NASA and Facebook tricked you

[Rens]

You defended their CGI video saying it was an exposure issue. In other words, you took their word that what you were seeing was true and then when it was questioned by me you came up with an excuse about exposure that doesn't hold up. You also defended the idea that clouds across the entire earth don't move at all over a 6 hour period or so.

Yes, you trust them, or you did when you wrote those statements.

As far as making a difference to your life - you wouldn't know this until (and if) you actually become a believer. Go read Genesis 1. Do you believe it? Is there a firmament and water above us as it says? Or is this a lie?




True, I've seen different shapes in the clouds too. Difference is - what you are seeing is "SEX" spelled out in clouds over a very large area.

Do you also believe that the North and South American continents are largely covered by water as the picture shows?

The firmament was broken with the flood and now we have the ozon layer. My geography teacher told me. They say it's nonsense. I still believe it though.

 

[tango]

Tango, with regards to your last sentence, I have linked for you and anyone else who reads this thread a link to an ENTIRE BOOK containing 200 proofs that can be downloaded FOR FREE. That is IN ADDITION to the various videos posted. Have enough respect not to mischaracterize the position as "lacking in explanation"

With respect Strav, linking a 200 page book doesn't offer a whole lot of value over and above inviting me to do a Google search for something. How about explaining individual points rather than referring back to books and videos?

Have you even read the book provided? Have you looked at the videos provided? With all due respect - one has to look at evidence before one can refute it. You keep towing the excuse of the "generally accepted theory". And once again - I'm going to point out that this is nothing but a logical fallacy - Argumentem Ad Populum. Sorry - herd mentallity is not a logical or intellectual position to take with relation to any position.

I'm not saying anything is true merely because it's generally accepted so there's no logical fallacy there at all, I'm merely presenting the "generally accepted theory" with that name because it's, well, the generally accepted theory. I'm not making any claim that it's right because it's generally accepted, merely using a name to refer to it.

Are you intentionally being daft? Most of the internet is in English - it has become very much the universal language. While there are some pages and videos that are in other languages - the majority of it is in English. So it makes the most sense to print out a message in English that really can only be see if one takes an analytical look. If it spelled something else I probably wouldn't mention it or see it as much of anything besides an oddity. At this point I have to ask you if you are being intentionally daft again. Surely you are aware that SEX and Sexual imagery is used as a mass marketing tool to sell all kinds of products? Or is this news to you?

I really don't see any connection here. If you want to market something using sex you use a half naked woman draped across your product, a muscular bare-chested man using your product, or some such (if your marketing department dislikes such cliches you may be a little more subtle, but I'm sure you get the drift). You don't tuck the word "sex" in a somewhat distorted font in a dark corner somewhere and call it clever marketing. Can you explain why you think that clouds that kinda-sorta-spell out the word "sex" is a marketing exercise?

So you are arguing that because of shadows and diffraction this accounts for vast sections of continents being under water. Your comparison isn't even apples to oranges. You can't explain it, it just "seems right" because it's some excuse. But hey! You might be right! Maybe when that photo of the earth was taken from that satellite someone stepped into the shadow of the sun and it made the oceans seem to spread out all over the continents! Yay! What a relief I couldn't possibly consider this lame theory that NASA lied! Star Wars, Star Trek, Sci-fi entertainment - welcome back!

I'm merely saying that you can't draw too much of a conclusion from one picture that doesn't look right. If you'd seen the first picture I mentioned you might believe my assertion that I had a cat with two tails. You know, the camera doesn't lie and all that (especially since this was before digital cameras, and I had both a print and a negative). If you saw the second picture you'd be forgiven for thinking that a UFO had flown through the woods (that was digital, so you might have wondered whether it was a Photoshop job). So the fact one picture shows something we might not expect doesn't mean that an entire world view is false, it could mean that the picture is faked and it could also mean that something about the conditions were such that it looked unexpected.

Since using the round earth theory requires something relatively believable (some atmospheric conditions creating an unexpected effect in a single picture) and the flat earth theory requires something far less believable (untold thousands of people spending billions of dollars on a huge coverup, yet simultaneously lacking the resources to stop things like this from being posted on their web site) it would be good to provide something a little more than "this picture looks wrong, therefore you're believing a lie because it just seems right".

Hold on a minute. You believe the earth is a globe spinning around the Sun. Since you believe the Sun to be a very large body in relation to the Earth then it follows that all the Sun's rays will hit the earth in a parallel manner and that only clouds could possibly account for those pesky slanted "crepuscular rays". So it also follows that on the spinning globe model where the light of day is accounted for by the Earth spinning INTO the Sun's rays - it should also follow that there is no sunlight PRIOR to that line of sunlight being reached. I'm not talking about seeing a line of light in the distance somewhere, I'm saying that in our experience light appears AROUND US in gradual degrees BEFORE the sun show's it's face above the horizon. This can't be argued with diffraction. The model you accept has light being instant upon sunrise and instantly extinguished upon sunset. That is what the Globe model says, Tango - like it or not. And like it or not - that is not what we see at first light before sunrise or last light after sunset.

I'm not sure what you're saying here actually makes much sense, but let's roll with it anyway and see if you can explain why it happens using a flat earth model. For bonus marks post some descriptive text rather than a link to a 200 page book and a promise that it's in there somewhere.

 

[Stravinsk]

With respect Strav, linking a 200 page book doesn't offer a whole lot of value over and above inviting me to do a Google search for something. How about explaining individual points rather than referring back to books and videos?

I have been doing that this whole thread with various posters, including you. You keep offering unbelievable excuses for why things don't look right on NASA pictures and video. Now in this quote is the implication that I haven't been going point by point. Lie much? Which points am I missing? Oh wait - next you'll tell me that a bug in space clouded the camera on the satellite and that this accounts for vast oceans spreading across continents and then accuse me of not countering this "point".

I'm not saying anything is true merely because it's generally accepted so there's no logical fallacy there at all, I'm merely presenting the "generally accepted theory" with that name because it's, well, the generally accepted theory. I'm not making any claim that it's right because it's generally accepted, merely using a name to refer to it.

No, you have been using it as an appeal in various points. Please stop lying.

I really don't see any connection here. If you want to market something using sex you use a half naked woman draped across your product, a muscular bare-chested man using your product, or some such (if your marketing department dislikes such cliches you may be a little more subtle, but I'm sure you get the drift). You don't tuck the word "sex" in a somewhat distorted font in a dark corner somewhere and call it clever marketing. Can you explain why you think that clouds that kinda-sorta-spell out the word "sex" is a marketing exercise?

1. I've already explained it in previous posts.
2. Your ideas of marketing products via sexual words and imagery leaves out subliminal techniques. Either you have never been presented with the idea or you are ignoring it because it doesn't jive with your worldview.

I'm merely saying that you can't draw too much of a conclusion from one picture that doesn't look right. If you'd seen the first picture I mentioned you might believe my assertion that I had a cat with two tails. You know, the camera doesn't lie and all that (especially since this was before digital cameras, and I had both a print and a negative). If you saw the second picture you'd be forgiven for thinking that a UFO had flown through the woods (that was digital, so you might have wondered whether it was a Photoshop job). So the fact one picture shows something we might not expect doesn't mean that an entire world view is false, it could mean that the picture is faked and it could also mean that something about the conditions were such that it looked unexpected.

Since using the round earth theory requires something relatively believable (some atmospheric conditions creating an unexpected effect in a single picture) and the flat earth theory requires something far less believable (untold thousands of people spending billions of dollars on a huge coverup, yet simultaneously lacking the resources to stop things like this from being posted on their web site) it would be good to provide something a little more than "this picture looks wrong, therefore you're believing a lie because it just seems right".

See Tango, here you go again. Now I'm calling you out. Your second paragraph is a blatant appeal to popular opinion - which is a logical fallacy. You are not simply "naming it" or casually referring to it - you're using it to say flat earth is "unbelievable".

With regards to your pictures, which I haven't seen but I can accept the general idea that sometimes there are abberations that might account for shadows producing an extra cat tail or a foreign object that looks like something but is just a trick of camera light or maybe a smudge on the lens.

However - I'm talking about a photo from a satellite out in space where there are no atmospheric interferences that could possibly account for not just one trick of shadow or a foreign object - but whole sections of continents having oceans covering them. You would have never questioned the photo in the first place had I not brought it up - now you keep throwing out excuses for why it doesn't look right. That's how bad you want to believe.

It doesn't look right because it isn't. It's a painting and it's a falsehood. The video of the dark side of the moon is a CGI falsehood. They are false because NASA doesn't HAVE any real shots of the earth from space.

I'm not sure what you're saying here actually makes much sense, but let's roll with it anyway and see if you can explain why it happens using a flat earth model. For bonus marks post some descriptive text rather than a link to a 200 page book and a promise that it's in there somewhere.

Bonus marks? I've been going point by point with various posters in this thread and here you go again pretending like I haven't with these quips.

What I'm saying doesn't make sense to you because you're not seeing the logical contradictions. So I'll break it down:

1. Globe model - The Sun is very large and very far away. All light that the earth receives should be parallel forming a line across a Globe. This is also known as the "terminator line". Here's a graphic representation:

2. Flat earth model - The Sun is smaller and closer to us - it is much smaller than the earth itself and circles above us illuminating locally. When it rises or sets, what we see is it disappearing from our line of view, much like "boats over the horizon", and not because of a curved surface. Also like boats over the horizon - simply zooming in with a camera can bring the sun back into view because it is not going over a curve, just like the boats are not going over a curve when they disappear from view.

Light -

When we arise to watch sunrise before it happens the first thing that becomes apparent to us is that light starts to illuminate our surroundings BEFORE the sun peaks over the horizon. We DO NOT see a wall of light illuminating distant earth gradually getting closer (the terminator line) - no - we do not see that. "First light" is not looking into the distance and seeing land in the distance illuminated while we are in complete darkness. No "first light" means that our surroundings are being lit, slowly, gradually, even before the Sun shows itself over the horizon. The reason we cannot see the Sun yet but can experience it's light around us is because while the Sun is still too far away to be seen, it's light travels much farther and starts to illuminate our surrounding before the source itself becomes visible.

The point that the light of a sunrise (before the sun peaks over the horizon) is gradual or that the fading light in a sunset (after the sun disappears over the horizon) is gradual is important. This is the reality that anyone can see every day of the week observing a twilight.

Now look at the globe model. Remember that on the Globe model all the Sun's rays are parallel because of the size and distance of the sun. They shoot straight down to Earth on that model. Therefore it doesn't allow for gradual local lighting. The rays are parallel, not spread out on that model. If that model was true, one should be able to look out into the distance and see the terminator line approach - illuminating distant land in a line without the observer being illuminated. One should experience complete darkness to complete sunlight with no or extremely little gradual illumination.

 

[JSales]

If it's all fake then what's the point of NASA and the employees of 18,000 who work there? Why would they need to cover up for over 50 years bro?

 

[Stravinsk]

If it's all fake then what's the point of NASA and the employees of 18,000 who work there? Why would they need to cover up for over 50 years bro?

Post #67 in this thread (page 7). The video sums it up nicely as to the reason "why".

 

[tango]

I have been doing that this whole thread with various posters, including you. You keep offering unbelievable excuses for why things don't look right on NASA pictures and video. Now in this quote is the implication that I haven't been going point by point. Lie much? Which points am I missing? Oh wait - next you'll tell me that a bug in space clouded the camera on the satellite and that this accounts for vast oceans spreading across continents and then accuse me of not countering this "point".

I'm speculating as to what could have caused images to have things on them that appear unexpected. Not having been there to take the picture I can't say for sure what was going on there, but I wouldn't totally change my worldview on the back of a couple of pictures that may represent something totally different but may equally be caused by perfectly natural phenomena (e.g. my cat with two tails photograph, or my UFO hovering in the woods photograph)

No, you have been using it as an appeal in various points. Please stop lying.

I'm not lying at all, I'm merely trying to figure out what form of words you expect me to use to describe the model that is accepted by the majority of people. Whether it's accurate or not isn't the point here, I'm looking for some brief form of words to differentiate between the generally accepted theory of a round earth orbiting a large sun, and your theory of a flat earth and a small sun, without having to use tediously long phrases at every turn. I'm actually trying to be careful to describe things without attributing relative merit to them, yet despite at least attempting to understand your worldview all I seem to get in return is insults and accusations. Frankly it's not worth my while even looking at something if all I'm going to get is grief for using a form of words you happen to dislike, and attempting to consider both sides of something.

1. I've already explained it in previous posts.
2. Your ideas of marketing products via sexual words and imagery leaves out subliminal techniques. Either you have never been presented with the idea or you are ignoring it because it doesn't jive with your worldview.

So what is the value, even considering subliminal techniques (for the record I wrote a mini-thesis on subliminal perception back in the day, so it's not a novel concept to me), of hiding a bunch of clouds that kinda-sorta-look like the word "sex" in the clouds in a picture on a space agency's web site? Given the marketing value of a scantily clad young woman draped across a sports car, or a well-built man removing his shirt while drinking a Diet Coke, why bother with merely hiding the word "sex" in the clouds in an obscure photo?

See Tango, here you go again. Now I'm calling you out. Your second paragraph is a blatant appeal to popular opinion - which is a logical fallacy. You are not simply "naming it" or casually referring to it - you're using it to say flat earth is "unbelievable".

I'm not saying "unbelievable" at all, if you read my text I say "far less believable". You're making a huge claim and I'm merely inviting you to back it up with huge evidence. If you want to make the case that my entire worldview is totally and fundamentally wrong go right ahead but don't expect me to simply download and read a long book, or change my worldview based on a couple of pictures. Likewise you need a lot more than telling me that I somehow can't see it because I'm brainwashed or programmed or whatever else. Many people I know struggle with me because I am a free thinker and do consider all sorts of improbable scenarios and their possible implications, and many people struggle with following my trains of thought.

With regards to your pictures, which I haven't seen but I can accept the general idea that sometimes there are abberations that might account for shadows producing an extra cat tail or a foreign object that looks like something but is just a trick of camera light or maybe a smudge on the lens.

However - I'm talking about a photo from a satellite out in space where there are no atmospheric interferences that could possibly account for not just one trick of shadow or a foreign object - but whole sections of continents having oceans covering them. You would have never questioned the photo in the first place had I not brought it up - now you keep throwing out excuses for why it doesn't look right. That's how bad you want to believe.

My point is that sometimes situations represented in picture aren't as they appear. That's all, no great conspiracy, just an observation that what appears to be recorded on film might look different to what you see with your eyes. But thanks for assuming motives for not blindly accepting your words. It's ironic, given you comment about me blindly accepting what I've been told without question but don't seem to like me questioning the alternative you're proposing.

 

[tango]

It doesn't look right because it isn't. It's a painting and it's a falsehood. The video of the dark side of the moon is a CGI falsehood. They are false because NASA doesn't HAVE any real shots of the earth from space.

Here all you're doing is supporting your allegation by restating it. This is little more than "it's false because, well, it's false". But given what you've been saying about subliminal messaging it is interesting to note that the lunar rocks don't appear to spell out the word "sex" or indeed any other word.

Bonus marks? I've been going point by point with various posters in this thread and here you go again pretending like I haven't with these quips.

What I'm saying doesn't make sense to you because you're not seeing the logical contradictions. So I'll break it down:

1. Globe model - The Sun is very large and very far away. All light that the earth receives should be parallel forming a line across a Globe. This is also known as the "terminator line". Here's a graphic representation:

2. Flat earth model - The Sun is smaller and closer to us - it is much smaller than the earth itself and circles above us illuminating locally. When it rises or sets, what we see is it disappearing from our line of view, much like "boats over the horizon", and not because of a curved surface. Also like boats over the horizon - simply zooming in with a camera can bring the sun back into view because it is not going over a curve, just like the boats are not going over a curve when they disappear from view.

Light -

When we arise to watch sunrise before it happens the first thing that becomes apparent to us is that light starts to illuminate our surroundings BEFORE the sun peaks over the horizon. We DO NOT see a wall of light illuminating distant earth gradually getting closer (the terminator line) - no - we do not see that. "First light" is not looking into the distance and seeing land in the distance illuminated while we are in complete darkness. No "first light" means that our surroundings are being lit, slowly, gradually, even before the Sun shows itself over the horizon. The reason we cannot see the Sun yet but can experience it's light around us is because while the Sun is still too far away to be seen, it's light travels much farther and starts to illuminate our surrounding before the source itself becomes visible.

The point that the light of a sunrise (before the sun peaks over the horizon) is gradual or that the fading light in a sunset (after the sun disappears over the horizon) is gradual is important. This is the reality that anyone can see every day of the week observing a twilight.

Now look at the globe model. Remember that on the Globe model all the Sun's rays are parallel because of the size and distance of the sun. They shoot straight down to Earth on that model. Therefore it doesn't allow for gradual local lighting. The rays are parallel, not spread out on that model. If that model was true, one should be able to look out into the distance and see the terminator line approach - illuminating distant land in a line without the observer being illuminated. One should experience complete darkness to complete sunlight with no or extremely little gradual illumination.

OK, so in your flat earth model when the sun appears to set (i.e. it goes below the horizon), what are you saying it has actually done? Given I can see it get lower and lower before disappearing below the horizon before the light starts to fade (and the way clouds are often illuminated from beneath indicates that the sun is still there, albeit no longer visible), where are you saying the sun went? If the sun is small and circles above a flat earth then unless I'm missing some part of what you're trying to say I'd expect it to appear to get smaller as it moved away, I'd expect it to fundamentally stay "up in the sky" as it withdrew, I wouldn't expect clouds to appear to be illuminated from below, and I'd expect the sun to appear to shrink as it set whereas if it changes at all it appears to grow larger as it sets (these are my own observations, not drawn from a book or a web site or anything else).

Your comment about zooming in with a camera doesn't work - when I've been out taking sunset pictures the sun disappears from view based on my naked eye and at that precise moment taking a picture with a 1000+mm lens doesn't bring it back into view at all. Given the naked eye has a field of view approximately comparable to a 50mm lens and my longest lens combination has a focal length of 1120mm that represents approximately a 22x magnification, so I'd have thought that would be enough to bring the sun back into view at least for a short time. Likewise when taking pictures of the sun rising there's no sense of it appearing in my long lens before I can see it with the naked eye, and it can clearly be seen to rise in that it apparently emerges from below the horizon. When it rises above the horizon it appears just as a disc would appear when emerging from behind a line - part of it becomes visible and over time the full disc becomes visible before rising into the sky. I'm not seeing how that is consistent with the model you are describing.

If the sun is small and circles above a flat earth wouldn't you still expect to see a line of light approaching as the sun approaches, and wouldn't you expect it to "rise" by simply coming into view at some elevation above the horizon rather than appearing at the horizon and slowly rising?

If you wanted to make a claim of a round sun rotating around a flat earth (i.e. being "underneath" it at some point) that would be consistent with observations of the sun rising and setting but wouldn't be consistent with any observations of it being nighttime in one area and daytime in another.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Spherical Earth people must be remarkably clever to arrange a world wide conspiracy that's lasted since 500 BC, before the time of Aristotle, until now and persuaded virtually everybody who has lived in nearly all of recorded history that the world is spherical.

 

[Stravinsk]

Spherical Earth people must be remarkably clever to arrange a world wide conspiracy that's lasted since 500 BC, before the time of Aristotle, until now and persuaded virtually everybody who has lived in nearly all of recorded history that the world is spherical.

Flat Earth vs Globe has been a debated topic all the way up to late 1800's. That is a fact.

You can say that nearly everyone "knew" the earth was a globe since 500BC, or since 1500 AD - but in making that statement you are making some huge assumptions about what people believed and ignoring evidence to the contrary. Your pope wouldn't have had to hire Copernicus to come up with an alternate system if "everyone knew", now would he?

It's also argument from popular (or perceived popular) opinion - which is a very large logical fallacy.

As for being remarkably clever - they are. Nowadays from your earliest childhood years you are told lies about where we live, you are told to distrust your own eyes and senses, and are plunged into the world of make believe science fiction for entertainment.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I must admit that flat earth folk are imaginative

 

[Stravinsk]

OK, so in your flat earth model when the sun appears to set (i.e. it goes below the horizon), what are you saying it has actually done? Given I can see it get lower and lower before disappearing below the horizon before the light starts to fade (and the way clouds are often illuminated from beneath indicates that the sun is still there, albeit no longer visible), where are you saying the sun went? If the sun is small and circles above a flat earth then unless I'm missing some part of what you're trying to say I'd expect it to appear to get smaller as it moved away, I'd expect it to fundamentally stay "up in the sky" as it withdrew, I wouldn't expect clouds to appear to be illuminated from below, and I'd expect the sun to appear to shrink as it set whereas if it changes at all it appears to grow larger as it sets (these are my own observations, not drawn from a book or a web site or anything else).

Your comment about zooming in with a camera doesn't work - when I've been out taking sunset pictures the sun disappears from view based on my naked eye and at that precise moment taking a picture with a 1000+mm lens doesn't bring it back into view at all. Given the naked eye has a field of view approximately comparable to a 50mm lens and my longest lens combination has a focal length of 1120mm that represents approximately a 22x magnification, so I'd have thought that would be enough to bring the sun back into view at least for a short time. Likewise when taking pictures of the sun rising there's no sense of it appearing in my long lens before I can see it with the naked eye, and it can clearly be seen to rise in that it apparently emerges from below the horizon. When it rises above the horizon it appears just as a disc would appear when emerging from behind a line - part of it becomes visible and over time the full disc becomes visible before rising into the sky. I'm not seeing how that is consistent with the model you are describing.

If the sun is small and circles above a flat earth wouldn't you still expect to see a line of light approaching as the sun approaches, and wouldn't you expect it to "rise" by simply coming into view at some elevation above the horizon rather than appearing at the horizon and slowly rising?

If you wanted to make a claim of a round sun rotating around a flat earth (i.e. being "underneath" it at some point) that would be consistent with observations of the sun rising and setting but wouldn't be consistent with any observations of it being nighttime in one area and daytime in another.

This is a fair argument and saying it's just a matter of perspective doesn't address the matter fully.

While boats do come back with zoom lens/binoculars over the horizon, the sun often doesn't (at least when I've looked through binoculars and zoomed with my camera in my area). On flat earth - yes - Sun is much smaller than heliocentric model - but it is still much larger than a boat and further away than a boat on the horizon.

How it appears to our eyes differs on climate and how much atmosphere (and the conditions of that atmosphere) we are looking through (or a camera is looking through). In very dry areas like desert regions the sun appears to get much smaller as it travels to then disappears over the horizon in a sunset than in areas where a lot more atmospheric humidity shows a sun much larger to our eyes disappearing over the horizon. In either case, be it dry or humid atmosphere - a sun that is as large and far away as the Heliocentric model says shouldn't appear to grow or shrink at all given one set of atmospheric condition - and more especially a drier one where the shrinkage is more prominent.

I noticed that you mentioned observing clouds that are lit from below even though the sun is out of your view at that point(sunset) - shouldn't this alone make you question how this occurs if the sun is a giant ball of fire 93 million miles away who's light is originating from a vantage point millions of miles above the clouds?

 

[tango]

This is a fair argument and saying it's just a matter of perspective doesn't address the matter fully.

While boats do come back with zoom lens/binoculars over the horizon, the sun often doesn't (at least when I've looked through binoculars and zoomed with my camera in my area). On flat earth - yes - Sun is much smaller than heliocentric model - but it is still much larger than a boat and further away than a boat on the horizon.

I can't say I've noticed things going over the horizon and tried to "bring them back" with a big lens. Maybe next time I'm at the shore I'll see if I can spot any boats and try it.

With regard to the suggested orbit of the sun in the flat earth model, are you saying that essentially the earth is a large flat disc and the sun follows a broadly circular orbit somewhere above the disc (i.e. the sun is always above the disc, and night time is caused by the sun being far enough away that the light doesn't reach us)?

How it appears to our eyes differs on climate and how much atmosphere (and the conditions of that atmosphere) we are looking through (or a camera is looking through). In very dry areas like desert regions the sun appears to get much smaller as it travels to then disappears over the horizon in a sunset than in areas where a lot more atmospheric humidity shows a sun much larger to our eyes disappearing over the horizon. In either case, be it dry or humid atmosphere - a sun that is as large and far away as the Heliocentric model says shouldn't appear to grow or shrink at all given one set of atmospheric condition - and more especially a drier one where the shrinkage is more prominent.

If it were a substantial difference I'd agree that it would have to be more than atmospheric distortion. In the flat earth model if the sun is moving relative to the earth I'd expect dawn to appear as light appearing, then the sun appearing as a pinprick of light before growing to full size, then fading away to a pinprick of light before the dark of nightfall took over. Instead we see the sun rising in the east (give or take a bit of north-south movement based on location and time of year), then move across the sky before setting in the west and disappearing below the horizon, all the while remaining more or less the same size in the sky.

On the other hand if the flat earth model required the earth to be a more or less flat disc with a sun that orbited the earth in the sense that for a time it was above the earth and for a time it was below the earth that would explain why it appears from below the horizon and disappears below the horizon but if that were true then every day there would be a time period where the entire earth was in darkness.

I noticed that you mentioned observing clouds that are lit from below even though the sun is out of your view at that point(sunset) - shouldn't this alone make you question how this occurs if the sun is a giant ball of fire 93 million miles away who's light is originating from a vantage point millions of miles above the clouds?

Mathematically speaking I don't think so. The sun dips beneath the horizon but the clouds, thousands of feet in the air, are still illuminated by the rays even though the rays don't reach me due to the sun being only just below the horizon. Given how quickly the clouds go from being lit from beneath in glorious reds and oranges to everything going dark I don't see an obvious problem with it, geometrically speaking.

 

[Stravinsk]

I can't say I've noticed things going over the horizon and tried to "bring them back" with a big lens. Maybe next time I'm at the shore I'll see if I can spot any boats and try it.

With regard to the suggested orbit of the sun in the flat earth model, are you saying that essentially the earth is a large flat disc and the sun follows a broadly circular orbit somewhere above the disc (i.e. the sun is always above the disc, and night time is caused by the sun being far enough away that the light doesn't reach us)?

It's a flat disc (obviously not perfectly as there are mountains and valleys) - and yes the sun rotates around us - not in a perfect circle - but in a spiral. For example - right now in January in the northern latitudes it is winter - but here in Australia it is summer. On flat earth model - the sun is cycling closer to the southern latitudes (the outer rim or circle) - and throughout the next 6 months will slowly cycle inward to the northern latitudes - and the northern parts will be in Summer, while we here in Australia, New Zealand etc will be in Winter.

And yes to your last question. Night and day are caused by the proximity of the sun, and the sun's light to any given location. The sun's light travels much further than the sun itself - and this is the reason we are slowly, gradually surrounded by more and more light before the sun peaks over the horizon to our eyes - and the reverse at sunset - after the sun disappears over the horizon from our vantage point - the light around us is still there - but gradually fades to darkness.

On the Globe model it doesn't fade gradually. It's immediate or near to immediate. But that isn't what we see watching first light before sunrise and last light after sunset. Tomorrow in the Melbourne area first light starts at 5:53am and Sunrise at 6:23am. That's 1/2 hour of gradually increasing light before sunrise.

If it were a substantial difference I'd agree that it would have to be more than atmospheric distortion. In the flat earth model if the sun is moving relative to the earth I'd expect dawn to appear as light appearing, then the sun appearing as a pinprick of light before growing to full size, then fading away to a pinprick of light before the dark of nightfall took over. Instead we see the sun rising in the east (give or take a bit of north-south movement based on location and time of year), then move across the sky before setting in the west and disappearing below the horizon, all the while remaining more or less the same size in the sky.

Read above or test it for yourself. Gradually increasing light around you before sunrise is exactly what you see, because that is the reality. Light appears first, before the sun peaks over the horizon, gradually increasing all around you for about 1/2 an hour. At sunset, the opposite. The sun sets, and light gradually recedes until it is completely gone 1/2 hour later.

It is apparent to me you have watched little I have provided in this thread. It does not matter. Test it for yourself - with your own eyes. Go out tomorrow or the next or the next about 45 minutes before sunrise(watch your surroundings gradually get lighted before sunrise) or just a few minutes before sunset( watch the light slowly diminish after the sun has set). Watch with your own eyes as the light gradually increases for about 1/2 hour before the sun peaks over the horizon - or as it gradually fades for 1/2 hour after sunset.

Your second point in the quoted material:

"Sun appearing the same size in the sky throughout the day" - again this is not true. I've already provided video proof in this thread. The sun size always changes - but how much is relative to the atmosphere conditions on the day. Here is about 30 seconds of time lapse footage showing this on a dry day:

If you still don't think you see the sun changing size then pause at 2 seconds and then compare that frame to the 20 second mark.

On the other hand if the flat earth model required the earth to be a more or less flat disc with a sun that orbited the earth in the sense that for a time it was above the earth and for a time it was below the earth that would explain why it appears from below the horizon and disappears below the horizon but if that were true then every day there would be a time period where the entire earth was in darkness.

The sun doesn't travel below the earth. The appearance of the Sun rising and Setting are a combination of your perspective and the atmospheric conditions on the day.

The street lamps are all the same size. However, they look like they are getting smaller and shorter the further down you look. That is perspective:

The streetlamps are all collectively closer to you as well when compared to the sun. They are small compared to the sun, which is much larger and further away. This is where perspective + atmosphere conditions come into play in how much the sun shrinks at sunset. In high humid conditions - it hardly shrinks at all. In drier conditions (see video above again), the shrink is clear to see.

Mathematically speaking I don't think so. The sun dips beneath the horizon but the clouds, thousands of feet in the air, are still illuminated by the rays even though the rays don't reach me due to the sun being only just below the horizon. Given how quickly the clouds go from being lit from beneath in glorious reds and oranges to everything going dark I don't see an obvious problem with it, geometrically speaking.

Re: Bolded and underlined portion of your statement: Sigh. You really need to watch a sunset just after it peaks below the horizon for 1/2 hour after. This is the last light period. During this period just after sun has set, look around you. Are you in complete darkness? Are your surroundings in complete darkness? The ground your standing on - can you see it? If you can see your immediate surroundings and the moon is dark - mate - you are still in sunlight - and the clouds appearing to be lit from below while you and your immediate surroundings are still in sunlight should tell you something.

 

[Sword7]

lol

 

[Stravinsk]

I'm going to include a couple of links for anyone who is interested (and for any flat earther's who may be reading this)

The following tables give readings for directions of sunrise and sunset, and length of day (these are for Melbourne, Australia so just input your area):

Month: January - https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/australia/melbourne?month=1&year=2017 120 degrees = ESE - East South East for position of sunrise on January 1

On Flat Earth Model - South is the outer circle of the earth while North is the Center. A sun rising ESE is consistent with our Summer time. We have longer days that are warmer.

Month: June - https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/australia/melbourne?month=6&year=2017 62 degrees = ENE - East North East for position of sunrise June 1

On Flat Earth Model - North is the center of the Earth. A sun rising ENE is consistent with our Winter time. We have shorter days that are cooler.

Conversion from degrees to direction can be found here: http://www.csgnetwork.com/degrees2direct.html

The Flat Earth Model is consistent with a spiraling, close sun that from January 1 - rises in the ESE - which is our summertime and throughout the year gradually moves to rising ENE - which is our wintertime.

 

[Sword7]

A most humerous thread.

Sometimes the earth is flat . walked on a flat bit yesterday .

 

[Stravinsk]

Tango:

Further illustration of the lensing effect:

 

[tango]

It's a flat disc (obviously not perfectly as there are mountains and valleys) - and yes the sun rotates around us - not in a perfect circle - but in a spiral. For example - right now in January in the northern latitudes it is winter - but here in Australia it is summer. On flat earth model - the sun is cycling closer to the southern latitudes (the outer rim or circle) - and throughout the next 6 months will slowly cycle inward to the northern latitudes - and the northern parts will be in Summer, while we here in Australia, New Zealand etc will be in Winter.

And yes to your last question. Night and day are caused by the proximity of the sun, and the sun's light to any given location. The sun's light travels much further than the sun itself - and this is the reason we are slowly, gradually surrounded by more and more light before the sun peaks over the horizon to our eyes - and the reverse at sunset - after the sun disappears over the horizon from our vantage point - the light around us is still there - but gradually fades to darkness.

On the Globe model it doesn't fade gradually. It's immediate or near to immediate. But that isn't what we see watching first light before sunrise and last light after sunset. Tomorrow in the Melbourne area first light starts at 5:53am and Sunrise at 6:23am. That's 1/2 hour of gradually increasing light before sunrise.

Sure, I wouldn't expect the flat earth model to require the earth be flat in a perfectly geometric sense. But as for sunrise and sunset I'm still not finding your explanations convincing. The round earth model would have the sun appearing as if it were a disc sliding out from behind a sheet, which is exactly what we see. The round earth model has the earth rotating 360 degrees in 24 hours, or about 15 degrees per hour (this also fits in with the whole time difference, where the eastern US is GMT-5 hours and somewhere around 75 degrees west of Greenwich. So for half an hour of light to be observed during dusk and dawn represents approximately 7.5 degrees of rotation of the earth. I'm still not seeing the problem with 7.5 degrees allowing for gradually fading light given the possibilities of light refraction and scattering within the atmosphere. If we had no atmosphere at all then I'd expect to see a much faster transition from the light of day to the dark of night.

It is apparent to me you have watched little I have provided in this thread. It does not matter. Test it for yourself - with your own eyes. Go out tomorrow or the next or the next about 45 minutes before sunrise(watch your surroundings gradually get lighted before sunrise) or just a few minutes before sunset( watch the light slowly diminish after the sun has set). Watch with your own eyes as the light gradually increases for about 1/2 hour before the sun peaks over the horizon - or as it gradually fades for 1/2 hour after sunset.

Your second point in the quoted material:

"Sun appearing the same size in the sky throughout the day" - again this is not true. I've already provided video proof in this thread. The sun size always changes - but how much is relative to the atmosphere conditions on the day. Here is about 30 seconds of time lapse footage showing this on a dry day:

If you still don't think you see the sun changing size then pause at 2 seconds and then compare that frame to the 20 second mark.

The trouble with this is that the flat earth model you describe would require the sun to draw closer and then recede, starting out small and then growing larger before getting smaller again. That's not something I've observed on any of the numerous times I've watched a sunrise or sunset.

The sun doesn't travel below the earth. The appearance of the Sun rising and Setting are a combination of your perspective and the atmospheric conditions on the day.

The street lamps are all the same size. However, they look like they are getting smaller and shorter the further down you look. That is perspective:

The streetlamps are all collectively closer to you as well when compared to the sun. They are small compared to the sun, which is much larger and further away. This is where perspective + atmosphere conditions come into play in how much the sun shrinks at sunset. In high humid conditions - it hardly shrinks at all. In drier conditions (see video above again), the shrink is clear to see.

The street lamps are barely a few feet above the ground. If the sun is high enough to scatter light over a large area I'd expect to see it diminish in size to a practical pinprick, not slip below the horizon in exactly the manner I'd expect from a round and rotating earth model.

Re: Bolded and underlined portion of your statement: Sigh. You really need to watch a sunset just after it peaks below the horizon for 1/2 hour after. This is the last light period. During this period just after sun has set, look around you. Are you in complete darkness? Are your surroundings in complete darkness? The ground your standing on - can you see it? If you can see your immediate surroundings and the moon is dark - mate - you are still in sunlight - and the clouds appearing to be lit from below while you and your immediate surroundings are still in sunlight should tell you something.

Really? Isn't it pretty obvious that I've watched a few sunsets from what I've already posted? You still haven't given me anything useful to explain how daylight turns to night under the flat earth model. If what I could see with my own eyes was the sun getting smaller and smaller as it withdrew before it disappeared somewhere in the sky (in a loosely comparable manner to a bird flying away) before the light slowly faded then I'd have to agree with you. But what I see with my own eyes is consistent with the expectations of a round rotating earth and, as far as I can see, totally inconsistent with anything I'd expect from a flat earth model. The sun appears to stay more or less the same size and shape as it slides below the horizon just like a disc sliding beneath a cover. As I said above if the planet had no atmosphere I'd expect to see day turn to night more or less the moment the sun dipped below the horizon but frankly I'm still finding the notion of refraction and scatter from the presence of the atmosphere and particles within the atmosphere far more convincing than anything you're saying here.

I know this is the bit where you fall back on comments about programming and all that but believe me, I'm really trying to see if there's anything here I can latch onto to see if what you're presenting is credible. It's just that what I can see with my own eyes supports the way I would expect the heliocentric model to behave.

 

[tango]

Tango:

Further illustration of the lensing effect:

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Looking at the relative scale of the tower against the boat and the car, and the explanation of refraction lopping off the bottom of the city, I can see the notion of the atmosphere as a lens. But that still doesn't explain why a sun moving away from me but still up in the sky looks exactly like a disc sliding under a cover.

If you wanted to claim that the earth is flat and the sun rotates around the earth (i.e. for a time it is under the earth and the whole world is in darkness) that would at least be consistent with what we can observe from the ground. It's just not clear to me how an effect whereby the atmosphere acts as a giant lens explains any of the phenomena relating to sunrise and sunset if the sun is actually high above the earth and rotating in a circle above a flat circular earth. Even considering the issue of refraction I wouldn't expect the sun to steadily drop before apparently disappearing below the horizon unless it were dropping low enough to cause major problems for wherever it was. The key issue comparing the sun with the city is the altitude - the city is on the ground so a bit of refraction can cause it to apparently dip below the horizon. Something presumably thousands of feet in the air would need a huge amount of refraction to cause it to appear to slide neatly below the horizon.

Not only that, but if the sunlight did gradually fade away based on the sun moving out of sight above the earth then I'd expect to see shadows getting longer and longer, and still see the sun even after its light was insufficient to illuminate anything around me (much the way someone in the distance holding a flashlight is visible - I can see the spot of their flashlight even though it doesn't cast enough light to illuminate my feet). With the round earth model because there is no direct light once the sun has gone below the horizon I'd expect to see shadows getting longer and longer and then more or less disappearing as soon as the sun had set, given that residual light from refraction and scatter wouldn't be sufficiently directional to cast shadows. And from what I recall of watching sunsets that's what I observe.

 

[Stravinsk]

Sure, I wouldn't expect the flat earth model to require the earth be flat in a perfectly geometric sense. But as for sunrise and sunset I'm still not finding your explanations convincing. The round earth model would have the sun appearing as if it were a disc sliding out from behind a sheet, which is exactly what we see. The round earth model has the earth rotating 360 degrees in 24 hours, or about 15 degrees per hour (this also fits in with the whole time difference, where the eastern US is GMT-5 hours and somewhere around 75 degrees west of Greenwich. So for half an hour of light to be observed during dusk and dawn represents approximately 7.5 degrees of rotation of the earth. I'm still not seeing the problem with 7.5 degrees allowing for gradually fading light given the possibilities of light refraction and scattering within the atmosphere. If we had no atmosphere at all then I'd expect to see a much faster transition from the light of day to the dark of night.

The problem in the model is that given the size of Earth in relation to the size and distance of the Sun - the rays from the sun should all be parallel to the earth. Globe believers often like to use the excuse of "light refraction" without actually showing how it is consistantly applied to work on their model.

In short - "crepuscular rays" that point to a near sun are explained away as a distortion due to light refraction - but when the sun is behind the horizon by a measured degree the overall light is then accounted for due to refraction - or some sort of bouncing off the atmosphere to provide perfect continous gradually fading light for a half hour period.

Now if all of this were true and light is "scattered" so that everything is lit and gradually fading for 1/2 hour after the sun passes over the horizon - how is it that the undersides of clouds appear to have focused light? Shouldn't everything be uniformly lit with the scattering of the light?

Now I suppose you will argue that everything isn't actually refracted or scattered, but somehow the sun's parallel rays "bounce off" the atmosphere to highlight the undersides of clouds while also lighting the area in which the observer stands.

The trouble with this is that the flat earth model you describe would require the sun to draw closer and then recede, starting out small and then growing larger before getting smaller again. That's not something I've observed on any of the numerous times I've watched a sunrise or sunset.

I provided a Darwin sunset in the preceding post which shows exactly the thing you say cannot or does not happen. Here it is again:

I also have posted a video in this thread which shows numerous shots of both sunrise and sunset on time lapse cameras growing larger (at sunrise) and smaller (at sunset). Of course this isn't always able to be observed but the reason for this is the relative humidity or dryness through the distance we are observing sunsets/sunrises.

The street lamps are barely a few feet above the ground. If the sun is high enough to scatter light over a large area I'd expect to see it diminish in size to a practical pinprick, not slip below the horizon in exactly the manner I'd expect from a round and rotating earth model.

You haven't watched the 30 second video I have provided? It's not a "flat earth" video, it's just a shot of a sunset in Darwin on a very dry day.
What you "expect" to see does not take into account the variables of miles and miles of water vapor (or lack of it) in the atmosphere on any given day effecting what we see at a distance or what a zoom lense peers through at a distance.

Really? Isn't it pretty obvious that I've watched a few sunsets from what I've already posted? You still haven't given me anything useful to explain how daylight turns to night under the flat earth model.

I can't assume you have but just a few posts ago you were saying that you were not getting any of the sun's light at twilight after the sun had set but the undersides of clouds were. Such a statement only comes from someone that hasn't watched a sunset lately and is pulling reasons for his beliefs out of nowhere.
But now you have apparently had a change of heart and realized that you are still getting light at twilight but pull out the excuse that light is somehow scattered over your area due to refraction BUT ALSO highlighting the undersides of clouds.

Daylight to night.

I have already explained it - but you are operating under an assumption. An assumption about light and distance. We are taught from a very early age (and reinforced with the idea through entertainment) that light travels billions of miles and that we should always be able to see it. The Sun is millions of miles away - we were told - and the stars are billions of miles away.

On the Flat Earth model the reason for light and darkness - day and night - is distance of the sun over the plane from the vantage point of the observer. Flat Earther's do not operate under the assumption that light travels infinite distances and is always visible from any distance. The light of the sun travels very far, but not for millions of miles. Thus - when a Flat Earth believer watches a twilight, the period before and after the sun has risen and set respectively - they are witnessing a gradual increase of light at sunrise and decrease of light at sunset. As the source moves closer the intensity increases - and as the source moves farther away it decreases until it is gone.

A lesser source of light, for instance a lighthouse - uses a special lens to direct light out for ships far out on the ocean. It can be seen for many miles - but is not infinite. In point of fact, a lighthouse's light should not be able to be seen from ships many miles out due to the supposed curvature of the earth - and yet they have been useful for hundreds of years to assist ancient mariners on finding land in the darkness.

If what I could see with my own eyes was the sun getting smaller and smaller as it withdrew before it disappeared somewhere in the sky (in a loosely comparable manner to a bird flying away) before the light slowly faded then I'd have to agree with you.

Unless you live in a climate where the atmosphere is very dry it is unlikely that you will see what you are expecting to see. This is why I provided you with a video that is simply a sunset in Darwin on a very dry day. But you aren't addressing that video at all.

But what I see with my own eyes is consistent with the expectations of a round rotating earth and, as far as I can see, totally inconsistent with anything I'd expect from a flat earth model. The sun appears to stay more or less the same size and shape as it slides below the horizon just like a disc sliding beneath a cover. As I said above if the planet had no atmosphere I'd expect to see day turn to night more or less the moment the sun dipped below the horizon but frankly I'm still finding the notion of refraction and scatter from the presence of the atmosphere and particles within the atmosphere far more convincing than anything you're saying here.

I don't suppose you've ever wondered what it means to actually be *able* to view a sunrise or a sunset without getting blinded but *not able* to look at the noon-day sun because it blinds you.

I don't suppose you've ever wondered why it is in the summer time the hottest part of the day is the afternoon sun and not the morning or evening periods. Maybe you might argue that it's because at that point the earth's rotation is closest to the Sun without thinking about why such a small change in relative position should make such a huge difference in temperature if the sun was so large and so far away.

I know this is the bit where you fall back on comments about programming and all that but believe me, I'm really trying to see if there's anything here I can latch onto to see if what you're presenting is credible. It's just that what I can see with my own eyes supports the way I would expect the heliocentric model to behave.

Except you can't explain the video (the 30 second one) I linked above. Do you think that was someone's cgi job? Shall I link more sunsets on dry days that have nothing to do with flat earth?

How do you explain the phenomenon of apparent localized moonlight? When you look up at the moon when there is cloud or partial cloud cover - we see a bright area around the clouds nearest to the moon. If the moon is 238,900 miles away - why is it that the light that comes off of it always illuminating relatively near clouds by degrees of brightness closest to it?