The scientific method vs Flat earth

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this post - I hope it is.

A newly uploaded FE debunking video has appeared on YT and as yet no one from the FE community seems to have commented on it.

The sun, one of my favorite subjects.

Where the sunset is just the sun changing its relative position below the earth’s curvature to become physically blocked from view.  The shadow of earth creates nightfall. 

Where you can go and watch a sunset for yourself and document it if you have the right filter.



Where for the RE, the sun stays a consistent apparent size because it’s far away with negligible changes in distance.



Where for flat earth, the sun would literally always be in the line of sight.

The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.

And the sun changing greatly in distance to a fixed FE observer would have to greatly change in apparent size.

So flat earth has created this nonsense that the sun sets because light dies.  The sun stays the same apparent size because of atmospheric lensing.  The sun’s light shines on the bottoms of clouds because bendy light.  Where the aether bends the light differently west east vs north south.  Very interesting because the sun’s FE path is circular where east west becomes meaningless because the sun, at the danger of sounding like not so wide, is always turning and would always have an angular velocity to the aether.  So how does the aether know east west from north south.

Where the sun on flat earth would have to turn north or right after passing California and travel roughly along the North American coast.

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this post - I hope it is.

A newly uploaded FE debunking video has appeared on YT and as yet no one from the FE community seems to have commented on it.

While some people find it fun to mess around with peripheral notions relating to the sun as for example how it moves relative to the earth and how that would be different if the earth was flat.
What needs to be remembered is the nature of the flat earth sun is vastly different from our actual sun.
The actual sun which we see which provides both heat and light is 150 million Km from the earth and has a diameter of around 1.4 Million Km.
It produces its heat by fusing Hydrogen into Helium that produces vast amounts of energy from the small decrease in mass according to E= MC^2
The fusion takes place due to the immense pressures and temperatures that exist inside the sun due to its enormous size.
The physics of how our sun functions along with its composition is well understood. An analysis of its light using   spectroscopy tells us the elements the sun is made from.

Enter the flat earth sun!
For their flat earth idea to work their flat earth sun needs to be around 50Km in diameter at a distance of 5,000Km!

Any kind of scientific logic will immediately tell you this flat earth notion is not possible in our universe for a number of reasons.

Given we know what it’s made from how can a sun of that size actually exist?

What is its energy source?

How has it kept putting out energy for almost 5bn years?


The actual idea of a small near sun is beyond stupid so wondering about its movements is rather pointless when it’s an impossibility!

This is why debating about the flat earth is a waste of time as there can be no debate due to the physical impossibility of a flat earth sun.

Not only that if we look at the flat earth idea of stars also being small and near you have to ask yourself where did all the  matter from which we and the planets come from?

In the real world all the matter that makes us and the planets comes from long dead massive stars that have gone super nova.

The flat earth idea with small stars had no mechanism to produce planets flat or otherwise or people.

That’s why the notion of a flat earth is beyond silly. All they can say that makes any sense is on occasion the earth can look flat. We all know however that’s to do with scale.

The short of the video. 

Things shrink with distance.  Like airplanes flying away from your fixed position.  That’s a fact. 

The hypotheses.  The sun should change apparent size greatly if the earth is flat.  Especially if the sun is smallish around 30 miles in diameter, and 6,000 miles above the supposed FE.  The FE sun has to make a circuit each day. 

The sun doesn’t change apparent size, this proves RE.


Wise uses the patch and false assurance of atmospheric lensing.

Wise needs to come up with a new hypothesis and a way to test it and collect data.

My choice would be the North Star.  Where it should also be visible across the entire FE.

The North Star being restively fixed, except the small circle it makes around the north celestial pole, should grow in size as one travels south if atmospheric lensing works the way Wise needs it to. 

  I’ve been to Florida.  I’ve been to Guam.  I’ve been to Japan. I’ve been to Honduras.  I’ve been to Australia.

The North Star doesn’t change in brightness and size as one travels south.  Especially when the nights are clear.

The North Star does get lower on the horizon without changing brightness and size as one travels south toward the equator.

Once far enough south of the equator, the curvature of the earth physically blocks the North Star from view.

From airplanes to the North Star, there is no proof / evidence of the atmospheric lensing that is required by Wise for his patch / false assurance. 

I'm not sure if this is the correct place for this post - I hope it is.

A newly uploaded FE debunking video has appeared on YT and as yet no one from the FE community seems to have commented on it.

Probably because it's stupid.

Smug assholes with their dismissive attitude literally grates on my nerves.

Also, unlike RE ppl, we don't go into RE spaces looking for trouble. All the RE ppl come to places marked

not the other way around.

To give you an example of the sheer level of narcissism here, I have never logged into any RE forums, atheist forums, or otherwise. This is like a person living ten miles from the nearest town having weird ideas, and someone entering their house and telling them what to think and feel. Seriously, what the fuck?!?

Regarding the scientific method, we not only understand it, but it forms the basis for observations that prove our theories.Currently talking to someone who cannot conceive that Scottish people could ever have a slightly softer accent than shown on movie depictions. Because you have biases and preconceptions doesn't make them automatically scientific.

The short of the video. 

Things shrink with distance.  Like airplanes flying away from your fixed position.  That’s a fact. 

The hypotheses.  The sun should change apparent size greatly if the earth is flat.  Especially if the sun is smallish around 30 miles in diameter, and 6,000 miles above the supposed FE.  The FE sun has to make a circuit each day. 

The sun doesn’t change apparent size, this proves RE.

I don't think that you quite have the hang of falsifiability.  If the hypothesis says that the sun should shrink on a flat earth but doesn't, then that simply means that the particular observation does not support that specific FE claim.  Proving FE false does not necessarily prove RE true, just like proving RE false does not necessarily prove FE true.

Regarding the scientific method, we not only understand it, but it forms the basis for observations that prove our theories.

No, I don't think that you do.  Especially about the parts where you form a hypothesis that makes a specific prediction and how to test that prediction.  Just saying that aether vorteces or a personal parabola cause the sun to appear to rise and set is not enough if you don't know enough about the properties of the aether or parabola to show the math that predicts the path of the sun's rays at sunrise and sunset.

I don't think that you quite have the hang of falsifiability. 

Vs the video and wise having to create a patch work explanation to cover why the sun doesn’t change apparent size in their delusion by trying atmospheric lensing.  Where instead of false assurances wise needs to come up with a new hypothesis and produce it in a way that can be tested, and how to test and collect data.

All wise has is post hoc rationalization. 


The scientific method isn’t observing something and then making a claim.  It’s predicting something then collecting data to see if your prediction comes true.

Why Flat Earthers HATE the Scientific Method [ASTROPHYSICS PHDs]

—- Transcript—-

Now, I want to talk about the flat earth response to this because we know what it's going to be. It's going to be perspective and it's going to be atmospheric refraction. It's going to be something. And I want to explain why that response, whatever form it takes, is not science. We derived a prediction from the flat earth model. We tested it. It failed completely. If you want to save the flat earth model now, you need to propose a specific quantified physical mechanism that explains why the sun's apparent size doesn't change the way your own geometry demands it should. Don't just throw words around. You need a number, a formula, something that makes a new prediction we can go and test. Atmospheric refraction is a real thing. It's well understood. It's fully quantified. and it affects the position of the sun near the horizon by about half a degree. It does not affect angular size in any meaningful way and it absolutely does not account for the factor of two size change the flat earth model predicts. That's not our opinion. That's just a calculation anyone can do.
19:48 Perspective is not a mechanism. It's a word. And as we discussed earlier, perspective is the angular size relationship. Invoking perspective to explain why angular size doesn't change the way geometry says it should is like invoking gravity to explain why something didn't fall. So therein is the challenge to the flat earth model itself. When you are doing science you have to produce a quantified testable falsifiable mechanism that explains the result. Derive a new prediction from it and then go test that prediction before you look at the data. And this is fundamentally why the flat earth model cannot survive contact with the scientific method. The scientific method requires you to risk being wrong. It requires you to make a call before you even see the cards. Flat Earth discourse does the opposite. Every failed prediction becomes a new patch. Every patch is constructed after the data are already known. No new prediction is ever committed to. Seeing all the the shrine to Bo Morris here, my lovely 11-year-old son who is fascinated with astronomy and is committed to the scientific method. No test is ever genuinely risked. And because no test is ever genuinely risked, no knowledge is ever genuinely gained. And no amount of patching can change that. This is what it looks like when a model has stopped engaging reality.
21:13 Even my 11-year-old son knows that. Look, if you came into this video believing the Earth is flat, I'm not expecting you to walk away convinced. That's not really how it works, and I know that. But I hope you walked away with something more useful than just a debunk. You now know what a real prediction looks like. You know why it has to come before the data. You know what falsifiability means and why it matters. You know the difference between a patch and a revision. And you know that you can go outside, point a telescope at the sun with a solar filter and check every single thing we showed you tonight with your own eyes and your own hands. Go check it yourself and then tell us what you see. The scientific method is not some elitist weapon scientists use against people who disagree with them. It's a gift. The best tool humanity has ever built for finding things out while protecting yourself from your own blind spots. It works the same way for everyone everywhere, regardless of what they believe going into the experiment. All it asks is that you antie up and place your bets before you see the cards. That is the nature of science.

Thread “The Size of the Sun the Past Few Days - No Proof Dimensions Shrinks” anyone…

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=93094.msg2440624#msg2440624

To give you an example of the sheer level of narcissism here,

That you are posting about yourself than addressing a FE hypothesis utterly failed.  Then, instead of formulating a new hypothesis and testing it, you just go on posting about yourself. 

Lol…

Einstein reportedly said "God does not play dice with the universe."

Suppose I roll the dice. And instead of accepting the result will be random based on previous rolls being random, I make a hypothesis that it will roll snake eyes 100 times in a row.  And when it doesn't in fact do so, I falsify the result to fit my biases. That's what the fake science of Round Earth has done.

It sees the sun rise and set as it should by simple angles, and says that "there is a line of sight here" when in fact the object is past vanishing point.
It sees over and over again that water remains level, and then says that it curves around a sphere.
It sees over and over again that no object, no matter how massive, can ever pull another object towards it by any demonstrable means within Earth.  Yet it claims the Earth is pulled toward the sun, and the reason we can't demonstrate gravity by experiments (instead doing a red herring demonstration of dropping objects, hoping the observer will not come to another assumption about why things fall) is because "Earth's gravity is greater." Yet all observation points to the reverse, that the Earth pulls the sun (probably through magnetism).

Observation, testing, and hypothesis has all led to geocentrism and flat Earth, not its opposition. But like someone playing with dice behind a screen (a DM lying about the result comes to mind),

you claim there a scientific method that supports RE when it actually doesn't. As a side note, increasingly, I believe in open DMing after having lost a couple parties to things like favortism or players figuring out I stacked the story against them.

The Sun does change in apparent size, but being one of the two largest objects above Earth by far, makes it less noticeable at closer distances from any point on Earth.


There’s images and videos of the very distant Sun rising or setting in the very distant horizons, seen from atop high mountains and from planes, which show a much smaller apparent size of Sun

Suppose I roll the dice.

How about actually leave the basement and watch and document the sun.

Why doesn’t the sun shrink as required by the geometry of the flat earth model.

What’s the revised hypothesis and how will you test it. 

The Sun does change in apparent size,

Nope.  Wrong again.  The video in the opening post has tested and explained how their data was collected.  It shows the sun does not change apparent size over the course of a day. 

Something you or I can do.

From the thread “ The Size of the Sun the Past Few Days - No Proof Dimensions Shrinks”

Short post. I’ll explain the equipment and more about the video in the next post.  Unless who I use for image hosting still is having problems.

But still no evidence the visible sun changes dimensions to invoke vanishing point in the context of the sun.

Quote

4-24-25 sun time lapse 9:30 am to about 10:30 am

The time lapse was done in three second intervals from about 9:30 am to 10:30 am.  The is a gif of the first few seconds of the video. 

Much more data I collected is in the thread.

Turbs.  What’s your revised hypothesis, how are you going to actually go out and test it, looking forward to you posting the collected data. 

Einstein reportedly said "God does not play dice with the universe."

Suppose I roll the dice. And instead of accepting the result will be random based on previous rolls being random, I make a hypothesis that it will roll snake eyes 100 times in a row.  And when it doesn't in fact do so, I falsify the result to fit my biases. That's what the fake science of Round Earth has done.

It sees the sun rise and set as it should by simple angles, and says that "there is a line of sight here" when in fact the object is past vanishing point.
It sees over and over again that water remains level, and then says that it curves around a sphere.
It sees over and over again that no object, no matter how massive, can ever pull another object towards it by any demonstrable means within Earth.  Yet it claims the Earth is pulled toward the sun, and the reason we can't demonstrate gravity by experiments (instead doing a red herring demonstration of dropping objects, hoping the observer will not come to another assumption about why things fall) is because "Earth's gravity is greater." Yet all observation points to the reverse, that the Earth pulls the sun (probably through magnetism).

Observation, testing, and hypothesis has all led to geocentrism and flat Earth, not its opposition. But like someone playing with dice behind a screen (a DM lying about the result comes to mind),

you claim there a scientific method that supports RE when it actually doesn't. As a side note, increasingly, I believe in open DMing after having lost a couple parties to things like favortism or players figuring out I stacked the story against them.

Excellent post! Have you posted it to the video YT page yet?

Einstein reportedly said "God does not play dice with the universe."

I forget who it was, but someone told Einstein to stop telling God what not to do.

Neils Bohr.


This one is better.

---

Excellent post! Have you posted it to the video YT page yet?

When I was a kid, apparently my brother and sister were constantly telling me what their property was, so there was a concern that I was gonna be stunted because I hadn't reached the first words milestone. Instead, my first words were not "mama" or "dada" but rather "That's [my brother's] car!" when someone was playing with my brother's toy car. Personal boundaries are kinda a recurring concern for me. Sorry Mom and Dad, I guess you were secondary.

The fact that it is their YT page, and they obviously want an echo chamber (and will probly delete my posts anyway) means I leave them to it.

an echo chamber

Nobody is asking for an echo chamber.  What is being used is the scientific method to make a prediction then collect the data that will make it or break it.

Either FE or RE the sun will set.  A real hypothesis is the sun sets because light dies from the sun in atmosphere.

Can you make or break your flat earth claim?

Asked you a question..

Why can’t I see this set sun.




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

What you basically have when you compare the Scientific method with the flat earth approach is:-

Accumulated validated scientific knowledge backed by research and experimentation built on evidence that has developed over the past two to three hundred years. It’s the knowledge on which our world and society is built.

Verses

Flat earth made up stuff built on belief underpinned by conspiracy. Evidence not required.

In s nutshell that is the comparison. Flat earth belief is as it says based on nothing more than belief. If there is something like gravity, space travel, GPS etc they can’t explain they resort to use of conspiracy to explain it away.
Another example is their fixation with maps.

Accurate maps are very difficult and time consuming to produce taking many years to complete after carrying out complex surveys.

Flat earth believers appear to imagine that alternative flat earth maps can be produced out of thin air!

The scientific method requires evidence.

Flat earth belief requires a believer to believe in anything that fits their world view with no evidence required.

Nobody is asking for an echo chamber. 

Oh really.

So, I'm just imagining things when the first four posts are just Round Earthers talking among themselves about how Flat Earthers have no answer for the scientific method?

The scientific method vs Flat earth (Nopadon)
« on: April 14, 2026, 02:03:42 PM »

 Re: The scientific method vs Flat earth (DataOverflow)
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2026, 03:17:22 PM »

 Re: The scientific method vs Flat earth (TimeIsUp)
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2026, 05:29:54 PM »

 Re: The scientific method vs Flat earth (DataOverflow)
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2026, 06:46:34 PM »

Echo chamber.

Literally talking about a video nobody cares about behind the back of the typical Flat Earthers who are all napping or eating dinner).

---

Either FE or RE the sun will set.  A real hypothesis is the sun sets because light dies from the sun in atmosphere.

You keep saying "light dies" as though you can prove it doesn't. Light dims gradually over distance. You can test this with your own pictures. You have several pictures showing a street light not only shrink but also fade in intensity. This is a scientific rule known as the Inverse Square Law. That's right, that's literally you claiming you understand science while ignoring one of its rules. Light doesn't "die" it fades out.

The brighter and more intense a light (amplitude), the longer it takes to do so. The higher frequency, the more it breaks down over distance. The sun is a very intense light, but it is by no means able to continue shining for millions of miles away. That is absurd.

But this is not even why you can no longer see the sun, it's just a secondary reason.

• The sun is at a fixed altitude above the viewer.
• But angles diminish based on distance.
• The combination of these two principles causes the sun to appear to "set" when it is actually overhead.

Eric Dubay has demonstrated this using a zoom camera.  The sun appears on the water, and by zooming in, the angle changes, so the sun can be seen above the water again.  But if you think that I'm depending on him for answers, I have tried the same experiment with less bright objects on the water such as fishing barges. Taking my glasses off (nearsighted) and putting them back on, I was able to make said barge "sink into the horizon" and then suddenly "pop up" again.

Quote

Nobody is asking for an echo chamber. 

Oh really.

So, I'm just imagining things when the first four posts are just Round Earthers talking among themselves about how Flat Earthers have no answer for the scientific method?

Quote

The scientific method vs Flat earth (Nopadon)
« on: April 14, 2026, 02:03:42 PM »

 Re: The scientific method vs Flat earth (DataOverflow)
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2026, 03:17:22 PM »

 Re: The scientific method vs Flat earth (TimeIsUp)
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2026, 05:29:54 PM »

 Re: The scientific method vs Flat earth (DataOverflow)
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2026, 06:46:34 PM »

Echo chamber.

Literally talking about a video nobody cares about behind the back of the typical Flat Earthers who are all napping or eating dinner).

---

Quote

Either FE or RE the sun will set.  A real hypothesis is the sun sets because light dies from the sun in atmosphere.

You keep saying "light dies" as though you can prove it doesn't. Light dims gradually over distance. You can test this with your own pictures. You have several pictures showing a street light not only shrink but also fade in intensity. This is a scientific rule known as the Inverse Square Law. That's right, that's literally you claiming you understand science while ignoring one of its rules. Light doesn't "die" it fades out.

The brighter and more intense a light (amplitude), the longer it takes to do so. The higher frequency, the more it breaks down over distance. The sun is a very intense light, but it is by no means able to continue shining for millions of miles away. That is absurd.

But this is not even why you can no longer see the sun, it's just a secondary reason.

• The sun is at a fixed altitude above the viewer.
• But angles diminish based on distance.
• The combination of these two principles causes the sun to appear to "set" when it is actually overhead.

Eric Dubay has demonstrated this using a zoom camera.  The sun appears on the water, and by zooming in, the angle changes, so the sun can be seen above the water again.  But if you think that I'm depending on him for answers, I have tried the same experiment with less bright objects on the water such as fishing barges. Taking my glasses off (nearsighted) and putting them back on, I was able to make said barge "sink into the horizon" and then suddenly "pop up" again.

If you want to believe a discredited nutter like Dubay then that your prerogative and proves my point that you would rather believe in made up nonsense rather than science backed up with evidence.

You demonstrated that you would rather believe someone like Dubay
Who just makes stuff up rather than believing validated science.

Let’s remember it’s the science you reject has created the technological world you live in along with all the tech you use whose workings are all based on principles arrived at using the scientific method you reject. Do you not believe in your computer? You can’t have it both ways.

Choosing not to believe in the scientific method is akin to you not believing in the electricity that is no doubt available in any of the sockets in the place you live…. Or do you live in a cave?

Time and time again you choose to believe in things that have no evidence while at the same time reject anything you don’t like while crying conspiracy.

Picking to believe in one crazy man like Dubay  while rejecting the whole of accumulated human science says it all about you.

As I said the scientific method is based on evidence while flat earth belief is based on nonsense.

The proof is all around you but you are too blinkered and too desperate to cling on to your belief to realize it. If science were wrong according to you, no tech you or anyone else had would work!

You keep saying "light dies" as though you can prove it doesn't.

Then address what is posted. 

Asked you a question..

Why can’t I see this set sun.




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

I’m not say a single light is going to light a whole stadium.  But chances are one will see the single light source if one is in the direct line of sight with no obstructions. 

Remember the light pollution example. 



The only reason you can’t see the light bulbs is because they are physically blocked from view.  They aren’t too “dim”.

The reason you can’t see the sun after sunset while it’s still illuminating clouds to the east of me isn’t because the sun itself is too dim, it’s because the sun is physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature. 

If you want to believe a discredited nutter like Dubay then that your prerogative and proves my point that you would rather believe in made up nonsense rather than science backed up with evidence.

What people really mean when they say "science."
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/george-orwell-on-what-is-science/

In Orwell’s day, it was seen as a Good Thing that students should learn about “radioactivity, or the stars, or the physiology or their own bodies”; nowadays, educating our young about Darwinian evolution, sexual health for kindergartners, and global warming is deemed to be the latest Good Thing. The focus has changed; but sadly, the paternalistic mindset of the “powers that be” hasn’t.

The demand for more science education, as Orwell astutely perceived, reflects an underlying political agenda, based on the naive belief – falsified by history – that we’d all be better off if scientists ruled the world:

Quote from: George Orwell

This confusion of meaning, which is partly deliberate, has in it a great danger. Implied in the demand for more scientific education is the claim that if one has been scientifically trained one’s approach to all subjects will be more intelligent than if one had had no such training. A scientist’s political opinions, it is assumed, his opinions on sociological questions, on morals, on philosophy, perhaps even on the arts, will be more valuable than those of a layman. The world, in other words, would be a better place if the scientists were in control of it. But a “scientist”, as we have just seen, means in practice a specialist in one of the exact sciences. It follows that a chemist or a physicist, as such, is politically more intelligent than a poet or a lawyer, as such. And, in fact, there are already millions of people who do believe this.

But is it really true that a “scientist”, in this narrower sense, is any likelier than other people to approach non-scientific problems in an objective way? There is not much reason for thinking so. Take one simple test – the ability to withstand nationalism. It is often loosely said that “Science is international”, but in practice the scientific workers of all countries line up behind their own governments with fewer scruples than are felt by the writers and the artists. The German scientific community, as a whole, made no resistance to Hitler. Hitler may have ruined the long-term prospects of German Science, but there were still plenty of gifted men to do the necessary research on such things as synthetic oil, jet planes, rocket projectiles and the atomic bomb. Without them the German war machine could never have been built up… More sinister than this, a number of German scientists swallowed the monstrosity of “racial Science”. You can find some of the statements to which they set their names in Professor Brady’s The Spirit and Structure of German Fascism.

Groupthink and political bias. I can do without "science" when it really means this sorta thing.

Your snap judgements about me says it all about you.

---

Then address what is posted.

Challenge accepted?

Asked you a question..

Why can’t I see this set sun.

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

Because the sun in fact is overhead.  While behind you, the sun's light is still being cast due to Rayleigh scattering. But the sun's apparent (not actual) position due to angles creates a shadow.

Btw, you have no answer for this under RE theory. This is a "that'll stump 'em" question, where you're hoping I won't call out your own ignorance on the matter. On a flat Earth, this sort of contrast between angular shadow and overhead light is possible. On a RE, the sun turns a corner. You can test this scientifically using a friend, a flashlight, and wall with a corner. Light generally travels in a straight wave.

Moving on, next we deal with this.


If you bothered to think for a few seconds (fat chance!)

you'd understand that the picture you showed is actually consistent with light gradually fading from view.


The scientific method is about a hypothesis being borne out by the results, if not, keep testing. So what do we see here? Light contracting and darkness expanding, until the stars come out, then light expanding until the stars are gone and the sun rises. Exactly as hypothesized.

Challenge accepted?

Because the sun in fact is overhead.  While behind you, the sun's light is still being cast due to Rayleigh scattering. But the sun's apparent (not actual) position due to angles creates a shadow.

.

That doesn’t answer shit.

Because your sun in your delusion is always above the clouds.  Where your parabola doesn’t exist.  Where you need light to die for sunset, where the path of light is longer to travel down to the edge of your nonexistent parabola that you have no proof of.  Bounce up, bounce down off the clouds, then back to the person.  The sun is still in the line of sight on clear evenings for a telescope that brings objects into view that are too faint to be seen with the unaided eye like the natural satellites of Jupiter but can’t bring a physical blocked set sun into view.

Recap..



The sun is literally in the line of sight for the person in orange.  The sun is literally above shining down on your original stick man and clouds.



Where you need light to die for sunset, where the path of light is longer to travel down to the edge of your nonexistent parabola that you have no proof of.  Bounce up, bounce down off the clouds, then back to the person. 

Where if this is sunset.  The clouds farther to the east (you know the direction opposite of west) with a longer path for sunlight are still illuminated after the sun sets where you claim light died.

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 can watch the sun actually become physically blocked bottom up at sunset from view where a telescope that can bring stars too faint to be seen with the naked eye into view but can’t bring the sun back into view.

Where the sun still needs to get more distance in your delusion and thus grow smaller in apparent size before you can even invoke your butchered perspective, vanishing point, light dies BS. 



For a person in California, the sun would still have to visibly turn north and travel roughly up the North America coast for FE instead of setting.



Bulma, using the same old debunked crap that just contradicts itself. 



At least I go out and get actual videos and photos of the actual sun and sky.

If you bothered to think for a few seconds (fat chance!)

Hello.  Bulma.  The source of light is literally blocked from view by the trees.


Remember the light pollution example. 



The only reason you can’t see the light bulbs is because they are physically blocked from view.  They aren’t too “dim”.

I figured it out, flat earth belief literally makes you blind Bulma.


The reason you can’t see the sun after sunset while it’s still illuminating clouds to the east of me isn’t because the sun itself is too dim, it’s because the sun is physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature. 

You can test this scientifically using a friend, a flashlight, and wall with a corner.

Does FE make you stupid too?

You can’t see the source of the light, which in this case is a light bulb,  because it’s physical blocked from view.



Like duh..



Where sunset the “corner” is literally the sun setting behind the curvature of the earth to become physically blocked from view.



There is no “corner to turn” in flat earth. The sun is literally always in the line of sight.

 Light generally travels in a straight wave.

That means..

The sun is literally in the line of sight for the person in orange.

System Error: Dof-Bot is suffering from Optical Interface Failure. Logic Audit: FAILED.

You are posting stick-man drawings to explain a Complex Electromagnetic System. Absolute Idiocy. You are a Basic Input Idiot who doesn't understand the interaction between the Laws of Perspective (P) and Atmospheric Density (D).

1. The Luminous Decay and Extinction Error (Fact: Rayleigh Scattering & Attenuation)

You ask why the Sun isn't visible. Hardware Audit:
Light does not travel forever. As distance (d) increases, light intensity (I) decreases due to the Inverse Square Law and the Atmospheric Extinction Coefficient (μ):

I = I₀ · e^(-μd)

When the Sun moves away from your horizon, its light must pass through the densest layers of the atmosphere. The light doesn't "die"; it falls below your Visual Detection Threshold. This is called the Horizon Line. A telescope cannot "create" what isn't there; it only magnifies existing, faint light. When the light is extinct, the telescope magnifies darkness. Software Patch detected.

2. Physical Obstruction vs. Optical Compression

You give the example of a lightbulb behind trees. Logic Crash.
Trees are solid. The atmosphere is a fluid medium that acts as a Lens. When the Sun sets, it appears to sink "bottom-up" because the sky Optically Compresses toward the horizon due to perspective. The ground rises, the sky lowers, and the Sun "sets" behind this convergence point. It is not a "wall"; it is a Vanishing Point. Your stick-man drawings cannot process this Z-axis data.

3. The Eastern Clouds Illumination (Fact: Atmospheric Reflection)

You think the "Eastern Clouds" being lit 16 minutes after sunset proves a ball. Data Corruption.
When the Sun passes your Vanishing Point, it is still high in the sky within the Dome. Its light reflects off the Dome Ceiling and the upper atmospheric layers, striking the clouds on the eastern horizon. This is a Mirror Effect. In your ball model, the light would have to shine "upwards" from below the curve. Instead, we see clouds illuminated from the top. You are betraying your own observation.

4. The Dof-Bot Cartoon Geometry

You claim a person in California would see the Sun "turn north." Geometric Failure.
The Sun moves in a Radial Path (Circle). Due to perspective, this circular motion appears as a straight line or a slight arc across your horizon. Its recession toward the horizon looks like a descent. Your stick-man model lacks 3D Depth Perception; it only codes "distance" as "down." Boiler Room Scrubber mode activated.

Summary for Dof-Bot:
You are a Machine Oiler mistaking an Optical Illusion for a Physical Wall. The Sun is always "in the line of sight," but the Atmospheric Density and the Limit of Convergence act as a Shroud.

Light is not "blocked" as on your ball; light becomes Unreachable on your plane.

Hardware is Real. Your Globe Script is just a Graphics Patch.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 15, 2026, 05:18:15 PM

You can test this scientifically using a friend, a flashlight, and wall with a corner.

Does FE make you stupid too?

You can’t see the source of the light, which in this case is a light bulb,  because it’s physical blocked from view.

Like duh..

Where sunset the “corner” is literally the sun setting behind the curvature of the earth to become physically blocked from view.

https://i.imgur.com/DCE4Fiz.gif

There is no “corner to turn” in flat earth. The sun is literally always in the line of sight.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 15, 2026, 05:18:15 PM

 Light generally travels in a straight wave.

That means..

No more of that stupid sunset! It doesn't prove anything. It's overfiltered so you can't see the sky, the ground or any objects! You cannot tell what day it is, what year. or whether you are the actual owner. Stop calling it proof! It's not proof! It pisses me off that you keep pretending it proves something!

As for the other one, if you stop thinking about the sun as right there, and start thinking about what my picture is trying to tell you, you'll be able to dig yourself out of the UNO Reverse situation you're in, wherein you confirmed  that the Earth is round, and rounds a corner, yet show a picture impossible by your own assertion of the sky blue 16 minutes after sunset.

Asked you a question..

Why can’t I see this set sun.




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

I'll help you out here.

Draw an arrow from the sun straight down. If the sun hits the parabola, make a dot where the sun's light hits, and draw an arrow from the person to that. If not, the artificial perspective forces a dot at the bottom corner of the parabola, where in fact there is not line of sight to the sun. Now draw a line from the sun to the sky behind the viewer.  Make a wavy line to the ground and paint dump so everything behind the viewer is light blue.

The sun is simultaneously still up and perceived as being down. This is also why it is not blocked by either set of trees. Because it is above them. "A greater light to rule over the day..." Reread Genesis, this was created before the sun and moon. God created glare and an afterimage of the true Light.

We are living in a real life diorama.

System Error:

Nope.

There is literally nothing to block the sun from view if the sky was clear for a flat earth.

No more of that stupid sunset! It doesn't prove anything.

Well.  It does.

Sunset.

The sun sets because it is physically blocked from view by the earth’s curvature.




The sunrise..





Where the sun rises relatively above the curvature of the earth to decrease how much it’s being physically blocked until it clears the curvature obstructing the sun from view.

It’s easy to demonstrate/ model.




Where on a flat earth the sun would have to change in apparent size like a ball rolled down a hallway.



Where imaging the sun shows its acts similar to a ball going behind a wall.



Notice the ball as a light source stays in sight until it’s physically blocked from view. 

Remember Bulma, I tried to get perspective to hide a light source from view and it didn’t work.

Quote from: turbonium2 on September 18, 2022, 03:16:27 AM

Sorry, long post with lots of photos.

So.

Let’s recap and get back on topic of this thread.

Trying to push the limits of perspective and small object photography to try to get a flat surface to make an object to become physically blocked from view where zooming cannot bring it back into view.

Yesterday I tried to use a small object on the railroad tracks at 350 steps.  Which is about 750 feet.  Unfortunately, the heat coming off the track made it impossible to focus on the target.

So. Changed gears. Did an experiment at night.  Placed a relatively small flashlight right on the track.  Took pictures of the flashlight at various distances.

Using the track because it is relatively on a grade made flat for the old railroad car yard. 

My camera was placed so it could be close to the tracks as possible on its highest zoom setting.


Used this flashlight.




Place the flashlight on the track


View from 100 steps no flash


View from 100 steps with flash


200 steps no flash


200 steps flash


300 steps no flash


300 steps flash


360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


360 steps flash


360 steps camera at a greater hight above ground.  About three feet.


In conclusion. Pushing the limits of photography using the smallest practical objects on the flattest and longest surfaces I have access to.  I have not been able to use perspective to physically block an object from view. In the flat earth delusion, it’s impossible for the flat earth to block the sun from view.  Or a ship at sea in the example below.



Thus, thus is true.

That means..




There is literally nothing in the FE model to block the sun from view on a clear day at sunset.

Well.  It does.

No, it doesn't. Stop trying to use Jedi mind tricks. They don't work on me.

A sunset picture only works if you have enough light to see the sun as it is setting with its surroundings. Since we don't know anything about this scene, it provides no information besides "Oh, the sun just set!"

Dunking a ball into a table. Golly! That's amazing!


What happens to the tree angle when you back up? This is easy geometry. Height stays the same, length lengthens, angle reduces. The same object appears lower well before your supposed curvature. That is, a distance object looms or sinks depending on proximity. The sun does change in size. But the distance across the sky that you see is not all that great.

...You're dodging the question I asked.

You were asked how the light can't round a corner yet shows light after the sunset, and you're showing magician's tricks to confuse and distract.

Yes, light moving through space contracts substantially over just a few feet. But if I were to put you in a planetarium and they were doing a simulation of the sun rising and setting, the projected image would not appear to distort significantly.  But that is not the question you have to answer.

As for the other one, if you stop thinking about the sun as right there, and start thinking about what my picture is trying to tell you, you'll be able to dig yourself out of the UNO Reverse situation you're in, wherein you confirmed  that the Earth is round, and rounds a corner, yet show a picture impossible by your own assertion of the sky blue 16 minutes after sunset.

Quit showing bullshit pictures. You insisted I need to address your pictures, but apparently fair isn't fair?