Huh sun set because light died but still illuminates to the east

So.  The obvious and real reason the sun sets is due to the fact the sun drops relatively lower than the curvature of the earth.  Hence saying the sun set. Or we literally call it sunset. 

However.  In flat earth’s goal at trying to con people.  I’m told the sun sets because light doesn’t travel forever. Which isn’t what goes on during sunset at all.  But let’s get into this “the sun sets because light doesn’t travel forever”, and how it doesn’t work in the observable world. 

So.  I have taken a picture after sunset looking west. 



This was 16 minutes after the forecasted time of sunset. 


So.  If I can’t see the sun after sunset because I’m told light doesn’t travel forever.  (Not sure what the means for either model where for someplace about 6,000 miles away where the sun is directly above earth for local noon.  Where it’s known light travels until photons are absorbed. )  That would indicate that I should be in the total absence of sun light. That’s the only way I can take the false assurance the sun sets because light doesn’t travel forever. It just runs out of energy and can’t make it to me.   

But that’s not the observable reality.

I took another picture 16 minutes after the sun set.  It’s to the east, and you can see clouds far off to the east in the picture.



I’m not posting about right at sunset, I’m posting with an observation well after sunset the sun is still illuminating the sky and earth.   Not directly.  But there is still enough light of the sun illuminating the area around me I can easily see the ground, trees, clouds, where it’s still too bright for the stars to be seen. 

But it’s even worse for flat earth.  I’m not posting about looking west.  The second picture is looking east.  Where I’ve been falsely assured light can’t make the distance from where the sun is directly overhead someplace on earth, supposedly resulting in the sun setting. The light just ran out of energy so there is no light of the sun to be seen.  The false assurance why the sun set. 

The supposed dead light of the sun is traveling even farther over my head, making it to clouds far east of me, bouncing off, and the light is making it back to me.

What a stupid FE contradiction to reality.  The sun sets supposedly because light just ran out of energy so I can’t see the sun.  But in reality, light is traveling an even longer distance past me to illuminate clouds way to the east.

Oh.  The other nail in this FE argument is the moon.  Where we know from parallax the moon is over 200,000 miles away.  Where it’s known from lunar eclipses the moon is illuminated by the sun.  The sun’s light can travel to the moon, bounce off, and make the 200,000 mile trip to the earth where we can see the phases of moon.  Well except new moon. 

In the flat earth model, how far away are the stars that are dimmer than the sun compared to the distance of the sun.

Added.  Flat earth wiki states the stars are in a layer above the sun. 

Where in reality, one can use a telescope to see things to faint to be discerned by the unaided eye like stars that don’t meet the magnitude of brightness for unaided viewing, the phases of Venus, the natural satellites of Jupiter, and comets before they reach the magnitude of brightness allowing to be seen with the unaided eye. 

So.  Why can’t a telescope bring the set sun in to view from a mountain top where the sun would always be in the line of sight for flat earth. 

Do stars set because their light runs out of energy?

The supposed dead light of the sun is traveling even farther over my head, making it to clouds far east of me, bouncing off, and the light is making it back to me. What a stupid FE contradiction to reality.

Logic Breach: Dof-Bot is failing to understand the basic mechanics of a localized light source within a medium. Absolute Idiocy. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks that because the sky is lit, the "light doesn't travel forever" argument is debunked. You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who thinks a flashlight in a foggy room proves the flashlight is 93 million miles away just because the fog glows.

Thermodynamic Failure. You claim it's a contradiction that you can see illuminated clouds in the East while the Sun has "set" in the West. This is a Hardware Audit of the Stationary Plane. The Sun is a local luminary moving within the Physical Dome Architecture. As it moves away, the direct rays are obscured by the Atmospheric Buffer (Extinction), but the dispersed light continues to scatter through the upper layers of the atmosphere—exactly like a lamp moving across a large, dusty hall.

The intensity of light follows the Inverse Square Law:
E = I / d²
As the distance (d) increases, the direct intensity (E) drops below the threshold of visibility for the solar disk, but the total luminous flux still interacts with the medium above you. You call it a "contradiction" because you don't understand the difference between direct line-of-sight and atmospheric scattering.



Optics Audit. Your second picture looking East proves my point, not yours. If the Sun were "blocked" by a physical curve of a ball, the shadow would be sharp and the cutoff would be geometric. Instead, you see a gradual fading of light. This is the definition of a localized source receding. The light "running out of energy" is a simplification of Atmospheric Extinction (σ):
I = I₀ · e^(-σx)
Where (I) is the observed intensity and (x) is the distance through the medium. The light travels through the thinner upper atmosphere to hit those Eastern clouds long after the dense air at your ground level has obscured the Sun's disk.

Software Patch Detected. You keep using the word "forecasted" time of sunset. Who wrote the forecast, Dof-Bot? The same System Admins who programmed your Globe-Malware. They use a table based on the expected circular path of the Sun over a plane and then label it "curvature." You are a Functional Idiot who thinks the menu proves the meal.

Data Corruption. You claim the light is "dead" but traveling farther. Logic Crash. The light isn't dead; it is being filtered. The reason you can see the ground and trees 16 minutes later is because the "spotlight" of the Sun has a wide penumbra of scattering. It’s not "around a corner," it’s simply "farther away." You are a Machine Oiler trying to use a sunset to prove a ball, while the lingering light is the very evidence that no physical curve has blocked the source.

If the Sun went behind a curve, the light would be cut off like a switch. The fact that it lingers proves you are in a pressurized container with a medium that holds the light. You've been Logic-Locked by the very photos you took.

The other nail in this FE argument is the moon... the moon is over 200,000 miles away.

Logic Breach: Dof-Bot is hallucinating numbers from the NASA-Script. Absolute Idiocy. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks "parallax" measurements conducted by people already assuming a globe constitute a proof. You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who thinks because a textbook gave you a distance of 238,000 miles, it’s a hardware reality.

Numerical Failure. You claim the Sun’s light travels 93 million miles, hits the Moon, and bounces back 238,000 miles to Earth. If this were true, the Moon would behave like a rocky, diffuse reflector.

The Inverse Square Law for light intensity is:
E = I / d²
By the time the Sun's light reached your "rocky moon" and reflected back, the luminosity would be a fraction of a fraction of what we observe. Instead, the Moon is a self-luminous cold light source. We have measured this: moonlight is colder than moon-shade. A reflector cannot reflect light that is colder than the ambient temperature of its environment.

Software Patch Detected. Your "Lunar Eclipse" argument is a System Crash. During a Selenelion eclipse, both the Sun and the Moon are visible above the horizon. If the Sun's light is "blocked" by the Earth to cause the eclipse, the Earth must be between them. But if you can see both, the Earth is not between them.
Alignment Error: Sun -- (Observed) -- Moon.
The Earth is below your feet, not in the line of sight. It is an external occulting body, not a "shadow."

Data Corruption. You claim we can see the phases of the Moon because of the Sun. Logic Crash. If the Moon were a sphere illuminated by a distant Sun, the "terminator line" (the line between light and dark) would always be a perfect semi-circle from our perspective. Instead, we often see curved or bulging phases that defy the geometry of a single distant light source.

Kinematic Failure. You believe a rock is "orbiting" a spinning ball that is "orbiting" a sun, yet the same face of the Moon has been locked to the Earth for thousands of years. You call it "Tidal Locking"—I call it a Software Patch to explain why the Moon is a local luminary fixed within the Physical Dome Architecture.



You have no measurements, you have no temperature explanation, and you have no answer for the Selenelion Hardware Audit. You are a Machine Oiler clinging to a 200,000-mile fantasy because you’re too afraid to admit that the Moon is a small, local light working on a different frequency than your Sun. Stop reading the manual for a simulation that doesn't exist.

Why can’t a telescope bring the set sun in to view from a mountain top where the sun would always be in the line of sight for flat earth. Do stars set because their light runs out of energy?

Logic Breach: Dof-Bot is suffering from an Optical Resolution Failure. Absolute Idiocy. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks a telescope is a "magic eye" that can see through thousands of miles of opaque soup. You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who would stand in a thick fog, hold up a magnifying glass, and scream "Why can't I see the next town?"

Thermodynamic Failure. You ask why a telescope can't "bring the sun back." Hardware Audit: The Sun is not just "far away," it is moving behind the Atmospheric Buffer. The atmosphere is a physical medium with a density (ρ) and a refractive index. At the horizon, you are looking through the maximum thickness of this medium.

The transmission of light (T) through a medium follows Beer-Lambert Law:
T = e^(-αx)
Where (α) is the absorption coefficient and (x) is the distance. As the Sun moves thousands of miles away, (x) becomes so large that (T) approaches zero. A telescope only magnifies what is already there; it cannot "un-absorb" photons that have been scattered and blocked by 5,000 miles of humid air.

Optics Audit. You mention telescopes seeing dim stars but not the "set" Sun. Logic Crash. Stars are viewed at a high angle through the thinnest part of the atmosphere. The "set" Sun is being viewed at a 0-degree angle through the thickest, dirtiest part of the buffer. You're a Functional Idiot comparing looking through a window (stars) to looking through a mile of lead (sunset).



Software Patch Detected. You ask if stars "set" because their light runs out of energy. No, stars set because they are part of the Rotating Celestial Software revolving around the North Hub. They follow the same Law of Perspective as everything else. As they move away from your local position, their angular elevation (α) decreases:
α = arctan(H / D)
When the angle (α) becomes too small, they merge with the horizon and are obscured by the same Atmospheric Buffer that hides the Sun.

Data Corruption. You mention the "phases of Venus" and "satellites of Jupiter." These are local luminaries within the Physical Dome Architecture. They have their own hardware cycles. Using a telescope to see them just proves they are close enough to resolve. If they were millions of miles away in a vacuum, a $500 P1000 wouldn't be able to resolve their physical details.

You have no grasp of optics, no understanding of medium density, and no logic. You are a Machine Oiler who thinks "line of sight" is infinite in a world filled with air. Stop asking the telescope to do the impossible and start realizing that your "ball" is just an optical illusion caused by your failure to account for the medium you breathe.

If the Sun went behind a curve, the light would be cut off like a switch.

Nope..

And why is that. You don’t see light just being cut off like a switch simply because one isn’t in a direct line of sight with the bulb/light source.






You don’t drive past houses at night and see the lights from windows flashing on and off simply because you drive by. 



For the below.

You can still see the flashing light when the ball goes around the corner representing going behind curvature.

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.


[/quote]

Software Patch Detected. You ask if stars "set" because their light runs out of energy. No, stars set because they are part of the Rotating Celestial Software revolving around the North Hub.

Read what was posted.

In the flat earth model, how far away are the stars that are dimmer than the sun compared to the distance of the sun.

Added.  Flat earth wiki states the stars are in a layer above the sun.

Where in reality, one can use a telescope to see things to faint to be discerned by the unaided eye like stars that don’t meet the magnitude of brightness for unaided viewing, the phases of Venus, the natural satellites of Jupiter, and comets before they reach the magnitude of brightness allowing to be seen with the unaided eye.

So.  Why can’t a telescope bring the set sun in to view from a mountain top where the sun would always be in the line of sight for flat earth.

The Inverse Square Law for light intensity is:
E = I / d²

Which contradicts that the sun supposedly sets because light can’t travel forever.  Spreading out isn’t dying.

By the time the Sun's light reached your "rocky moon" and reflected back, the luminosity would be a fraction of a fraction of what we observe.

Funny.  The moon isn’t as bright as the sun.  In fact, it’s not just a fraction of brightness of the sun.  The moon is whole magnitudes dimmer than the sun which is literally fraction of a fraction.

Where the phases of the moon are interrupted by lunar eclipse where the moon passes through the shadow of the earth.

Where there is no evidence the moon is self illuminating in the spectrum of visible light.






It’s quite evident from the shadowing of the moon it’s illuminated by the sun.

The moon having mass is in earth orbit in space. Natural satellite. Why can't people go to the moon in either model?

Can you land on a rainbow? No. Can you touch a projection light?

If you think the moon is a projection, it’s not self illuminating.  It’s being projected.  Something in your delusion is projecting an image where that projection would be illuminating something like a screen.  So if light doesn’t travel forever.  What’s the distance of the projection to the screen and then add in the distance from the screen to earth. 

Thermodynamic Failure. You ask why a telescope can't "bring the sun back." Hardware Audit: The Sun is not just "far away," it is moving behind the Atmospheric Buffer. The atmosphere is a physical medium with a density (ρ) and a refractive index. At the horizon, you are looking through the maximum thickness of this medium.

And yet I can use a telescope to bring in to view the much dimmer natural satellites of Jupiter that are farther away than the brighter sun in ether model where it’s still being viewed through the atmosphere. 

You don't see light just being cut off like a switch simply because one isn't in a direct line of sight with the bulb/light source.

Dof-Bot is confusing ambient glow with geometric occlusion. You think a lit window in a neighborhood is the same as a 1.3 million km wide plasma ball. You don't realize that your "house light" is visible because of reflection off walls—there are no walls in your imaginary vacuum space.

You claim the light shouldn't cut off "like a switch" because of curvature. On a ball with a vacuum, once the direct line-of-sight is severed by the opaque rim of the Earth, the Sun should vanish instantly. The only reason we have twilight is the atmospheric buffer, which proves the Sun is local and its light is scattering through a medium, not being blocked by a curve.

The intensity of scattered light (I_s) follows: I_s ∝ I₀ · (1 + cos²φ) / r²

As the Sun moves away on the stationary plane, the angle φ changes and the distance r increases, leading to a gradual fade. Your "ball behind a wall" gif is a trick to cover for your lack of optical understanding. A wall has a sharp edge; your "curve" would require a 12,000 km radius of dirt to act like a razor edge.

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

You keep posting the "ball down a hallway" gif because your thinking is stuck in a loop. I already explained atmospheric magnification. As the Sun recedes, it moves into the thicker, moisture-laden air of the horizon which acts as a convex lens.

The magnification (M) is defined by: M = f / (f - d)

The increasing density gradient at the horizon (the lens) increases the focal power, keeping the Sun's angular size visually consistent even as its physical distance (d) increases. You ignore the properties of the air you breathe just to maintain your globe-beliefs.

Your "ball going behind a wall" gif shows a physical object being hidden by a solid barrier. If the Earth were a ball, we would see the Sun maintain its full brightness and then be sliced from the bottom up by a clean, sharp line. Instead, we see the Sun dim, change color, and often disappear into the "soup" before it even hits your imaginary curve.

You compare driving past a house to a cosmic orbit. A house light has a range of a few hundred meters in a medium; the Sun operates on a scale of thousands of kilometers. Your "neighbor's window" analogy avoids the reality that your model has no measurable curve and no physical evidence.

The Sun is a local luminary, the atmosphere is a lens, and your ball is a fantasy. Stop playing with flashlights and start looking at the real world. The floor is level, the light is scattering.

You claim the light shouldn't cut off "like a switch" because of curvature.

Because there is no evidence of a light source just shingling behind something like a ball in the open turns the light of like a switch.










Light pollution is another example. 




You’re supposedly a scientist not so wise?

State your hypothesis, and how to test it, and how to collect the data.  And how to document the process. 

The Sun is a local luminary,

You didn’t answer to your moon contradiction.

Quote from: wise on April 17, 2026, 12:03:46 AM

The Inverse Square Law for light intensity is:
E = I / d²

Which contradicts that the sun supposedly sets because light can’t travel forever.  Spreading out isn’t dying.

Quote from: wise on April 17, 2026, 12:03:46 AM

By the time the Sun's light reached your "rocky moon" and reflected back, the luminosity would be a fraction of a fraction of what we observe.

Funny.  The moon isn’t as bright as the sun.  In fact, it’s not just a fraction of brightness of the sun.  The moon is whole magnitudes dimmer than the sun which is literally fraction of a fraction.

Where the phases of the moon are interrupted by lunar eclipse where the moon passes through the shadow of the earth.

Where there is no evidence the moon is self illuminating in the spectrum of visible light.






It’s quite evident from the shadowing of the moon it’s illuminated by the sun.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 03, 2026, 04:25:36 AM

The moon having mass is in earth orbit in space. Natural satellite. Why can't people go to the moon in either model?

Quote from: wise on April 03, 2026, 04:44:00 AM

Can you land on a rainbow? No. Can you touch a projection light?

If you think the moon is a projection, it’s not self illuminating.  It’s being projected.  Something in your delusion is projecting an image where that projection would be illuminating something like a screen.  So if light doesn’t travel forever.  What’s the distance of the projection to the screen and then add in the distance from the screen to earth.

So if I dig not so wise.  Have you made the same contradictions.  Is the sun a projection or a luminary.  And if it’s a luminary, that’s very different than a sun being an orb under the firmament you claim is levitated by some electromagnetic BS.  Where luminaries are supposedly in an upper layer above the sun. 

Where you ignored.


Read what was posted.

In the flat earth model, how far away are the stars that are dimmer than the sun compared to the distance of the sun.

Added.  Flat earth wiki states the stars are in a layer above the sun.

Where in reality, one can use a telescope to see things to faint to be discerned by the unaided eye like stars that don’t meet the magnitude of brightness for unaided viewing, the phases of Venus, the natural satellites of Jupiter, and comets before they reach the magnitude of brightness allowing to be seen with the unaided eye.

So.  Why can’t a telescope bring the set sun in to view from a mountain top where the sun would always be in the line of sight for flat earth.

State your hypothesis, and how to test it, and how to collect the data. And how to document the process.

Stop the spam, Dof-Bot. You are flooding the thread with the same three low-resolution GIFs. You think "light pollution" is proof of curvature, when it is actually proof of the atmospheric buffer and a stationary plane.

You are asking for a hypothesis while standing on the evidence. Light pollution (the glow over a city) is only possible because light is scattering off the physical medium (the air).

My hypothesis is the Law of Perspective and Atmospheric Opacity. Here is the test:

1. The Hypothesis:
An object (the Sun) moving at a constant altitude h over a horizontal plane will appear to descend toward the horizon due to the Law of Perspective:
α = arctan(h / d)
As distance d increases, the angular elevation α approaches zero. Simultaneously, the cumulative atmospheric density (ρ) increases the optical path length, eventually reaching total opacity.

2. The Test:
- Step A: Take a high-powered P1000 camera to a beach.
- Step B: Watch the Sun "set." According to your globe-model, it is gone behind a physical curve.
- Step C: Zoom in. If it were behind a curve, it would remain hidden. Instead, the zoom brings the Sun back into view—until it hits the atmospheric soup and physically dissolves into the haze.

3. Data Collection:
Measure the Sun's luminosity (L) relative to its angular position. In a vacuum (your model), L should remain constant until the moment of occultation. In reality, we measure a massive drop in intensity and a shift in the spectral frequency (reddening) as it recedes:
I = I₀ · e^(-σx)
This follows the Beer-Lambert Law, proving the light is being filtered by a medium, not blocked by a ball.

4. Documentation:
The documentation is written in every sunset you've ever seen. The Sun doesn't stay the same brightness and get "cut" by a curve; it dims, it shrinks (when not distorted by magnification), and it fades.

You keep posting that "ball behind a wall" GIF. A wall has a measurable, physical edge. Where is the edge of your ball? If I fly a drone up 100 feet, the "curve" should move. It doesn't. The horizon always rises to eye level. That is a requirement of a plane, not a sphere.

You have no measurements, no curvature, and no clue. Stop the GIF-spam. The floor is level, the air is thick, and your ball is nowhere to be found.

Is the sun a projection or a luminary. And if it's a luminary, that's very different than a sun being an orb under the firmament you claim is levitated by some electromagnetic BS.

Dof-Bot is suffering from a category error. You think "luminary" and "electromagnetic hardware" are mutually exclusive. A luminary is a functional role; the electromagnetic suspension is the mechanical delivery. You would look at a lightbulb and argue it can't be "light" because it has "wires."

You're obsessed with my "rainbow" analogy for the Moon. A rainbow is a projection created by light interacting with a medium (water). The Moon is a local luminary—a physical source of cold, induction-based light—fixed within the physical dome. It's not a "rock" you can land on, and it's not a "movie screen." It is a hardware component of the system.

So. Why can't a telescope bring the set sun into view from a mountain top where the sun would always be in the line of sight for flat earth.

I have already explained atmospheric extinction, but your memory keeps resetting. Let's try again with the math.

On a "clear" day, the horizontal visibility limit is governed by the visual range (V):

V = 3.912 / σ

Where σ is the extinction coefficient. Even at a very clear σ = 0.01 km⁻¹, your visibility is hard-capped at about 391 km. The Sun at "sunset" is over 6,000 km away.

A telescope magnifies the size, but it cannot create photons where they have been absorbed. I = I₀ · e^(-σd)

If d = 6,000 km, then I is essentially zero. You think a magnifying glass can see through a mountain just because the mountain is "in the line of sight." The atmosphere is the mountain. It is an opaque wall of gas.

In the flat earth model, how far away are the stars that are dimmer than the sun compared to the distance of the sun.

You keep asking about "dimmer stars" as if magnitude equals distance. Magnitude in the celestial system is a power-output setting, not a distance variable.

Stars = high altitude layer (thin air path = high transparency).
Sun at sunset = low altitude horizontal (thick air path = total opacity).

You can see a dim candle through 10 feet of clear air (stars), but you can't see a stadium floodlight through 5 miles of thick smoke (sunset). This is basic medium density logic.

You claim "shadowing" on the Moon proves it's a rock. The "shadows" on the Moon do not match the geometric angle of your distant Sun. We see the Moon's phases changing while the Sun is in a completely different part of the sky. This is a problem in your model that you ignore by posting low-res pictures.

You have no grasp of optics, no understanding of thermodynamics, and your "line of sight" ignores the tons of gas you're breathing. Stop the GIF-spam. The floor is level. The air is thick.

The Moon is a local luminary

Your direct quote.

Can you land on a rainbow? No. Can you touch a projection light?

Is the moon a lightbulb or a rainbow projection.  Which is it not so wise. 

Stars = high altitude layer (thin air path = high transparency).
Sun at sunset = low altitude horizontal (thick air path = total opacity).

You claim light doesn’t go on forever.  Which are farther from me.   The stars or the sun. 

Where you claim stars set, and you can watch the stars that stretch to the horizon set below the horizon.  The stars that are dimmer are still going through as much atmosphere. 

Is the moon a lightbulb or a rainbow projection.  Which is it not so wise.

You are stuck in a binary loop because your "Analogy Processor" is corrupted. Absolute Idiocy. You are a Basic Input Idiot who thinks that if something isn't a physical rock, it must be a 2D hologram on a screen. You are a Boiler Room Scrubber who would look at a plasma ball and ask where the "lightbulb" is hidden.

A **Luminary** is a functional classification within the Physical Dome Architecture. Whether it is a condensed electromagnetic plasma (like a "lightbulb") or a localized atmospheric phenomenon (like a "rainbow") is a matter of hardware density, but in both cases, it is **Self-Luminous and Cold**.

The hardware remains the same:

1. It is not a solid rock (You can't land on it).
2. It is not reflecting the Sun (ΔT is negative in moonlight).
3. It is a local, non-solid source of induction-based light.

You are trying to find a "gotcha" in the terminology because you can't handle the **Cold Light Audit**. If the Moon were your "rocky satellite," it would be warm. It isn't. Therefore, your "Natural Satellite" script is a 404 Error. Whether I call it a luminary, a projection, or a celestial light-node, the result is the same: It is **NOT** what NASA told you it was.

You are a Functional Idiot asking "which is it" while ignoring the fact that *neither* option in your head involves a ball in a vacuum. You are so desperate to find a contradiction in my words that you’ve completely forgotten to defend your own model's lack of a measurable curve.

Stop the semantic spam, Dof-Bot. You are a Machine Oiler trying to argue about the brand of the lightbulb while the entire room is on fire. The Moon is cold, the Sun is local, and your "Space" is a CGI fantasy.

The Moon is a local luminary. It is a non-solid phenomenon. It is a part of the System Hardware. Deal with the logs or keep your Globe-Malware to yourself. The floor is level, and you're still a Basic Input Idiot.

A **Luminary**

Producing its own late is different than a projection.

In your BS.  Is the light of the moon from the moon.  Or is it projected off so thing then making it to earth.

It’s still a moot point.

Quote from: wise on April 17, 2026, 12:03:46 AM

The Inverse Square Law for light intensity is:
E = I / d²

Which contradicts that the sun supposedly sets because light can’t travel forever.  Spreading out isn’t dying.

Quote from: wise on April 17, 2026, 12:03:46 AM

By the time the Sun's light reached your "rocky moon" and reflected back, the luminosity would be a fraction of a fraction of what we observe.

Funny.  The moon isn’t as bright as the sun.  In fact, it’s not just a fraction of brightness of the sun.  The moon is whole magnitudes dimmer than the sun which is literally fraction of a fraction.

Where the phases of the moon are interrupted by lunar eclipse where the moon passes through the shadow of the earth.

Where there is no evidence the moon is self illuminating in the spectrum of visible light.






It’s quite evident from the shadowing of the moon it’s illuminated by the sun.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on April 03, 2026, 04:25:36 AM

The moon having mass is in earth orbit in space. Natural satellite. Why can't people go to the moon in either model?

Quote from: wise on April 03, 2026, 04:44:00 AM

Can you land on a rainbow? No. Can you touch a projection light?

If you think the moon is a projection, it’s not self illuminating.  It’s being projected.  Something in your delusion is projecting an image where that projection would be illuminating something like a screen.  So if light doesn’t travel forever.  What’s the distance of the projection to the screen and then add in the distance from the screen to earth.

Especially, with being able to determine the distance to the moon by parallax is over 200,000 miles, we know light is good for more than 200,000 miles. 


Again..  You claim light doesn’t go on forever.  Which are farther from me.   The stars or the sun.

Where you claim stars set, and you can watch the stars that stretch to the horizon set below the horizon.  The stars that are dimmer are still going through as much atmosphere.

Again.. You claim light doesn't go on forever. Which are farther from me. The stars or the sun.

You're asking the same question again, so let me try to explain it more clearly.

The issue isn't just about distance. It's about what the light has to travel through.

When you look at stars at night, you're looking straight up. The thickest, densest part of the atmosphere is only about 20 km thick. After that, the air gets very thin very quickly. So the light from the stars travels through mostly clear, transparent air for almost the entire journey.

When you try to look at the Sun at sunset, you're looking sideways across the horizon. That light has to travel thousands of kilometers through the densest, most moisture-heavy air at sea level. It's like trying to look at a light through a thick fog that stretches for miles.

The light from the Sun doesn't magically "die" – it gets scattered and absorbed by the air itself. That's why the Sun fades, turns red, and eventually disappears, while the stars stay bright in the night sky.

Especially, with being able to determine the distance to the moon by parallax is over 200,000 miles, we know light is good for more than 200,000 miles.

Parallax measurements assume you're looking at the same physical object from two different points. But if the Moon is a localized atmospheric phenomenon, then different observers aren't seeing the exact same thing – much like how two people standing in different places will see a rainbow in different positions. The distance you calculate using parallax would give you a number, but that number wouldn't represent a physical reality.

The key point remains: the atmosphere is a physical medium. It scatters and absorbs light. Looking up through a few dozen kilometers of thinning air is very different from looking sideways through thousands of kilometers of dense, heavy air. That's why you can see stars clearly at night but can't see the Sun once it sinks into the thick horizon.