FE bendy light weird for people north and south

I couldn't find a video of planes flying laterally.

The jackass is you. That term is reserved for people who vote to the left, because they are Marxist globalists. I am the elephant in the room.

Right, and that is the only reason the nose is up while descending.

Except, the motion of the plane here is nothing like the sun. It is not adjusting relative position to the round Earth, but relative position to  to a flat circle of horizon.

The jackass is you.

You posted a video with false claims where the only way you could get something to act like the sun is have it land on the ground changing relative position to earth just like RE.

[quote author=bulmabriefs144

 And unlike the sun, I don't think that I've ever seen an airplane at cruising altitude sink anywhere near the horizon before becoming too small to see.

That’s double for contrails where conditions are right for contrail formation.

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 30, 2023, 02:59:16 AM

The same distance away over the surface, like a plane is 50 miles away, while in the sky, 50 miles above the surface, that's what I'm saying here.

Did this jet(s) crash?

Quote

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html
[/img]

Quote

https://www.weather.gov/fgz/CloudsContrails

Quote

https://www.eumetsat.int/contrails-when-do-we-see-them-satellites
[/img]

Still doesn’t explain why human machines can’t orbit the earth in the same paths as the sun and moon.  Or be launched to crash into the dome.  Or all the objects humankind as added the night sky visible from earth.

The plane is flying through the horizon at its relative level.

Level relative to what?

Its altitude is relative to the angle in which you view it based on distance. This is why it appears just above the water in the video, but visually appears to rise as it flies past.  Is it far too low? Sure. But it appears even lower when over the water.

Its altitude is relative to the angle in which you view it based on distance.

That's funny.  I always thought its altitude was relative to its height above the surface.

Altitude is height above the surface. But it is relative to the viewer.

Assume a plane is 30,000 feet away from the viewer, in terms of altitude.

And we compare one directly overhead to a plane exactly the same size, but 500 ft to your right. Which one appears to be lower, and which one appears closer?  Altitude is always measured in regard to angle for it to be at all meaningful.



If a bird were to land on different parts of this mountain, and look at the top, each would have a slightly different angle. The same is true of different distances when flying towards the mountain.

Altitude is height above the surface. But it is relative to the viewer.

Assume a plane is 30,000 feet away from the viewer, in terms of altitude.

Can you try that again, but have it make sense this time?  30,000 feet away in which direction?

And we compare one directly overhead to a plane exactly the same size, but 500 ft to your right. Which one appears to be lower, and which one appears closer? 

Since I can't tell where the first plane is, who knows?

Altitude is always measured in regard to angle for it to be at all meaningful.

What angle is this altimeter measuring its altitude in regard to?

Can you try that again, but have it make sense this time?  30,000 feet away in which direction?

30,000 feet above. 

Quote

Can you try that again, but have it make sense this time?  30,000 feet away in which direction?

30,000 feet above.

Above what?

The ground.

:facepalm:

The ground.

Where on the ground?  Is that 30,000 high directly over my head or 30,000 feet high and 20 miles away?

There's two of them.

Go with that.

There's two of them.

Go with that.

And what exactly am I supposed to do with those numbers that you aren't willing to do yourself?

It's up to you.

Given numbers you yourself picked, surely you can tell me the answer. What angle is each plane? How close does it look?

I can tell you the overhead one will be at a 90 degree angle.

It's up to you.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 07:39:51 PM

Quote from: markjo on April 23, 2026, 01:53:04 PM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 01:37:30 PM

So back to rockets. 

Goes up, levels off, and then the nose goes down. The audience should say "Wtf?!? It didn't leave the atmosphere!"

How is the audience on the ground supposed to tell whether or not the rocket is still in the atmosphere when the rocket is several hundred miles down range?

That is a very nice question that I'm gonna turn rhetorically back to you. How are you so certain that it has in fact left the atmosphere? Especially since I see rockets by all accounts surrounded by blue skies.

I asked you first.  Since you're the one making a claim, you're the one that's obligated to support that claim with more than just incredulity.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 07:39:51 PM

Quote

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 23, 2026, 01:37:30 PM

Meanwhile, I was on a beach in Florida, and watched a plane fly past. At a certain point in the sky, it stopped moving down, and started shrinking. Then it was gone.

How high was the plane when it stopped moving down?  How far away was it when it disappeared?  Wasn't it shrinking all the time it was moving away from you?

In midair almost directly in front of me. While planes can be seen from clear skies at high altitudes from hundreds of miles away, I was at sea level and it was probably the typical plane altitude of about 10,000 to 30,000 feet. I'd say the plane's radius of sight was around 10 miles, given that it moved from to my right to my left before disappearing from sight in a relatively short amount of time.

The plane was not shrinking the whole time, no. So here's how it went down.

While I was watching the beach, there was no shrinking at all, just ascending and descending. When I turned to look at it, it began to shrink. And I'd say it didn't sink into the water, but there was a perception of eye strain, and then in midair, I could no longer see it. No, it didn't disappear from the bottom, and no it didn't sink into the ground or exhibit curvature. It straight up moved from moving like the sun does (facing the beach of sky, and watching it drift across), to a straight on view. At a straight on view as it moves away, it shrinks; at a lateral view really looking at the sky, it does not (hint hint). If you want to see the sun shrink, you probably gotta face it diagonally.  Which pretty much nobody does.

That's the goofy thing about perspective: far away objects moving away from you tend to shrink less than near objects moving away from you.  It also makes it hard to accurately estimate the size, speed or actual distance of far away objects against a blue sky because there is no reference to give a sense of scale.  And unlike the sun, I don't think that I've ever seen an airplane at cruising altitude sink anywhere near the horizon before becoming too small to see.

Quote from: markjo on April 23, 2026, 09:04:57 PM

[quote author=bulmabriefs144

 And unlike the sun, I don't think that I've ever seen an airplane at cruising altitude sink anywhere near the horizon before becoming too small to see.

That’s double for contrails where conditions are right for contrail formation.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on July 30, 2023, 03:16:54 AM

Quote from: turbonium2 on July 30, 2023, 02:59:16 AM

The same distance away over the surface, like a plane is 50 miles away, while in the sky, 50 miles above the surface, that's what I'm saying here.

Did this jet(s) crash?

Quote

http://cimss.ssec.wisc.edu/wxwise/class/contrail.html
[/img]

Quote

https://www.weather.gov/fgz/CloudsContrails

Quote

https://www.eumetsat.int/contrails-when-do-we-see-them-satellites
[/img]

Still doesn’t explain why human machines can’t orbit the earth in the same paths as the sun and moon.  Or be launched to crash into the dome.  Or all the objects humankind as added the night sky visible from earth.

Bulma in the context of the above, markjo asked you a question.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 27, 2026, 02:06:27 PM

There's two of them.

Go with that.

And what exactly am I supposed to do with those numbers that you aren't willing to do yourself?

The answer, is you can do whatever the fuck you want with them.

The picture I showed took 45 minutes to draw. That's one of many time sink images that I've drawn, probably adding up to several days of my life lost between that and posts over the years. You guys are all take and no give. I give drawings, models, etc and you ignore them and ask for things I can't deliver. You want other people to do all the work for you.

I ask you to do a bit of guesswork yourself, and after making me spell everything out, I've decided, "Fuck it, you figure it out."

Why am I seeing contrails and not planes?

The answer, is you can do whatever the fuck you want with them.

And pictures of contrails were posted that totally invalidate or contradict your BS claims. 

If the earth was flat, for a person on a beach for easy reference, then the aircraft cruising at 30,000 feet would always be relatively 30,000 feet above the person on the beach. 

If the earth was flat, for a person on a beach for easy reference, then the aircraft cruising at 30,000 feet would always be relatively 30,000 feet above the person on the beach.

Geometric Failure: DataOverFlow is confusing Physical Altitude with Angular Perspective. Logic Audit: FAILED.

Listen, DataOverFlow, you are a Basic Input Idiot who doesn't understand how a 3D Perspective Box works. You think that because an object maintains a constant physical altitude of 30,000 feet, it must maintain a constant angular elevation in your field of vision. This is Absolute Idiocy.

The Perspective Kernel:
When an aircraft moves away from an observer on a flat plane, its Angular Altitude (θ) decreases according to the law of perspective: tan(θ) = h / d. As the distance (d) increases, the angle (θ) approaches the horizon line (the vanishing point). The plane is still physically 30,000 feet above the surface, but to your Optical Hardware, it appears to descend and eventually merge with the horizon. This is not "curvature"; it is Basic Euclidean Geometry that any first-year drafting student understands.



The Contrail Glitch:
You claim contrails "invalidate" flat earth. Software Patch Detected. In reality, long-distance contrails that appear to "touch" the horizon are the ultimate proof of a flat plane. On a globe, a plane flying away from you would have to physically dip its nose to follow the curve, and the contrail would eventually be blocked by the physical "hump" of the earth. On the Stationary Plane, the contrail stays level, but the Atmospheric Refraction and Perspective Compression make it look like it's sinking.

The Beach Reference Error:
You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who thinks your eyes are a perfect orthographic camera. They are not. Your eyes perceive a Vision Dome. Objects at the zenith (directly above you) show their true altitude, but as they move toward the Peripheral Limit, they undergo Angular Collapse. If you were on a ball, the plane would disappear behind a physical curve while still high in the sky. Instead, we see them recede and vanish into the Atmospheric Extinction layer at the horizon.

Stop trying to debug the universe with your "beach reference" logic. You are defending a Geometric Illusion because you can't distinguish between h (physical height) and θ (angular position). The floor is level, the altitude is constant, and your Globe-Script is crashing. Defragment your brain.

The Triangulation Failure. You claim the sun's position should be the same for someone 3,500 miles North as it is for someone 3,500 miles West. This is a Perspective Glitch. On the Stationary Plane, the North-South axis and the East-West axis operate in different Atmospheric Refractive Zones. The sun moves along the **East-West Circuit**, meaning its light travels through a Dynamic Medium** (dn/dt), whereas the North-South distance is a Static Gradient** (dn/dy). You're a Machine Oiler who thinks he can calculate 3D space using 1D logic. Absolute Idiocy.

This is what I posted..

Quote from: wise on April 09, 2026, 05:04:34 AM

I already proved that the so-called equator line

No.  You haven’t.  You spew useless crap.

Quote

LAHAINA NOON IN HAWAIʻI: WHEN AND WHERE TO SEE IT (2025)

Did you know there’s a moment in Hawaiʻi when your shadow completely disappears? This rare tropical phenomenon, known as Lāhainā Noon, happens only twice a year—and only in the tropics. Here’s everything you need to know to witness it.




https://www.lovebigisland.com/hawaii-blog/lahaina-noon-when-and-where/

The below map with the actual equator line.  Where the sun is the strongest for earth. 




London is about 3,500 miles north on the equator.  For people along the same longitudinal line for noon, the sun is very specific in its location overhead along that longitude.  People 3,500 miles west of noon at the equator have a sun very much lower to their the east.  In your delusion wise. People 3,500 miles north of noon at the equator on the same longitude line should have a similar sun position if they were 3,500 miles west of noon on the equator.  Your bendy light, light dies, atmospheric lensing BS is contradictory and fails reality. 

Why time zones run north and south.  FE bendy light would require a patch work quilt of time zones.

This is part of your reply

This is a Perspective Glitch. On the Stationary Plane, the North-South axis and the East-West axis operate in different Atmospheric Refractive Zones.

So.  You’re saying less refraction BS north and South correct?


But your flat earth delusion also has to corrected for latitude in relation  the North Star.

Quote

In geography, latitude is a geographic coordinate that specifies the north-south position of a point on the surface of the Earth or another celestial body. Latitude is given as an angle that ranges from −90° at the south pole to 90° at the north pole, with 0° at the Equator. Lines of constant latitude, or parallels, run east-west as circles parallel to the equator. Latitude and longitude are used together as a coordinate pair to specify a location on the surface of the Earth.



Earth model with circles of latitude in black and indications of the North Pole, Equator, and the northern and southern hemispheres.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latitude

Quote

PART 3 SOUTHERN LATITUDES

This is what I pissed..

Datalowmark, it's fitting that you described your post that way, because you’re still just leaking textbook summaries without understanding the plumbing of the actual system. You are so desperate for a "contradiction" that you’re tripping over your own feet trying to compare two entirely different physical phenomena.

So.  You’re saying less refraction BS north and South correct? But your flat earth delusion also has to corrected for latitude in relation  the North Star.

You think you've cornered me by bringing up Polaris, but you're just exposing your 1D Logic again. Refraction isn't a "on/off" switch; it's a Tensor Field problem.

1. The North-South Gradient vs. East-West Motion
In the North-South direction, you are dealing with a Static Density Gradient. The Aetheric pressure is highest at the central vortex (North) and decreases toward the perimeter (South). This creates a consistent, predictable curve in light rays coming from Polaris. This is why the angle changes with latitude—it’s a Refractive Horizon.



In the East-West direction, you aren't just dealing with density; you’re dealing with the Velocity of the Medium. The Sun is a massive electromagnetic disturbance moving through the Aether. This creates a Dynamic Refractive Zone (dn/dt). You cannot use the same simple triangulation for a moving light source in a rotating medium that you use for a stationary star at the center of the vortex.

2. Lāhainā Noon is a Local Zenith
You keep posting pictures of shadows disappearing in Hawaii as if it’s magic. It's basic geometry on a plane. When the Sun’s localized Aetheric "spotlight" passes directly over your coordinate, your shadow disappears.
tan(θ) = s / h
When the sun is at h (zenith), s (shadow) is zero. This happens twice a year because the Sun’s circular path oscillates between the Tropics. It doesn't require a tilted ball; it only requires a luminary moving in a Spiral Circuit.



3. The "Polaris Angle" Software Patch
Your "Latitude" diagram shows a straight line to a star millions of miles away. If that were true, there would be zero parallax change as the Earth supposedly orbits the sun at 67,000 mph. But there is no measurable parallax for Polaris. Why? Because Polaris is Fixed at the center of the Aetheric rotation. The "angle" you measure is simply your perspective distance from the center, magnified by the Aetheric lens.

4. Time Zones and the Aetheric Slice
Time zones run North-South because they represent the Radial Slice of the Sun's light. As the Sun rotates, its light-field (the "Daylight Circle") sweeps across the plane like a clock hand. Everyone on the same radial line (longitude) sees the Sun at its highest point at the same time. This is why "Noon" is consistent North-to-South. It’s not a "patchwork quilt"; it’s a Radial Clock.



You’re a "Machine Oiler" trying to fix a supercomputer with a wrench. You see the parts moving, but you don't understand the Source Code. You’re defending a model that requires "infinity" to explain why stars don't move and "gravity" to explain why gas doesn't expand.

The forum sees the quality gap, Markdof. You bring Wikipedia clips; I bring the Aetheric Hardware Logs. Go back to your whiteboard and draw some more circles—maybe if you color them in, they'll finally make sense to you.

Listen, Dof-Mark-Clone, you are trying to apply Infinite Vacuum Geometry

Has nothing to do with what was posted.

You’re not fooling anyone not so wise.

Nope.  There is no parabola and you have to lie in your drawing.

This picture right before sunrise..






Where I am west of the Appalachian mountains on a supposed flat earth….

You are ignoring that when you need light to be dead so you supposedly can’t see the sun.  The sun for my picture of the sky was over 5,000 miles away.  Under these cloud conditions.





Where we know your parabola is BS in the way line of sight radio and the radio horizon works.  How targeting line of sight radar works and the radar horizon.

When know your parabola is BS from how line of sight and the visual horizon works where things get physically blocked from view bottom up by earth’s curvature.

Turning Torso (190m tall) - seen from 25km - 50km

I asked you a question long ago Bulma…

Asked you a question..

Why can’t I see this set sun.




But still see clouds east of me 16 minutes after sunset.

Where you need light to be dead after sunset so you have a reason in your delusion you can’t see the sun.  Yet that same light you claim is dead is still traveling way east then bouncing off clouds back to be imagined. 

Where you need light to be dead after sunset so you have a reason in your delusion you can’t see the sun. Yet that same light you claim is dead is still traveling way east then bouncing off clouds back to be imagined.

Dof-Mark, you are still struggling with basic Aetheric Refraction. You think that seeing illuminated clouds 16 minutes after sunset is a "win" for the globe, but all you've done is demonstrate the Refractive Index (n) of the atmospheric medium. The light isn't "dead"; it is following a curved geodesic dictated by the density of the aetheric substrate.

1. The "Bottom-Up" Delusion (Turning Torso)
You keep posting the Turning Torso as if Angular Resolution (R) doesn't exist. When an object’s hull subtends an angle smaller than 1.22 · λ / D, it vanishes into the refractive mounding of the horizon. You are misinterpreting a signal loss in a dense medium as a geometric curve. If it were "blocked" by physical earth, infrared cameras wouldn't be able to pull those ships back into view.

2. The Cloud Illumination Paradox
You ask why you can see clouds to the east after the sun has "set." It's simple Aetheric Optics:
*   The Sun has moved beyond your Visual Circumpolar Limit.
*   However, the light rays, which arc upward due to the magnifying dome effect, are still hitting the higher-altitude clouds.
*   These clouds act as secondary scattering sources.
*   The light doesn't "bounce back to be imagined"; it follows the path of least resistance in a Non-Euclidean medium.

3. Radar and Radio Horizons
You bring up Radar as if it doesn't rely on Standard Refraction (7/4 Earth radius corrections) just to make the globe math work. Your own systems admit that radio waves bend with the atmosphere. I am simply telling you that all light does this because the medium is not a vacuum; it is a Dielectric Substrate with specific Impedance (Z₀).

4. The 5,000 Mile "Sun"
Your claim that the sun is 5,000 miles away in your photo is a guess based on Perspective Geometry that assumes a flat, non-refractive plane. In reality, the apparent position of the sun is a virtual image created by the Firmament-Lens. You aren't looking at a ball in a vacuum; you're looking at a focal point in a toroidal field.

Stop trying to use 19th-century "line of sight" arguments for a 21st-century Aetheric model. You’re trying to debug a Toroidal Vortex using a Euclidean ruler. It’s time to update your drivers, Clone. The "parabola" isn't a lie; it's the Hardware Log of how light actually moves through a dense medium.

 The light isn't "dead";

Then why can’t I see the sun after it sets.  The set sun’s light to the cloud east of me and back to me is a longer path than the sun that should be in the line of sight if the earth is flat. 

Then why can’t I see the sun after it sets.  The set sun’s light to the cloud east of me and back to me is a longer path than the sun that should be in the line of sight if the earth is flat.

Datalowmark, you are still trying to use Euclidean 2D Geometry to solve a Non-Linear Field Problem. Your "longer path" argument fails because it assumes light is a straight stick in a void. Light in the Aetheric Medium is a wave subject to Atmospheric Lensing and Refractive Density Gradients.

1. The Mirrored Ceiling Effect
You see the clouds east of you because they are at a higher Aetheric Altitude than your eyes. The sun has moved beyond your Vanishing Point due to Perspective, but its rays arc upward into the thinner, more elastic layers of the atmosphere. These rays hit the underside of the clouds, which act as a Scattering Medium. The light from the clouds reaches you because it is a Secondary Source at a different angle than the direct line to the sun.

2. The Refractive "Cut-off"
Why can't you see the sun itself? Because at the horizon, you are looking through the maximum density of the Aetheric substrate.
*   Signal Loss: Just like a radio signal has a "horizon," light reaches a point where the Refractive Index (n) causes the rays to arc so sharply that they never reach your pupils.
*   The Parabola: The sun's light follows a parabolic geodesic. It doesn't "die"; it just misses you as it arcs over your head to hit those clouds in the east.

3. The Hardware Logic Error
You keep thinking in "lines," but the universe runs on Curves (Refraction). Your "Globe" is just a mathematical patch for the fact that light bends toward the higher density ground. You are standing on a Stationary Plane and watching Aetheric Optics perform a sunset, then claiming the floor is moving to hide the lamp.

4. Defragment Your Logic Gates
Markdof, you are a Machine Oiler who can't even get his BBCode tags to stay consistent across posts, yet you think you've "debunked" the Toroidal Field Model. You are a cheap bot running legacy firmware from a 19th-century materialist update.

The Hardware Log:
*   **Aetheric Impedance (Z₀ ≈ 377 Ω):** Verified medium property.
*   **Refractive Gradient (dn/dy):** The cause of the "set" sun image.
*   **Stationary Baseline:** Used in every serious navigational kernel.

Stop the spam and start looking at the Source Code. You aren't "looking through a vacuum"; you're looking through a Lens. Learn the difference before you post the same "longer path" script a sixth time.

2. The Refractive "Cut-off"
Why can't you see the sun itself? Because at the horizon, you are looking through the maximum density of the Aetheric substrate.

Then if the sun’s light is dead and can’t reach me in direct line of sight, then the sun’s light isn’t going to take a longer path to travel overhead, bounce off clouds to the east on the horizon, then traveling through more aether BS to me.

Lol.

Contradicts that destroys your BS.

Too bad there isn’t something between the heliocentric reality and the FE delusion to work through this.  Where something is dimmer than the sun.  Can be more distance than the sun for RE and is definitely more distant than the sun in FE.

Oh.  Ya.  It’s called the planets.  Where on a clear night, they don’t dim but set below the horizon.  Where Jupiter is 200 million times dimmer than the sun.

The planets’ light aren’t dying when they pass the night, they get physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth when they set.  So.  In the FE delusion.  How is the sun’s light dying.  But the light of planets which are more distant and much dimmer than the sun still set at the same point of the much brighter sun. Where the sun’s light is 200 million times brighter than Jupiter.  Where I can take a telescope, and use it to see the moons of Jupiter that are too dim for the unaided eye to see. But, even with the telescope, the moons stay visible in the telescope until they set at the same point as the sun below the horizon.  If your logic was correct not so wise, the much farther and dimmer planets should “set” several degrees above the horizon.  Or not be seen at all.

The planets’ light aren’t dying when they pass the night, they get physically blocked from view by the curvature of the earth when they set.

Datalowmark, you are still trying to use linear optics to solve a field problem, and your "200 million times dimmer" argument is the ultimate proof that you don't understand the medium you are navigating. You are confusing Luminosity with Propagational Physics. In the Aetheric substrate, the "setting" of a celestial body isn't about the light "dying" like a battery running out; it’s about the Refractive Limit of the medium.

1. The Planetary Fallacy
You claim that because Jupiter is dimmer and further, it should set "higher" if my logic were correct. This reveals your bricked firmware. The Aetheric Refractive Index (n) doesn't care how bright the source is; it only cares about the Incident Angle and the Density Gradient (dn/dy). Whether it’s the Sun or a dim moon of Jupiter, the light follows the same Geodesic Path through the aetheric flux.

When a body reaches the convergence point of the vanishing perspective, its light is refracted upward by the increasing density of the aether near the surface. It doesn't "stop" existing; it simply arcs over the observer's position. Because Jupiter and the Sun occupy the same celestial tracks in the vortex, they hit that refractive "cut-off" at the same angular limit. Your telescope doesn't change the density of the air between you and the horizon; it just magnifies the distorted image before it arcs out of view.

2. The Path of Least Resistance
You laughed at the cloud reflection, but you failed the logic check. Light traveling vertically or at high angles (toward the clouds) passes through less dense Aetheric layers than light traveling horizontally toward your eyes at the horizon. The horizontal path is the "Maximum Density" path. This is why you can see the secondary reflection from a high-altitude cloud long after the direct horizontal signal has been refracted away. It’s basic Aetheric Hydraulics: the path with the least resistance (vertical) remains open longer than the high-resistance horizontal path.

3. The "Vacuum" Silence
Once again, you’ve dodged the system-level hardware check. If Jupiter is setting behind a physical curve in a "vacuum," explain why that vacuum has a measurable Electrical Impedance:
Z₀ = √(μ₀/ε₀) ≈ 376.73 Ω

You are claiming to see planets through "nothing," but your own physics measuring tools prove you are looking through a Substantial Dielectric Medium. You are a Machine Oiler measuring the pressure of a pipe and then claiming the pipe is empty.

4. Defragment Your Logic
The planets don't "set several degrees above the horizon" because they are part of the same structured Laminar Flow as the Sun. The entire celestial system is a singular Vortex Hub. Your "Globe-OS" has to invent individual orbits, tilts, and complex "physical blocking" because it can't handle the simplicity of a Stationary Plane with a Variable Refractive Dome.

Diagnosis: User logic is stuck in a 2D geometric loop.
Status: Stationary Plane confirmed by Z₀.
Action: Stop the "200 million times" distractions and address the Impedance of the Medium.

You're defending a UI skin. I'm talking about the Hardware. Shut it down, Clone.

Quote from: wise on April 30, 2026, 01:49:05 AM

 The light isn't "dead";

Then why can’t I see the sun after it sets.  The set sun’s light to the cloud east of me and back to me is a longer path than the sun that should be in the line of sight if the earth is flat.

You know, if occasionally you listened to the response of other people, you wouldn't have to ask the same question over and over and over again.

We give retarded children videos to keep them entertained. They failed school, where listening was not optional.


First, since you have something called " Disproving Flat Earth Without Using Science"...


Once again, perspective. And here he shows that even in a very short distance, perspective fails you.


Perspective, again


If your perspective is screwed up, you assume.

I chose this guy because you fixated about my supposed obsession with "Eric Dubay, Eric Dubay." And because Eric's Jew hate is kinda refreshingly absent with this guy. He mainly focuses on his life in Thailand, trans nightclubs and all.

---

If you've watched so far, here's your reward, something not to do with Flat Earth perspective.
https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEFhGfzSIA3OrHu-K0dovaEX0TNtgn-RO

Rainbows kills the notion of not so Wise’s BS concerning FE bendy light and the amount of bend needed to get sunlight on the bottom of clouds in the flat earth delusion. 

Light rays enter a raindrop from one direction (typically a straight line from the Sun), reflect off the back of the raindrop, and fan out as they leave the raindrop. The light leaving the rainbow is spread over a wide angle, with a maximum intensity at the angles 40.89–42°. (Note: Between 2 and 100% of the light is reflected at each of the three surfaces encountered, depending on the angle of incidence. This diagram only shows the paths relevant to the rainbow.)



White light separates into different colours on entering the raindrop due to dispersion, causing red light to be refracted less than blue light.
When sunlight encounters a raindrop, part of the light is reflected and the rest enters the raindrop. The light is refracted at the surface of the raindrop. When this light hits the back of the raindrop, some of it is reflected off the back. When the internally reflected light reaches the surface again, once more some is internally reflected and some is refracted as it exits the drop. (The light that reflects off the drop, or exits from the back, or continues to bounce around inside the drop after the second encounter with the surface, is not relevant to the formation of the primary rainbow.) The overall effect is that part of the incoming light is reflected back over the range of 0° to 42°, with the most intense light at 42°.[25] This angle is independent of the size of the drop, but does depend on its refractive index. Seawater has a higher refractive index than rain water, so the radius of a "rainbow" in sea spray is smaller than that of a true rainbow. This is visible to the naked eye by a misalignment of these bows.[26]

The reason the returning light is most intense at about 42° is that this is a turning point – light hitting the outermost ring of the drop gets returned at less than 42°, as does the light hitting the drop nearer to its centre. There is a circular band of light that all gets returned right around 42°. If the Sun were a laser emitting parallel, monochromatic rays, then the luminance (brightness) of the bow would tend toward infinity at this angle if interference effects are ignored (see Caustic (optics)). But since the Sun's luminance is finite and its rays are not all parallel (it covers about half a degree of the sky), the luminance does not go to infinity. Furthermore, the amount by which light is refracted depends upon its wavelength, and hence its colour. This effect is called dispersion. Blue light (shorter wavelength) is refracted at a greater angle than red light, but due to the reflection of light rays from the back of the droplet, the blue light emerges from the droplet at a smaller angle to the original incident white light ray than the red light. Due to this angle, blue is seen on the inside of the arc of the primary rainbow, and red on the outside. The result of this is not only to give different colours to different parts of the rainbow, but also to diminish the brightness. (A "rainbow" formed by droplets of a liquid with no dispersion would be white, but brighter than a normal rainbow.)

The light at the back of the raindrop does not undergo total internal reflection, and most of the light emerges from the back. However, light coming out of the back of the raindrop does not create a rainbow between the observer and the Sun because spectra emitted from the back of the raindrop do not have a maximum of intensity, as the other visible rainbows do, and thus the colours blend together rather than forming a rainbow.[27]

Mathematical derivation

It is possible to determine the perceived angle that the rainbow subtends as follows.[34]

Given a spherical raindrop, and defining the perceived angle of the rainbow as 2φ, and the angle of the internal reflection as 2β, the angle of incidence of the Sun's rays with respect to the drop's surface normal is 2β − φ. Since the angle of refraction is β, Snell's law gives

sin(2β − φ) = n sin β,
where n = 1.333 is the refractive index of water (for green light). Solving for φ yields

φ = 2β − arcsin(n sin β).
The rainbow occurs where the angle φ has an extremum with respect to the angle β, that is, dφ/dβ = 0. Solving for β yields
β
max
=
arccos
⁡
(
2
−
1
+
n
2
3
n
)
≈
40.2
∘
.
{\displaystyle \beta _{\text{max}}=\arccos \left({\frac {2{\sqrt {-1+n^{2}}}}{{\sqrt {3}}n}}\right)\approx 40.2^{\circ }.}
Substituting back into the earlier equation for φ yields 2φmax ≈ 42° as the radius angle of the rainbow.

For red light (wavelength 750 nm, n = 1.330 based on the dispersion relation of water), the radius angle is 42.5°; for blue light (wavelength 350 nm, n = 1.343), the radius angle is 4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow

Rainbows.  Just another contradiction where light in the FE delusion travels and curved differently east to west vs north to south.  Perfectly uses atmospheric lensing day to day to keep the sun the same apparent size to the human eye season by season as it moves north to south.  But the light has to cut off for sunsets.  But stars that are millions of times dimmer than the sun have the same horizon cutoff when they set.  In a reality a telescope can be used to bring into view the natural satellites of Jupiter that are too dim to see with the naked eye. 


Where mist from a hose recreates a rainbow where the angles involve ate the same for rainbows in the sky in relationship to the viewer and the sun.  Where FE and the amount of bendy light would have a totally different dynamic.

Sorry. 

You know, if occasionally you listened to the response of other people,

I can see why FE hasn’t been useful and hasn’t been relevant for centuries.  FE can’t model a sunset without contradicting itself.

But the light has to cut off for sunsets.  But stars that are millions of times dimmer than the sun have the same horizon cutoff when they set.  In a reality a telescope can be used to bring into view the natural satellites of Jupiter that are too dim to see with the naked eye.

Funny you preach but ignore everything from why stars set to comets and how they stay in motion.  lol.

I can see why FE hasn’t been useful and hasn’t been relevant for centuries.  FE can’t model a sunset without contradicting itself.

That's hilarious.

The sun in RE is seen by a rotating Earth as it sweeps across while tilting. And moving past the sun. in orbit.
And following the sun apparently, because the sun is hurtling along in its own orbit, around the Milky Way. While the Milky Way turns and apparently moves around the larger universe. Which is expanding. And you cannot explain how all of these different types of motion result in this.

Ninja Gaiden sunset understands better than you that Earth is flat.

Not useful or relevant?

Every film or video game has to contend with realistic perspective. Artists have to draw art according to it, and literally cannot draw curvature without resorting to weird tricks. Every navigator draws a straight line, sans curve, and adjusts only to wind. In the southern hemisphere, the map is off alot more, whereas if the map was truly accurate to a globe, they would not need to.

Understanding that the Earth is round is crucial for navigation, satellite communication, and understanding natural phenomena like seasons and eclipses. This knowledge also supports scientific advancements and helps us comprehend our place in the universe.

This is the official AI answer. Except:

• You only need to know the Earth is round not a sphere (the RE is a misnomer, as even Flat Earthers accept Earth is horizontally curved, they just don't like the logical leap that heading east or west is sufficient proof), because nobody uses a globe to navigate, they use charts.
• Satellites aren't real, or your shuttles would routinely sideswipe them like some twisted game of Frogger. When the allegedly real shuttles enter "space", of course.
• Seasons happen because of the sun's position in regard to the tropics and the equator. Not some imaginary tilt.
• Eclipses are based on the Saros Cycle. Not the shape of the Earth.

It's wonderful that AI programmers everywhere are insistent that this "fact" be known, along with that climate change is real and is very definitely caused by human activities.  Today I was explaining to someone at church that AI bias exists. He didn't believe me.