Perspective of the Sun Makes No Sense

But you just keep playing with whatever balls you can get your hands on, Data.

I come equipped with my own set, so I’m attracted to the opposite called a natural women.  Even though you are ball-less, still not my type. 

you get down low with your eye as close to the surface of the beach ball as possible,

Have fun getting eye level with smooth balls. 

But you just keep playing with whatever balls you can get your hands on, Data.

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

Now, I want you to pin that microscope in place, so you are only looking at that part of the basketball. To simulate Earth's supposed spin and orbit, we will put you, the microscope, and the basketball on a special conveyor. And the moment you get nauseous and heave on the ball, you have disproven RE, as no such sensation exists on our supposedly rapidly spinning and orbiting and wobbling Earth.

And while all of this happens, I'm gonna come along and pour water on the basketball. No matter how flat you say the ball is, water only travels one direction... down the basketball. Now, given this conveyor, it may turn or spiral while doing it, but that is quite at odds with what is seen at any beach. Water comes to a beach in New Jersey, then also comes to the opposite shore in England. Or to Los Angeles and China. This drift between opposite shores would make sense if you got yourself a cereal bowl, made Rice Crispies Treats continents and swished milk back and forth. But it decidedly does not match what you are seeing  on the basketball, which is water dripping past, and never coming back.

And if any of you had any real honesty, you'd admit this. Instead, you go on about tidal bores, and dodge the the question of basic tides.

I got a different answer...

You asked an AI with a preprogrammed answer. Not a chatbot with stored memory. A chatbot with stored memory would go "Huh. This doesn't work." How do I know this? I know because I tried it.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 17, 2025, 05:35:46 AM

It's a philosophy thing.

Then stop trying to use it as a physical thing.
If you want to show where the sun is, just draw a line to it.

Because it's not that simple.

The sun exists at an angle centered around each of us for twelve hours each day. I want you to think through the logic of that. It appears local for half the day, then kinda jumps to where China is. In terms of angles and distance, surely you must have realized that this seems strange. The sun cannot be local to Los Angeles and NYC, a distance of 3000 miles apart, as it would require drawing lines in opposite directions, yet instead all we have is a time displacement for things like sunrise and sunset. What you're talking about is not a real object but an object that always appears as a visual mirage. That's an abstract object. So we use philosophical concept to put it into perspective.

You're projecting your own inability to understand onto me.

You aren't in a game with some limited render distance where everything beyond that is not detectable by you because you haven't loaded it.

Actually in a game, even if there is the memory to render more distance, the screen is the limiting factor. You can't see objects that are outside the screen.

 Likewise, if I were to go into a very large and very flat ballroom, and everyone was told to be silent for the experiment and move to the edges (so you couldn't claim any bodies were obstructing the passage of  sound), and whispered something into a girl's ear, they would tell that they heard me whisper "I love you, and I can't stop thinking about you. Please be mine." But actually, I whispered, "I am a crossdresser, and that is a really lovely prom dress. Can I try it on later?" And good actor that she is, she nods and gives no reaction to what I said that would give anything away. Sound has a distinct range of effect, past which point conversations and especially whispers cannot be heard. Likewise, a friend is up next. He farts. And the girl assigned to match with him is an even better actor,  hiding her disgust perfectly. This also has a range, depending on wind currents and other factors, but humans are probably unlikely to detect his vile odor over a big ballroom with so many other scents competing.

Our perception of reality is very much like a series of different-sized  computer screens.

Now, I want you to pin that microscope in place, so you are only looking at that part of the basketball. To simulate Earth's supposed spin and orbit, we will put you, the microscope, and the basketball on a special conveyor. And the moment you get nauseous and heave on the ball, you have disproven RE, as no such sensation exists on our supposedly rapidly spinning and orbiting and wobbling Earth.

The round earth makes one full rotation every 24 hours.  The hour hand on an analog clock moves twice that fast.  Why should that make anyone nauseous?

M
You asked an AI with a preprogrammed answer.

The exact wording was to try and force it to your claim.

Again.  The wording.  “water should fall off spherical earth.”

All “programming” was to see if I could force it to what you claimed. 

“water should fall off spherical earth”

And got a completely different answer than you are claiming.




Bulma.  What is the exact wording you used so I can run the phrase. 

The sun exists at an angle centered around each of us for twelve hours each day.

Bulma, you’re incoherently babbling again.

Address what is actually posted.

The Masons, the group that NASA descends from,

Typical ding bat flat earther trying to change the subject.

Has nothing to do with, if your parabola stupidly was even true, it would be centered around the light making visibility possible.  Not the person.

Has nothing to do with you having no proof light dies as required by your stupid delusion.  Where clouds to the east of a person are still illuminated by the sun a whole 15 minutes, or longer, after the sun sets. In the why telescopes with bigger lens than our eyes bring into view stars too faint to be seen with the unaided eye. 

Added.  Forgot one.  The sun on the flat earth delusion would have to visibly and continuously turn as it passed overhead.  One can see for themselves the sun doesn’t do that for much of the world.  Especially when the sun rises due east and sets due west on the equinox.  And where it does circulate overhead for Antarctica during the southern hemisphere’s summer, you have to act like Antarctica doesn’t exist. 

Eric Dubay whips out his trusty Nikkon zoom camera, and shows the sun briefly going back into focus after sunset

Which contradicts your own delusions where you claim the sunsets because light dies.  If light dies like you claim, there is no light to imagine,  like duh.

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

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



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

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



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



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

Now, I want you to pin that microscope in place, so you are only looking at that part of the basketball. To simulate Earth's supposed spin and orbit, we will put you, the microscope, and the basketball on a special conveyor. And the moment you get nauseous and heave on the ball, you have disproven RE, as no such sensation exists on our supposedly rapidly spinning and orbiting and wobbling Earth.

You mean you will set up yet another pathetic strawman.

Just what do you want to happen?
Have that special conveyor rotate you about the axis of Earth at the staggering rate of 1 revolution every day?
And then throw in a different rotation, along a different axes, this time at the staggering rate of 1 revolution every year?

No matter how flat you say the ball is, water only travels one direction

Towards Earth.

Again, the gravitational attraction of Earth is vastly greater than the attraction to your tiny balls.
Water flows exactly where we expect it to, towards Earth.
More specifically, towards a point near the centre which varies slightly depending on latitude.
Or more technically to a lower gravitational potential.

This drift between opposite shores would make sense if you got yourself a cereal bowl

Why?
What magic allows this to make sense in a bowl, but not on a sphere?
And appealing to water not sticking to your tiny balls is not an answer.

And if any of you had any real honesty, you'd admit this. Instead, you go on about tidal bores, and dodge the the question of basic tides.

Says the one repeatedly lying, by making the same refuted claims; and the one who refuses to explain how tides should work in your fantasy; and the one that can't explain which direction should be "down" for a RE in space.

Again, if you had any real honesty, you would admit that if the RE claims about gravity are true, what we observe of water falling from your tiny balls to Earth is entirely consistent with water remaining on Earth rather than falling to some magical "down".

You asked an AI with a preprogrammed answer. Not a chatbot with stored memory. A chatbot with stored memory would go "Huh. This doesn't work." How do I know this? I know because I tried it.

i.e. something even less useful?

Because it's not that simple.

If your parabola is just a tool used for understanding, it is that simple.
As that "tool" you are trying to use is effectively just a statement that our vision works based upon angles.
And those angles are basic geometry.
This also works quite well for things close by, and only seems to fail for FEers when they try to pretend Earth is flat and that doesn't work.

The sun exists at an angle centered around each of us for twelve hours each day. I want you to think through the logic of that.

I want YOU to think through the logic of that.
We have a RE model, which explains the observed angles to the sun, just using basic geometry and a pinch of refraction near sunset/sunrise.
This works to explain the observations.
And it also works to explain why that appears "centred around each of us".
Because the point it is centred around is an insignificant distance away from us compared to the distance to the sun.

Something like that is not appearing local.
It is appearing very far away.

We can even see this at the small scale.
e.g. say there is a suburb with a mountain 100 km to the east.
For everyone in that suburb, they can look at see the mountain to their east.
That is not the mountain appearing locally to them.
That is the mountain being very far away, such that it is basically the same direction for all of them.

If you want a comparison to Earth, go get a merry go round in that suburb, and on the inside, build a wall to close to the edge as a circle.
Then have people sit on it in various positions looking out.
And you end up with the same effect you have for people on Earth at the equator lying on their backs looking up.
Depending on which way you rotate it, you have the mountain come into view from the left, pass directly in front, and then go off to the right (or vice versa).
If they can tilt their heads, then the see the mountain appear to rise from the left horizon, pass overhead and then set on the west horizon.
If you want it for a different latitude, tilt the wall, i.e. the wall becomes a section of a cone.
If you want it for a time other than the equinox, tilt the merry go round (i.e. lift one side of the thing up so it rotates about an axis not perpendicular to the ground.

This even gives you a "time offset" based upon how far around the merry go round they are.

This matches what is observed in reality, without issue.

The sun cannot be local to Los Angeles and NYC

And it isn't.
It is off roughly 150 000 000 km.
It is not local to either.

yet instead all we have is a time displacement for things like sunrise and sunset.

Just like you would expect for a rotating round Earth with a distant sun.

What you're talking about is not a real object but an object that always appears as a visual mirage.

You keep spouting this, but you have repeatedly failed to provide anything to support this in any way.

You are yet to explain what is wrong with the RE model.
e.g. you are yet to provide any calculations which show the RE model is wrong and predict something different to what is observed in reality.
You are yet to explain what magic would be causing this illusion/projection/mirrage/whatever BS you want to call it.

Instead, all you do is pathetically assert it is local to pretend there is a problem.
Or alternatively, you start with the false assumption that Earth is flat, see it doesn't work on a FE, and try to come up with BS to pretend it can work, rather than admitting this shows Earth isn't flat.

You're projecting your own inability to understand onto me.

No, I'm not.
I understand the RE model.
I understand how it works and how it trivially explains this.
I understand why your objections are wrong.

Actually in a game, even if there is the memory to render more distance, the screen is the limiting factor. You can't see objects that are outside the screen.

Which would be saying that you can't see things behind you (or otherwise not in the direction you are looking). That is not saying that you magically have a distance limit.

Likewise, if I were to go into a very large and very flat ballroom, and everyone was told to be silent

And what about all the other noises?
Did you stop their heart beating?
Did you stop them breathing?
Did you stop the air conditioning?
Did you stop the music playing next door?

Again, it is about being able to detect it above the background.
So what is the background noise level?
And what is the noise level when it reaches them?

How about instead of someone whispering, you try it with a simple light.
Go paint the entire ballroom a matte black.
Block all the windows and any glass doors or the like, to stop all light coming in, and have a tiny simple LED on one wall, and see how many people can see it from across the room in this pitch black environment.
Then open the windows and turn on the lights and see how many people can.

Our perception of reality is very much like a series of different-sized  computer screens.

With an unlimited render distance. Where you see things if they are in the direction you are facing/in your FOV, without any magical distance limit.

Again, stop just asserting the same pathetic BS.
If you wish to claim there is a magical distance limit, justify it. Explain what magic causes it, knowing that our eyes are passive and simply react to light hitting them.
If you wish to claim the sun is local, then justify it. Provide some argument/evidence that actually demonstrates that.
And defend them.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 19, 2025, 05:34:01 PM

But you just keep playing with whatever balls you can get your hands on, Data.

I come equipped with my own set, so I’m attracted to the opposite called a natural women.  Even though you are ball-less, still not my type. 

Quote from: Smoke Machine on March 19, 2025, 05:34:01 PM

you get down low with your eye as close to the surface of the beach ball as possible,

Have fun getting eye level with smooth balls.

That's an A1 demonstration sure to rattle even the staunched flat earther to the bone.

Still, the closest you get to nipples, is close-ups of your treasured basketball. Is that why your basketball is drenched in your saliva? 

There's a big difference between the 15ft beach ball I suggested getting eye level with, and the smooth shaved balls, (sometimes hairy) that you are so familiar getting eye level with.

Quote

But you just keep playing with whatever balls you can get your hands on, Data.

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

Now, I want you to pin that microscope in place, so you are only looking at that part of the basketball. To simulate Earth's supposed spin and orbit, we will put you, the microscope, and the basketball on a special conveyor. And the moment you get nauseous and heave on the ball, you have disproven RE, as no such sensation exists on our supposedly rapidly spinning and orbiting and wobbling Earth.

And while all of this happens, I'm gonna come along and pour water on the basketball. No matter how flat you say the ball is, water only travels one direction... down the basketball. Now, given this conveyor, it may turn or spiral while doing it, but that is quite at odds with what is seen at any beach. Water comes to a beach in New Jersey, then also comes to the opposite shore in England. Or to Los Angeles and China. This drift between opposite shores would make sense if you got yourself a cereal bowl, made Rice Crispies Treats continents and swished milk back and forth. But it decidedly does not match what you are seeing  on the basketball, which is water dripping past, and never coming back.

And if any of you had any real honesty, you'd admit this. Instead, you go on about tidal bores, and dodge the the question of basic tides.

Step 1, get a rag and industrial disinfectant, and wipe clean, data's basketball. (You don't want to add rabies to the diseases you already have)

Now if you had a powerful enough electro magnet at the centre of the basketball, exerting a powerful magnetic field simulating earth's gravitational field, and were to pour mercury on your basketball, simulating water, it would pool, not flow down.

You could spin said basketball as you throw it, simulating earth's spin on it's axis and orbit around the sun, and it would make no difference to the mercury stuck to the basket ball's surface.

You're playing tricks.

I asked you to do a simple thing and now you're fiddling around with mercury and electromagnets. Are you admitting then that you can't honestly make your model work?

Plain water. No magnets. Magnets aren't gravity. So unless you want to change your RE model, it's considered a bait and switch. Only if you claim that magnetism is what makes things fall will I allow it. Do you admit that?

Otherwise, no. Just a track for your orbit. You are allowed to simulate gravity by whatever motion you need. But the moment you throw up, the model is a failure, so anything so violent as to be felt by a human is wrong. And if you can't get water to stay on the ball, also a failure.

You're playing tricks.

Remember the false claim you made…

M
You asked an AI with a preprogrammed answer.

The exact wording was to try and force it to your claim.

Again.  The wording.  “water should fall off spherical earth.”

All “programming” was to see if I could force it to what you claimed. 

“water should fall off spherical earth”

And got a completely different answer than you are claiming.




Bulma.  What is the exact wording you used so I can run the phrase. 


  Now Bulma, address your contradiction. 

Eric Dubay whips out his trusty Nikkon zoom camera, and shows the sun briefly going back into focus after sunset

Which contradicts your own delusions where you claim the sunsets because light dies.  If light dies like you claim, there is no light to imagine,  like duh.

No magnets. Magnets aren't gravity.

There was no claim of magnets in this post…

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 02, 2025, 04:23:34 AM

No, that's 1950 lb or so all packed into a tight line on one side and about 1080 lb lined up on another (estimating the the girls at 135 lb and the guys at 150 lb).

Again.  Still has nothing when you add the mass of people to the dock the weight increases through adding and multiplying while the density remains about the same and an average between the number of people. 

Still has nothing to do with the weight sled.


During the pull.  The weight box is moved forward to the pan off the wheels.  If weight isn’t a real downforce, why does drag against the ground increase as the weight is transferred off the wheels to the pan to increase friction with the ground.  During the pull, the weight simply moves forward until enough friction is created by increasing the downforce on the pan in contact with the ground.  This alone is usually enough to stop the pulling tractor.  No change in density during the pull.  No change in height for this model of sled during the pull.  No change in surface area of the rig during the pull.  Just the downward force over the pan is increased by moving the weight box ever closer to the pan.

and the smooth shaved balls, (sometimes hairy) that you are so familiar getting eye level with.

Dude, you just make things weird. 

But that isn't really what you see. 

Actual Timelapse of different days of sunrises. 

Time lapse sunrise 4-14-2024



Sunrise 8-25-2023


Long video sunrise Aug 15 23


Sunrise Aug 15 23



Notice how you make things up Bulma, and try to make long worded BS that gets lost in the weeds.  While other people just present a documented event. 

Added



Notice the cloud gets illuminated from the bottom.  From lower left to upper right over time in the timelapse. 

What I  notice is that light travels upward as it moves forward in the sky. Exactly as it would in a dome.

So what you're asking in this light going from underneath GIF is for light to be inside the ozone layer rather than out in space. But you don't see how this is a definite flaw in heliocentrism, instead coming up with convoluted angled shots from underneath, that Luke would say, "That's not true! That's... highly unlikely." It would require the sun moving into a specific position, something far easier in another model (mine). The sun is well away from the Earth and outward not above or below in a heliocentric RE model.

In a FE model, there are two domes: the dome of parabola, the perspective of people and animals (and recording devices); and the dome of the firmament, the fixed container of air and water in reality. Light simply has to hit the parabola at a distance to climb up it. Whereas in RE, light has to hit at an angle while the Earth is spinning and whizzing past, and is probably at the wrong angle at a particular given moment.



In my room, because I have sloped ceiling, shadows from the sun travel up the wall. You see upward light, and "Gasp! The Earth can't be flat! How could light do this?" Maybe the same we shadows travel up a sloped wall? The sky appears to us as a dome, and in a dome towards you also means up.

Water is 1000x denser than air.
Underwater, You would expect to see this parabola effect expotentially amplified.
Instead you only see the linearly affected.

What I  notice is that light travels upward as it moves forward in the sky. Exactly as it would in a dome.

The earth is illuminated exactly how it’s supposed to be as outlined in the heliocentric model.

The supposed dome doesn’t illuminate the earth in the FE model.

Even in the FE delusion, the sun illuminates the earth as its circles supposedly over a flat earth where the sun would have to visibly turn during its course.  FE doesn’t explain why the sun rises due east and sets due west on the equinox. 

The sun in the flat earth delusion has to move closer or away in relative distance from the viewer, and would have to change greatly in apparent size throughout the day.  The heliocentric model explains why there is no discernible change in apparent size throughout the day.

The sun on a flat earth would not set.

If the dome illuminated the earth, there would just be equal lighting everywhere.

Lighting would not be directional like what we see at sun rise.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 16, 2023, 06:42:34 PM

You just don't get it,

That you look stupid, delusional, a troll?  Or easily triggered?

Anyway.



The shadows of the lower clouds show the sun is relatively below the horizon.

You only get the shadows casting upward if the sun is relatively below them because of a rotating earth.

So what you're asking

What the below shows is the sun illuminating a cloud from the bottom up at sun rise. As the light crosses the bottom of the cloud as the sun works its way over the curvature of the earth.



Which is nothing like how the sun always above the clouds in the flat earth delusion would illuminate the sky.

When the sun in the flat earth model is a single point light source illuminating the earth.

And even you Bulma trying to claim or imply the “dome” illuminates the cloud in this example doesn’t help.  The reflection of the dome would still illuminate the cloud top down. Which still doesn’t explain what initially blocks the sun then what the sun rises above so the light works its way across the bottom of the cloud.  The sun rising above the earth’s curvature because of the earth’s rotation perfectly explains what is documented. 

In a FE model, there are two domes:

Where neither is the source of illumination in the FE model.  Even in the flat earth model that big ball of light passing overhead is still the single point light source responsible for illuminating the earth.

Where if you think the supposed dome is reflective, should result in multiple images of the sun.

What happens if you project on a dome with some “space dust” floating around….

For an angle close to sunrise or sunset.



(The little white lights on the dome are from two separate light bulbs illuminating a china cabinet about 4 feet away. And a single light bulb lamp in the living room about 18 feet away. Three lights making about 5 to 7 reflections in the “dome”?)

Where the best you could hope for is the done reflecting light everywhere making it defused and balancing the light everywhere.  Making it seem to be omnidirectional with multiple images of the sun. 

In my room, because I have sloped ceiling, shadows from the sun travel up the wall.

On a flat earth, the sun would be always relatively above your house.

The earth rotating so the sun lowers relative to the earth in the afternoon, then sets relatively below the earth’s curvature perfectly explains the change in the direction of lighting to cause shadows to climb the walls.


Added.  The sun casts light.  Objects blocking the sunlight cast shadows.  The only way for shadows to climb the wall cast by stationary objects blocking the sunlight is to have the sun move relative to the stationary objects.  You tried to word it like the wall moves the shadow?

  So, again.  Your parabola in your delusion should be centered around sun in this case.  Not the viewer.  As pointed out before.  How stage lighting is set up on angles coverage by the actual spotlights and floodlights.  Not like it’s beams coming from the eyes of the audience.

 parabola,

Is a stupid vehicle invented by you to flack threads with BS that under examination doesn’t work for what is actually witnessed and documented. Especially when most understand all evidence points to the sun directly illuminates the earth as a single point light source, and why other flat earthers ignore your stupid argument.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 26, 2024, 06:32:38 AM

 but once again you're blowing smoke. We have sunlight traveling upward

No.  RE is consistent.  Where you contradict yourself.

Your model.





The sun is always above you delusional parabola.

Where you break your own model and draw the sun relatively below your parabola to make your model rainbow friendly.




You’re using RE to save your model.


Where your model would work like this.

.

where I was referring to a rainbow created by a rain storm with the rainbow east of me and the sun west of me. 

So.  This is your sunset in your delusion?



Which brings to mind. How does your delusion know magically which way to project the sun.


For your model to be consistent.  Just after noon, shouldn’t your sun do this.  The red arrows. 



Bulma.  What magic makes the sun project down on your parabola lie then make a hard angle to angle light up to the viewer at sunset. And why doesn’t the Parabola do the same in the afternoon.

Bulma.  There is no proof of any media acting like a screen and  bending light as required by your lie.  There is no evidence light of the sun is being bent and redirected by your lie.

There is actually ample evidence. One of the things you can do is watch a sunset over the ocean.

If you stand back from the shore (as I did last summer in a chair), light moves all the way from its (supposed) position to your eyes. But if you move forward toward the beach (as I also did), the light appears to retreat. Let me show this in a picture, so maybe you understand how weird this is.



So what's going on here? Moving forward should bring you closer to the rays of the sun, and possibly burn your eyes out. Especially given the idea that the sun is at a fixed point viewed from a curved Earth. Well, as a flat Earther, I was able to quickly figure this out. From the position of the person on the beach, the sun is about 15 degrees above you at this time of day (it wouldn't set for another 45 minutes to an hour), so it made it all the way across the water to hurt your eyes. But the closer you get, the higher the angle, so its glare pitches toward the water instead.


As it was almost set, the glare receded entirely, and I was able to look directly at the sun for about 10 seconds before it disappeared from view.

You're playing tricks.

It isn't playing tricks. It is calling out your dishonest BS.

If anything, the one playing tricks here is you.
Where you want to pretend Earth is just like your tiny balls, and ignore the much large Earth right next to your tiny balls.

Otherwise, no. Just a track for your orbit. You are allowed to simulate gravity by whatever motion you need. But the moment you throw up, the model is a failure, so anything so violent as to be felt by a human is wrong. And if you can't get water to stay on the ball, also a failure.

What I  notice is that light travels upward as it moves forward in the sky. Exactly as it would in a dome.

Just what do you mean by this?

Are you trying to suggest that the sun is below the cloud and goes upwards?

But you don't see how this is a definite flaw in heliocentrism

Because it isn't.
We have explained this to you repeatedly, with entirely incapable of showing fault, and your attempts to do so actually showing a fault with your own delusional BS.

It would require the sun moving into a specific position

A relative positioning of the sun, and one expected for the model.
Not hard t all.

Light simply has to hit the parabola at a distance to climb up it.

And now you are up to the same BS of your parabola being some real thing rather than simply a tool to understand.
So explain what magic causes the light from the sun to hit the parabola in just the right way to make it match the RE model.

is probably at the wrong angle at a particular given moment

Why?
Because you are so desperate for the RE model to be wrong?

In my room, because I have sloped ceiling, shadows from the sun travel up the wall.

No, that is not the reason at all.

Try drawing it out to explain it.

There is actually ample evidence. One of the things you can do is watch a sunset over the ocean.

And watch how it appears to be blocked from view by Earth.

If you stand back from the shore (as I did last summer in a chair), light moves all the way from its (supposed) position to your eyes. But if you move forward toward the beach (as I also did), the light appears to retreat.

You have said this crap before, but have failed to explain what you really mean, or provide any evidence.

It also makes absolutely no sense in your model.

So what's going on here? Moving forward should bring you closer to the rays of the sun, and possibly burn your eyes out. Especially given the idea that the sun is at a fixed point viewed from a curved Earth.

No, it shouldn't, because the change in distance is entirely negligible.

You are incoherently babbling.  Didn’t answer a single point.  And your pictures are wrong.  The sun shines as an orb in all directions.

On a flat earth, the sun would be always relatively above your house.

The earth rotating so the sun lowers relative to the earth in the afternoon, then sets relatively below the earth’s curvature perfectly explains the change in the direction of lighting to cause shadows to climb the walls.


Added.  The sun casts light.  Objects blocking the sunlight cast shadows.  The only way for shadows to climb the wall cast by stationary objects blocking the sunlight is to have the sun move relative to the stationary objects.  You tried to word it like the wall moves the shadow?

  So, again.  Your parabola in your delusion should be centered around sun in this case.  Not the viewer.  As pointed out before.  How stage lighting is set up on angles coverage by the actual spotlights and floodlights.  Not like it’s beams coming from the eyes of the audience.

You're playing tricks.

I asked you to do a simple thing and now you're fiddling around with mercury and electromagnets. Are you admitting then that you can't honestly make your model work?

Plain water. No magnets. Magnets aren't gravity. So unless you want to change your RE model, it's considered a bait and switch. Only if you claim that magnetism is what makes things fall will I allow it. Do you admit that?

Otherwise, no. Just a track for your orbit. You are allowed to simulate gravity by whatever motion you need. But the moment you throw up, the model is a failure, so anything so violent as to be felt by a human is wrong. And if you can't get water to stay on the ball, also a failure.

You asked me to do a simple thing and I did a simple thing. I used magnetism to represent gravity, Data's slobbered on basketball to represent earth, and mercury to represent water in a way even a child could understand.

But, scientists have proved everyday objects exert a gravitational force and can attract minute amounts of water, totally destroying your argument that you can't demonstrate water sticking to a ball even inside earth's gravitational field. They have demonstrated it using a metal ball to add insult to injury to your argument.

I'm also sure such experiments have been conducted in zero gravity on board the ISS, to further destroy your argument.

Do you not realise the same gravity which glues you to Earth's surface, also makes it difficult to demonstrate the same gravity in your kitchen from everyday objects?

Besides, gravity is an acceleration. You can easily prove to yourself objects of different mass fall to earth at the same acceleration. That in itself obliterates the argument that gravity doesn't exist.

If density and buoyancy were the cause of objects falling to Earth, everything would fall at different speeds. Instead, all objects of any mass just happen to all fall to earth at the exact same acceleration. If gravity did not exist, you would expect objects of different masses to fall to earth at different rates / acceleration. There's your proof gravity exists.

You asked me to do a simple thing and I did a simple thing. I used magnetism to represent gravity, Data's slobbered on basketball to represent earth, and mercury to represent water in a way even a child could understand.

I asked you to do a simple thing, and you did an entirely different thing. When little children are asked to solve a math problem and instead they draw a pretty picture, are they praised for the picture? Or scolded for not following directions? As nice as that picture would be after class to show to your mom and dad, it is utterly inappropriate to not solve the problem you are asked to do and rude to ignore your teacher.

Though maybe this explains alot about you, if as a child you were told you were cute regardless of whether you did as asked.

Asking you to prove gravity, you instead say, "See? Magnetism is like this! And so gravity is gonna act like this."  I may have told you this, but I was in a cult for three days, before leaving of my own accord. One of the things they talked about is wedding "pre-enactments", claiming a couple's wedding was gonna be a certain way. But a prediction isn't actually a proof.

And bait-and-switch is unsatisfying. If I were to propose to a girl named Olivia,

and ask her father for her hand, but at the last possible second, they dress up her brother

the wedding night is decidedly going to be a much different experience. And the lack of children puts a damper of the long-term happiness of the marriage. No, it does not matter that you think magnetism is close to what you think ought to happen, you have substituted one thing for another.  You can't test the effectiveness of Zoloft (depression) by having people take Mucinex (sinus congestion). These are different things!

So unless you are willing to admit that gravity is actually magnetism all along, get outta here with that.

Now stop the nonsense with switching things, show me what happens on your supposedly flat sphere while looking at a microscope. And I'll pour water on this "flat surface" and you can see how it behaves.

I substituted water for paint! Are you going to be pleased?

Quote

You asked me to do a simple thing and I did a simple thing. I used magnetism to represent gravity, Data's slobbered on basketball to represent earth, and mercury to represent water in a way even a child could understand.

I asked you to do a simple thing, and you did an entirely different thing. When little children are asked to solve a math problem and instead they draw a pretty picture, are they praised for the picture? Or scolded for not following directions? As nice as that picture would be after class to show to your mom and dad, it is utterly inappropriate to not solve the problem you are asked to do and rude to ignore your teacher.

Though maybe this explains alot about you, if as a child you were told you were cute regardless of whether you did as asked.

Asking you to prove gravity, you instead say, "See? Magnetism is like this! And so gravity is gonna act like this."  I may have told you this, but I was in a cult for three days, before leaving of my own accord. One of the things they talked about is wedding "pre-enactments", claiming a couple's wedding was gonna be a certain way. But a prediction isn't actually a proof.

And bait-and-switch is unsatisfying. If I were to propose to a girl named Olivia,

and ask her father for her hand, but at the last possible second, they dress up her brother

the wedding night is decidedly going to be a much different experience. And the lack of children puts a damper of the long-term happiness of the marriage. No, it does not matter that you think magnetism is close to what you think ought to happen, you have substituted one thing for another.  You can't test the effectiveness of Zoloft (depression) by having people take Mucinex (sinus congestion). These are different things!

So unless you are willing to admit that gravity is actually magnetism all along, get outta here with that.

Now stop the nonsense with switching things, show me what happens on your supposedly flat sphere while looking at a microscope. And I'll pour water on this "flat surface" and you can see how it behaves.

I substituted water for paint! Are you going to be pleased?

<Yawn>

Do you pick cherries for a living these days?

So you're not happy because you feel I swapped your stockings for a pair of unflattering baggy jeans. I swapped your nose ring for a bull ring. I swapped your fake eyelashes for broom bristles. I swapped your cherry red lipstick for ketchup. And finally, I swapped your pretty wig for a mop end.

Did I miss anything?

How about you prove density and buoyancy cause objects to fall to earth at different accelerations? That should be an easy feat for you! Much easier than me proving to you the gravity exerted by your bowling ball, attracts the tiniest amount of water to it's surface, possibly seen by an electron microscope that you surely do not own.

So, when are you going to start doing your own research? Maybe in 10 years time?

Ofcourse I could just argue you not being able to demonstrate water sticking to a ball in your kitchen is expected in your immediate flat earth environment, along with every other flat earth proof you can come up with. That's because you live on a little flat earth and simultaneously a big globe earth.

If you could leave your immediate flat earth environment, for example by travelling far enough away from earth's surface, imagine how many globe earth proofs you could finally gather?

Now stop the nonsense with switching things, show me what happens on your supposedly flat sphere while looking at a microscope. And I'll pour water on this "flat surface" and you can see how it behaves.

I substituted water for paint! Are you going to be pleased?

You substitute a ball a few inches in diameter and no appreciable gravitational field for a round earth 7900 miles in diameter with a rather substantial gravitational field.  Who is doing the bait and switch?

I asked you to do a simple thing, and you did an entirely different thing.

And how many times have you done that?

You can't even stay on topic for more than a few posts. Instead you are desperate to jump around to completely different areas because you can't defend your delusional BS.

When little children

We are not little children and are free to call out your BS.
Maybe you should try treating others as adults rather than children?

Asking you to prove gravity

You werne't.
You were asking us to do something that would disprove it.
Gravity says water falls to Earth, not magically sticks to your tiny balls.
This has been explained to you repeatedly.
Your tiny balls are not attractive enough to overcome the attraction to Earth.

And bait-and-switch is unsatisfying.

Which is why so much of your crap is unsatisfying.
Because you can't address what is asked or you make a strawman.

And I'll pour water on this "flat surface" and you can see how it behaves.

And see results entirely match that expected for gravity, rather than you pathetic strawman?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 22, 2025, 02:18:43 PM

Now stop the nonsense with switching things, show me what happens on your supposedly flat sphere while looking at a microscope. And I'll pour water on this "flat surface" and you can see how it behaves.

I substituted water for paint! Are you going to be pleased?

You substitute a ball a few inches in diameter and no appreciable gravitational field for a round earth 7900 miles in diameter with a rather substantial gravitational field.  Who is doing the bait and switch?

You.

Still you.

The magnetic field of Earth works. I can set up a compass and it will in fact point north (even my haywire compass that I took the lodestone attached below it, cuz I was a kid and wanted to see what would happen). Magnetic objects still work in the microcosm. Positive and negative buoyancy works in the microcosm. That is, and has always been the point.

It's a Barnum trick to say, "Well I don't have any proof that I can show you about fluids sticking to balls because that is something that happens because the Earth's gravity is so much bigger. But here, you don't believe in gravity? (mic drop)"

Yes, that impresses crowds of gullible fools. But you just proved negative buoyancy. Nothing else. I asked you to prove that if you say this spherical object is flat under a microscope, basically two things (that it is flat under a microscope, and while you're at it, whether gravity works). You can't prove either of them, so you try a Zoloft -> Mucinex  swap by switching out two things that are totally different. If you want prove that it is gravity and not negative buoyancy for the mic you just dropped, you need to get it to work for a sphere. Instead, you rely on wordskill to claim special pleading. "Oh it would never work here because Earth's gravity is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much more massive!" As above so below is the fundamental of the universe. We can get thermodynamics to work locally by heating a house with a furnace, and we can get it to work worldwide to different degrees with light source. We can get magnetism to work locally with a magnet and some bits of metal (apparently my scissors got weakly magnetized too, and picks up paperclips), or on large scale with a compass moving toward the pole. And you can prove buoyancy both with a pressed down buoy (reverse mic drop!)

and in middle of the Atlantic Ocean. Microcosm is proof of macrocosm.

Why do things fall? Because they are denser than air. Why do things sink? Because they are denser than water. Why do things rise to the surface (changing direction)? Because they weren't denser than water after all. Momentum caused them move through, but when the object slowed it reversed course. Why do things (mainly balloons) rise?  They are lighter than air.

But the RE shills?
https://tenor.com/view/i-would-that-call-zero-g-no-gravity-zero-gravity-buoyancy-weightless-gif-15830361
Would you now? I would call that buoyancy.

Again, if you have proof that a sphere is locally flat go right ahead and also prove gravity. It should be a simple matter to do both in one go. If the sphere is flat, water should not roll off. And your basketball should be able to be  filled with mercury and rocks and other massive things to somehow generate local gravity. What's that? You want me to believe after having seen no sign of local gravity, only a mic drop (no similar display for water on round objects, meaning these are two different forces, one of them nonexistent) that global gravity exists. Since this failed, you are using magnetism to say "That's like how Earth's gravity works!" No that's like how Earth's magnetism works!

Now get on with it. Either you prove water can stay on the ball, or you admit defeat, and we instead talk about how it could be possible that you can walk toward the sun on the beach and its light retreats. Or I suppose, you can try another weasel-like argument where you switch two things out.

 Fine.

You have to spend the night with this one.

If two things (magnetism and "gravity") are really the same, then this is a girl, and you'll be able to prove it, even though I found this by searching 'crossdresser wedding dress'. "But you just keep playing with whatever balls you can get your hands on, Data." Also, markjo I guess.

The tiny ball sits on the big ball.

You poured liquid on the tiny ball.

What direction is "down" FOR THE BIG BALL