How many atmospheres of pressure in a clear tank to replicate FE sunset

I was thinking of depressurization tanks used to keep divers from getting the bends.  And how they often have clear viewing ports into the tank.

And then thought about all the FE innuendo that supposedly makes the sun set in their model.  But I also know where I live, when the sun raises it’s about 5000 miles away where it is directly overhead in Africa. 


So.  If I can see the sun while it’s directly overhead Africa which is 5000 miles away.  How much atmospheres would you have to press up a pressure tank with viewing windows to simulate a flat earth sunset. 

Where RE explains how you can get a clear view to the sun despite thousands of miles of weather patterns.  The clouds for Africa for round earth might be above Africa but can be relatively below me in North America.




Where on FE.  What would the odds be for getting a clear view of the sun when it’s directly overhead Africa 5,000 miles away. 

Where on FE. What would the odds be for getting a clear view of the sun when it’s directly overhead Africa 5,000 miles away.

Markdof, watching you try to use a "depressurization tank" as an analogy for the entire aetheric medium is painful. You’re trying to debug a complex optical system with a child’s drawing and some diver's lore. It’s like watching someone try to explain a GPU’s ray-tracing capabilities using a broken flashlight.

You ask what the "odds" are of seeing the sun from 5,000 miles away on a flat plane. You’re assuming the atmosphere is a uniform, static wall of "fog," but that’s not how the hardware works. The atmosphere is a pressurized dielectric medium with a vertical density gradient. When the sun is 5,000 miles away, your line of sight isn't passing through a horizontal "tank"; it’s passing through different refractive layers of the aether.

Your "Round Earth" diagram tries to hide the fact that your model requires light to travel through the same thousands of miles of "weather patterns" you’re complaining about. You claim you have a "clear view" because the clouds are "below you," but you’re still looking through the same cumulative mass of gas. You’re using a software patch to ignore the extinction of light in your own model.

In the real hardware logs, the sun is visible from 5,000 miles away because the aetheric substrate has a specific characteristic impedance (377 ohms) and a refractive index that changes with altitude. The light follows the path of least resistance through the less dense upper layers before it reaches the Fresnel limit at your specific coordinate. When the sun "sets," it hasn't gone behind a curve; it has simply moved into a region where the cumulative impedance of the medium has scattered the signal to zero.

And that drawing? Seriously? You’re trying to argue against a stationary plane using a MS Paint sketch that doesn't even account for perspective or angular resolution. You’re a machine oiler trying to fix a leak with a crayon.

If you want to talk about "odds," tell me the odds of a gas pressure system existing without a container. Tell me the odds of "gravity" holding down a pressurized atmosphere next to a vacuum without a physical barrier. You can't, because your model is a collection of 404 errors held together by "ball" memes.

Stop the divers' tank analogies, Markdof. You’re out of your depth. Reset your parameters and try to address the actual dielectric properties of the medium.

Markdof,

And yet raising the pressure in a hyperbaric tank doesn’t even dim light from simple lightbulbs.

lol.

So not so wise.  You can’t produce evidence or an experiment where the atmosphere blocks the light the way you need it.  Where much dimmer stars at night travel similar paths as the daytime sun, and yet get cut off and set at the same point on a clear night because it’s the curvature of the earth that physically blocks the setting stars and sun from view.

FE is stupid. 

 You’re assuming the atmosphere is a uniform, static wall of "fog,"

What do you mean by “static”?

Must be if it supposedly creates the perfect amount of atmospheric lensing to produce a perfect amount to keep the sun the same apparent size for the human eye hour by hour, day by day, season by season.  So your atmosphere has to produce the same static conditions day for day over years. Oh.  Look.  Wise contradicted themselves again. 

Added more context.  Remember not so wise, you claimed your BS makes light act different east to west vs north to south. Why bendy light supposedly doesn’t make the sun set if far enough north or south for your delusion. But somehow still has the same amount of atmospheric lensing east to west vs north to south to keep the sun the same apparent size to the human eye for all locations. 

lol.  FE just a hot mess of contradictions. 

And again…

Where much dimmer stars at night travel similar paths as the daytime sun, and yet get cut off and set at the same point on a clear night because it’s the curvature of the earth that physically blocks the setting stars and sun from view.


FE is stupid. 

Watch wise reply with some BS spouting about the aether, as he keeps adding unfalsifiable properties to it as a kid imagines.

Watch wise reply with some BS spouting about the aether, as he keeps adding unfalsifiable properties to it as a kid imagines.

So the proffesionality you accept is in the below, isin't it?

And yet raising the pressure in a hyperbaric tank doesn’t even dim light from simple lightbulbs.

MarkTimeDataOver, your "hyperbaric tank" analogy is a low-resolution test that doesn't even begin to stress the system's hardware. You’re comparing a 2-meter tank to 5,000 miles of Horizontal Aetheric Medium. In your tank, the light travels through a uniform, localized pressure. In the real world, a signal from the Sun traveling toward the horizon is traversing a Cumulative Dielectric Gradient.

Even in your own Globe-OS textbooks, you acknowledge "extinction" and "scattering." If you increase the distance of your hyperbaric tank to just 50 miles of pressurized air, the Signal Attenuation would be massive. You can't use a "desk-lamp" experiment to debunk the Extinction Coefficient of a thousands-of-miles-long aetheric path. It’s a classic scaling error.

1. The Constant Apparent Size Mirage

You claim the Sun stays the same size, so the "lensing" must be static. Wrong. The Sun’s apparent size is a balance between Perspective Recession (which makes things look smaller) and Atmospheric Magnification (which makes things look larger).

As the Sun moves away, the dense lower layers of the aetheric substrate act as a Magnifying Lens. This isn't a "perfect static condition"; it’s a Dynamic Hardware Balancing Act. On some days, when the humidity and dielectric tension are high, you see a massive "Sun Dog" or an enlarged Sun at the horizon. On dry, clear days, the Sun actually does appear to shrink before it hits the extinction limit. You’re ignoring the Sensor Logs that don't fit your ball-script.

2. The East-West vs. North-South Conflict

You think it’s a "contradiction" that light acts differently in different directions. But the Earth is a Toroidal System. The Aetheric Flux moves in a specific circular pattern. Light traveling with or against the flux (East-West) interacts with the Substrate Velocity differently than light traveling across the radial lines (North-South).

This Anisotropy is why you can see stars "set" at the same point. They are all being funneled into the same Visual Convergence Zone created by the toroidal lens. It’s not "curvature" blocking them; it’s the Limit of the Perspective Grid within a refractive medium. Whether it’s a dim star or a bright Sun, when the signal hits the Fresnel Limit of the ground-substrate, the "rendering" of that object stops for your specific coordinates.

3. The Dim Star "Gotcha"

You keep repeating that dimmer stars set at the same point. This actually disproves your globe. If the Earth were a physical ball, the "horizon" would be a fixed geometric edge. But the horizon changes altitude based on the quality of the air and the strength of the light source.

In a high-gain environment (clear night), your eyes can pick up the star-signal longer because the Noise Floor (scattered sunlight) is gone. They "set" at the same point because that point is the Optical Vanishing Point of the localized aetheric dome, not a physical curve. If it were a curve, you could never "bring the Sun back" with a telescope after it sets—yet with enough Optical Gain and altitude, you can.

Your "ball" is just a software overlay used to explain away Perspective and Refraction. FE isn't "stupid," MarkisDown; it’s just unfiltered hardware auditing. You’re just mad that the real world doesn't fit into your hyperbaric tank.