and viewpoint is expressed as tilt

No it isn't. Outwards is not upwards.
And viewpoint is basic geometry.

That is, even if you put the angle and tilt right, you are fudging the distance by several states' worth of distance.

And if you want to know if the sun can go through a window, it is angle that matters, not distance.
So for this, angle is what is important.

By your own logic, any art project you attempted to scale would necessarily need to account for curvature.

That is not my own logic.
That is your strawman.

You would not be able to see the sun in your own model. Not IRL, not even in a scale model. You are fudging big time.

You are the one lying here, yet again.
Yet again you assert pure BS with no justification at all.

What magic is preventing us from seeing the sun?
Can you justify it at all?
No. Of course you can't.
You can just pathetically spout pure BS to pretend your irrational rejection of reality is justified.

Even if you declare 1 inch = 1,000,000 miles, you still need 96 inches. Better start taping pages together. And all of this taping, kinda a challenge to keep a line straight, no?

Or you can do it on a computer.
In fact, you can even make large banners printed from a computer.

Teacher: Okay, children. Today in class, we're going to learn what a rationalization is.

And you are a great example of that, with how you keep spouting pure BS which you want to pretend is reasonable, while ignoring all the problems with your delusional BS.

Earth shadow is a "phenomenon" that is such a tailored explanation. Let's show a spherical object.

Or why don't you stop with the strawmen and show something similar to Earth?
An important detail you left out is the atmosphere.

But the model says that Rayleigh scattering occurs on the opposite side of a shadowed object.

You mean your strawman does.
The actual model says Rayleigh scattering occurs when light passes through a medium.

As an example, when sun shines through a cloud following a storm, creating a rainbow.

There is basically nothing in that statement that is correct.
Rainbows are not from the sun shining through a cloud.
And it is not Rayleigh scattering.
It is refraction of light through raindrops.

In essence, you are telling me that while I am standing inside a cave, the sun (and not the total lack of incoming light) is causing shadow inside the cave.

No, we aren't.

This is a full-of-crap explanation.

Why?
Because you refuse to understand it?

And the reason Rayleigh scattering works is that the assumed location of the sun, and the real location of the sun are completely different.

No, it works just fine if you try drawing it properly and stop making strawmen.

The real sun is overhead, to the west of the viewer. The perceived sun is behind a set of clouds.

So you are appealing to pure magic.
Why not try the actual RE model?

because your explanation is wrong and/or a lie.

Then why are you unable to show a fault and need to continually lie about it?

Oh my!

BB, what you have drawn is beyond wrong.
I'll try to explain what causes earth shadow, the phenomena you saw, not for you because I don't think you want to, or are capable of understanding, but just in case someone else bought up on bible teachings and manga comes and wants to learn something.

Here is a drawing I did some time back, it's roughly to scale, the dark blue is the earth, the light blue is the atmosphere at 62 miles thick, where the visible clouds are up to the top of the mesosphere.


click to enlarge.

The lines are the last rays of a setting sun, as the earth spins away from the sun the distance travelled through the atmosphere lengthens to something like 15 times that of midday.
As it drops the shadow of the earth projects on to that atmosphere creating  the purple you saw, the 15 times more air the light travels through scatters the light to create a pinkish glow above it.   

Why?
Because you refuse to understand it?

No, because it's a full-of-crap explanation.

The light source is overhead. Like this.



Do you see that circle around the epicenter of light?




When the sun is to the west of you, it doesn't matter that the clouds seem to block the light. What matters is that the light (overhead) casts a circle around itself.

This is right.

I saw this on the beach when the sun had set.
The ocean behind me had golden tones. The sky had purple tones. The sun was supposedly set behind buildings.
My uncle argued with me about it, remember? But he was wrong, and honey you are too.



Light is not obstructed, because it is not actually there. QED

Now, the Earth is a dome, not a sphere. But using any model, I can prove that the position and behavior of the sun are not consistent with this distant light tilt idea. We can observably see a disconnect between the cast light and shadow on Earth, and the supposed direction. But feel free to tell me you know better. 

No, because it's a full-of-crap explanation.

Your strawman certainly is.
You still haven't even attempted to refute the actual RE model.

The light source is overhead.

Not at sunset.
Again:

Not that hard to understand.

Do you see that circle around the epicenter of light?

You mean the specular reflection, which appears based upon what kind of light it is and how it is oriented and how you view it?

When the sun is to the west of you, it doesn't matter that the clouds seem to block the light. What matters is that the light (overhead) casts a circle around itself.

No, it doesn't.
You have already had that refuted with the equinox and the southern summer, and plenty of other things.

The sun does NOT simply illuminate a circle of a flat surface.

Instead, it illuminates roughly half of Earth.
That only makes sense with a round Earth.

I saw this on the beach when the sun had set.

Yet don't provide any photos.

The sun was supposedly set behind buildings.

Set, or just blocked from view?

My uncle argued with me about it, remember? But he was wrong, and honey you are too.

If I am wrong, why are entirely incapable of answering trivial questions which show clearly show you are wrong?
Why do you need to flee and repeatedly lie about the RE model?

Light is not obstructed, because it is not actually there. QED

Except all the evidence shows it is (unless you want to appeal to the ~0.5 degrees of refaction), and you have provided nothing to counter it.

But using any model, I can prove that the position and behavior of the sun are not consistent with this distant light tilt idea.

Do you mean your pathetic strawman, or the RE model?

Because you are yet to provide a single example of where the RE model doesn't work.
Instead you just continually lie about it.

We can observably see a disconnect between the cast light and shadow on Earth, and the supposed direction. But feel free to tell me you know better.

No, we can't.
Yet again, you just assert pure BS.

So yes, I do know better.
I know better than to accept your delusional BS which doesn't match reality at all.

Still trying to defend that picture, I see.

As my previous post pointed out, that light that appears to shine upward from C  up to A (we're ignoring B, because it's not relevant) is obstructed by clouds and buildings, resulting in a lackluster incoming light at sunset. But when we understand the light is actually not near point C shining upward, but above point A and C, and casting light as far as where point D (which you didn't label) is, even you ought to admit that maybe there's something wrong with the model. But yeah, that is too much to expect.

The angoe is muchbshallowwer in real life
Because to-scale, the earth ball is big and the sunball is far.

Sertltting sun is 3miles 8insq rule

Still trying to defend that picture, I see.

No, still using it to show you are spouting dishonest BS.

Still using it to show your repeated dishonest characterisation of the RE having the sun always being "overhead" is pure BS.

For the RE, the sun is not always overhead.
Yet you need to continually repeat that lie to pretend there is a problem.

As my previous post pointed out, that light that appears to shine upward from C  up to A (we're ignoring B, because it's not relevant) is obstructed by clouds and buildings

So you just magically throw in buildings and clouds with no basis at all?

resulting in a lackluster incoming light at sunset. But when we understand the light is actually not near point C shining upward, but above point A and C, and casting light as far as where point D (which you didn't label) is

That would be midday, not sunset.

But compare the 2, you claiming there isn't good enough light, with no rational basis at all, vs you trying to move the sun and rely upon pure magic to make it magically appear elsewhere.

even you ought to admit that maybe there's something wrong with the model.

Why would I do that when you are yet to point out anything wrong with it?

The model matches what is observed in reality.
The sun appearing to drop towards the horizon and then go behind it; as if it is going around a curve.

It seems to work quite well.
It is just simple geometry to get what we observe in reality. No need for any of your magically BS of the sun magically being one place yet magically appearing elsewhere; something you can't explain at all.

And you are yet to offer anything to actually challenge it, nor are you able to offer a viable alternative.
Instead you continually lie to everyone by claiming the RE magically has the sun always overhead.

So no, there is still no reason for me to think the RE model is wrong, and still plenty to think your nonsense is wrong.

So yes, expecting to people to abandon all reason and just accept your dishonest delusional BS is too much to expect.
Just like expecting a FEer like you to be honest is too much to expect, because you don't care about the truth at all.

Still trying to defend that picture, I see.

As my previous post pointed out, that light that appears to shine upward from C  up to A (we're ignoring B, because it's not relevant) is obstructed by clouds and buildings, resulting in a lackluster incoming light at sunset. But when we understand the light is actually not near point C shining upward, but above point A and C, and casting light as far as where point D (which you didn't label) is, even you ought to admit that maybe there's something wrong with the model. But yeah, that is too much to expect.

Still refusing to use to-scale models to present your issues with the sun and globe earth, I see. You continue to fail to understand the size relationship and distant relationship between the sun and earth as presented in the globe earth model. As a result, everything you say, is fucking stupid.

There's not maybe something wrong with the model, at all. There is maybe something wrong with your brain, though. Do you suffer from headaches?

I gave him a drawing to scale, but he ignored it.



The drawing was originally done to show how noctilucent clouds (night shinning) also show the curvature of the earth.

These summer clouds visible above 50 degrees are seen during astronomical twilight, i.e. after the sun is set.
On the drawing, to someone standing under the cloud they are in darkness but as the clouds are 50 miles up, they still catch the light as the sun isn’t set for them, so the tenuous ice crystals reflect the light, so like earth shadow they prove the earth is round.


By Matthias Süßen - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=79936661

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 22, 2024, 05:43:42 AM

Still trying to defend that picture, I see.

As my previous post pointed out, that light that appears to shine upward from C  up to A (we're ignoring B, because it's not relevant) is obstructed by clouds and buildings, resulting in a lackluster incoming light at sunset. But when we understand the light is actually not near point C shining upward, but above point A and C, and casting light as far as where point D (which you didn't label) is, even you ought to admit that maybe there's something wrong with the model. But yeah, that is too much to expect.

Still refusing to use to-scale models to present your issues with the sun and globe earth, I see. You continue to fail to understand the size relationship and distant relationship between the sun and earth as presented in the globe earth model. As a result, everything you say, is fucking stupid.

There's not maybe something wrong with the model, at all. There is maybe something wrong with your brain, though. Do you suffer from headaches?

You don't use to scale models either.

When do you want to start admitting that the distance you draw light from the sun to Earth doesn't even remotely resemble 96 million miles?

But models are by definition not to scale. We use them to explain an idea, not to be measured by a ruler. But by all means, if you want to call my model out on not being to scale, I'll have you tape 1000+ miles of paper together, and you can walk backwards until you make that distance. We'll use 1 inch = 1 mile as a scale.

Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. 24 In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars. 25 He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt. 26 But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ 27 Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.
28 “But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand dollars. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment. 29 His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. 30 But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full. 31 When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. 32 Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ 34 Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt.

By all means, call me out on my sun that only goes a few miles up, and viewpoint that extends outward maybe 10 miles. I will in turn insist you show me a scale model of the sun traveling 96 million miles away. You'll also need to prove the 8 inch curvature (manually).

Or you can forgive my model not being of scale, and so also do I not care about your model.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 22, 2024, 03:50:19 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on October 22, 2024, 05:43:42 AM

Still trying to defend that picture, I see.

As my previous post pointed out, that light that appears to shine upward from C  up to A (we're ignoring B, because it's not relevant) is obstructed by clouds and buildings, resulting in a lackluster incoming light at sunset. But when we understand the light is actually not near point C shining upward, but above point A and C, and casting light as far as where point D (which you didn't label) is, even you ought to admit that maybe there's something wrong with the model. But yeah, that is too much to expect.

Still refusing to use to-scale models to present your issues with the sun and globe earth, I see. You continue to fail to understand the size relationship and distant relationship between the sun and earth as presented in the globe earth model. As a result, everything you say, is fucking stupid.

There's not maybe something wrong with the model, at all. There is maybe something wrong with your brain, though. Do you suffer from headaches?

You don't use to scale models either.

When do you want to start admitting that the distance you draw light from the sun to Earth doesn't even remotely resemble 96 million miles?

But models are by definition not to scale. We use them to explain an idea, not to be measured by a ruler. But by all means, if you want to call my model out on not being to scale, I'll have you tape 1000+ miles of paper together, and you can walk backwards until you make that distance. We'll use 1 inch = 1 mile as a scale.

Quote

Therefore, the Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date with servants who had borrowed money from him. 24 In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him millions of dollars. 25 He couldn’t pay, so his master ordered that he be sold—along with his wife, his children, and everything he owned—to pay the debt. 26 But the man fell down before his master and begged him, ‘Please, be patient with me, and I will pay it all.’ 27 Then his master was filled with pity for him, and he released him and forgave his debt.
28 “But when the man left the king, he went to a fellow servant who owed him a few thousand dollars. He grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment. 29 His fellow servant fell down before him and begged for a little more time. ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay it,’ he pleaded. 30 But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and put in prison until the debt could be paid in full. 31 When some of the other servants saw this, they were very upset. They went to the king and told him everything that had happened. 32 Then the king called in the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil servant! I forgave you that tremendous debt because you pleaded with me. 33 Shouldn’t you have mercy on your fellow servant, just as I had mercy on you?’ 34 Then the angry king sent the man to prison to be tortured until he had paid his entire debt.

By all means, call me out on my sun that only goes a few miles up, and viewpoint that extends outward maybe 10 miles. I will in turn insist you show me a scale model of the sun traveling 96 million miles away. You'll also need to prove the 8 inch curvature (manually).

Or you can forgive my model not being of scale, and so also do I not care about your model.

***Newsflash****

That same science you were learning about molecules from, worked out the size of our planet Earth, the size of our sun, and the distance between the two. According to science and heliocentrism, our sun is roughly 100 times larger than our Earth, which gives us a good starting point.

The smallest I could go was using a 1mm diameter blue ball bearing to represent Earth, and a 100mm diameter yellow ball to represent the sun.

Hasn't someone made a to-scale model of the Earth and sun using z-brush or another 3d rendering software?

You don't use to scale models either.

The difference is understanding the point.
We don't use a scale model, but still explain the point.
You entirely ignore the scale to blatantly lie about the RE model.

Or you can forgive my model not being of scale, and so also do I not care about your model.

Notice the difference?
You want us to forgive an aspect of your model, while wanting to entirely ignore our model?

How about you cut that crap out, and start trying to defend your BS?

***Newsflash****

That same science you were learning about molecules from, worked out the size of our planet Earth, the size of our sun, and the distance between the two. According to science and heliocentrism, our sun is roughly 100 times larger than our Earth, which gives us a good starting point.

The smallest I could go was using a 1mm diameter blue ball bearing to represent Earth, and a 100mm diameter yellow ball to represent the sun.

Hasn't someone made a to-scale model of the Earth and sun using z-brush or another 3d rendering software?

When the FE group called out RE on the fact that their model did not in fact account for the fact that the stars have been the same, night after night, you know what they did? They just increased the distance. Oh I'm sorry, did I say the sun was thousands of miles away and that the nearest star was millions? I meant millions, and billions.

I ask that you be consistent with how you treat me. You respond that if we're gonna scale up our models, you just make your sun bigger. Okay. The distance between the Earth and the sun in inches (96 million inches is still around 1500 miles), and you have to make 109 pages to show the scale size of the sun if Earth takes up 1 page (and this doesn't account for the 3D model's volume which can fit about a million Earths inside. No, your 100mm is not gonna cut it. Wanna keep digging yourself holes? Or shall we recognize that models are NOT to scale?

Refuge in audacity is not a homeless shelter.