totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #40 on: April 20, 2017, 04:56:53 PM »
Novarus also explains above why reflected light is not a possible explanation given the geometry of the flat earth, so I suggest you re-read his post also.
Novarus' explanation is a waste of space.

All opinion.

And one totally in error.

Novarus claims the sunlight is reflecting off the clouds.

...For light to be reflecting off the clouds from the sun to hit the mountain, both the sun and the mountain would have to be on the same "side" as the clouds.

That is an absurd and total misinterpretation of what experience tells all of us.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 05:26:13 PM by totallackey »

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #41 on: April 20, 2017, 05:35:50 PM »
The sun on that day would have been about 248 degrees from Rainier which is west-southwest. Switch to map view on the link to google earth I posted and you will see there are lots of mountains between Rainier and the shore when traveling west-southwest. (Map view shows the mountains more clearly with a topographic shadowing effect)

Show me a photo of diffuse reflected light casting a dark shadow that is shaped like it has formed from a point source of light.

Snow cover would have been nil anyways at that time of year.

I don't know what to say to the claim that 133 miles is close by.

And you do realize that the picture shows heavy cloud cover overhead? On any of the existing flat earth models, the sun would be behind those clouds anyways which would radically reduce and diffuse the light further. There is no way that perspective can bring a hidden object into view, nor can it hide an object that is in view (although an abject can be so distant that the eye can no longer distinguish it from the surroundings). Refraction can only make objects above the atmosphere appear higher than they really are, so no effect of refraction would be able to bring the sun down into view as it clearly is in the photo.

But hey, diffuse light from a sun hidden behind the clouds can cause all kinds of dark shadows, right?

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #42 on: April 20, 2017, 06:06:29 PM »
The sun on that day would have been about 248 degrees from Rainier which is west-southwest. Switch to map view on the link to google earth I posted and you will see there are lots of mountains between Rainier and the shore when traveling west-southwest. (Map view shows the mountains more clearly with a topographic shadowing effect)
You post the map view.

Between Rainier and the Pacific, there are what could be called foothills.

Show me a photo of diffuse reflected light casting a dark shadow that is shaped like it has formed from a point source of light.
Light reflected off of the water or snow can certainly be diffuse, but it is not that way all the time.

Snow cover would have been nil anyways at that time of year.
Look it up.

You are making the claim.

I know there was 907 inches of snow in that area in 2010/2011.

That is a lot of snow.

I don't know what to say to the claim that 133 miles is close by.
I know you don't.

Hard to believe a freaking MOUNTAIN within 133 miles could be considered close (2 - 2.5 hours by car).

And you do realize that the picture shows heavy cloud cover overhead? On any of the existing flat earth models, the sun would be behind those clouds anyways which would radically reduce and diffuse the light further. There is no way that perspective can bring a hidden object into view, nor can it hide an object that is in view (although an abject can be so distant that the eye can no longer distinguish it from the surroundings). Refraction can only make objects above the atmosphere appear higher than they really are, so no effect of refraction would be able to bring the sun down into view as it clearly is in the photo.

But hey, diffuse light from a sun hidden behind the clouds can cause all kinds of dark shadows, right?
And the Sun is quite a distance to the EAST of Rainier in that photo and surely you must realize those clouds quite possibly DO NOT EXTEND as far east as the Sun, correct?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 11:41:39 PM by totallackey »

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #43 on: April 20, 2017, 06:23:14 PM »
Foothills would further diffuse the light. And those are some pretty rugged foothils west-southwest of Rainier (especially the ones northeast of Cinebar, and southwest of Boistfort): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Little+Tahoma+Peak/@46.6890044,-123.401533,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490d20059ca9a55:0xa0257ed9e9dab45d!8m2!3d46.8495529!4d-121.7123171!5m1!1e4

Again, show me proof of your claim that diffuse reflected light can cast a shadow with an umbra.

We are talking about October 2011 which would have been the 2011-2012 snow season which was widely regarded as a dud: http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/robinson_pubs/non_refereed/Weatherwise2011-12SnowArticle.pdf
Even the year before, I am sure most of that 907 inches of snow you reference fell after October. I am also pretty sure you are referencing the snowfall on top of Rainier, and not the snowfall at the much lower elevations to the southwest.

The sun in the flat earth model never is below about 10 degrees above the horizon which is why flat earthers make up all kinds of ridiculous explanations for how it can appear that low in the sky in the first place:


So the simple fact that the sun even appears on the horizon in the photo debunks a flat earth before we even discuss the shadows. And this means that on a flat earth, the sun would be behind the clouds as explored in this post: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6074.msg114329#msg114329

« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 07:46:52 PM by Nirmala »

*

Offline Jura-Glenlivet

  • *
  • Posts: 1537
  • Life is meaningless & everything dies.
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #44 on: April 20, 2017, 08:44:28 PM »

Did a similar series of diagrams here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5225.msg102411#msg102411) in Totes's RE information repository.

Love the new avatar Nirmala.
Just to be clear, you are all terrific, but everything you say is exactly what a moron would say.

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #45 on: April 20, 2017, 09:23:53 PM »

Did a similar series of diagrams here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5225.msg102411#msg102411) in Totes's RE information repository.

Love the new avatar Nirmala.

Thanks for posting those. The only thing worse than my video skills are my graphic skills, so it is great to have some decent graphics to refer to.

Also that entire thread is something I had not really explored yet, even though you got me to post a link on there to the conversation I had with Tom Bishop about flight times. It is a great resource and will save me a lot of googling when I want to counter someone's flat earth info. So again, thanks  :-B

-Nirmala aka The Heron
« Last Edit: April 20, 2017, 09:29:31 PM by Nirmala »

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #46 on: April 20, 2017, 11:06:55 PM »
If they did make that thread into a round earth wiki, then all of the debates on here could just go like this:

RE: Question about sun, horizon, etc.?
FE: See the Wiki
RE: No, you go see our Wiki
FE: But our Wiki came first!
RE: But our Wiki is correct and rational!
FE: Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 12:06:17 AM by Nirmala »

*

Offline juner

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 10175
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #47 on: April 21, 2017, 04:06:28 AM »
If they did make that thread into a round earth wiki, then all of the debates on here could just go like this:

RE: Question about sun, horizon, etc.?
FE: See the Wiki
RE: No, you go see our Wiki
FE: But our Wiki came first!
RE: But our Wiki is correct and rational!
FE: Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.


Please stay on topic and refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Next one is a 3 day ban.

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #48 on: April 21, 2017, 02:27:20 PM »
Foothills would further diffuse the light. And those are some pretty rugged foothils west-southwest of Rainier (especially the ones northeast of Cinebar, and southwest of Boistfort): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Little+Tahoma+Peak/@46.6890044,-123.401533,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490d20059ca9a55:0xa0257ed9e9dab45d!8m2!3d46.8495529!4d-121.7123171!5m1!1e4
Again, it is only the peak of the 5th highest mountain in the contiguous US that is casting a shadow.

And Rainier is distinctive in that there are not other such tall mountains surrounding it.

It is the most distinctively prominent mountain in the Lower 48.

Again, show me proof of your claim that diffuse reflected light can cast a shadow with an umbra.
The photo of Rainier and its shadow is my proof.

We are talking about October 2011 which would have been the 2011-2012 snow season which was widely regarded as a dud: http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/robinson_pubs/non_refereed/Weatherwise2011-12SnowArticle.pdf
Even the year before, I am sure most of that 907 inches of snow you reference fell after October. I am also pretty sure you are referencing the snowfall on top of Rainier, and not the snowfall at the much lower elevations to the southwest.
At 5400 ft, Paradise, known for its high annual snowfall totals. 700 inches fell in 2011/2012.

Not a dud.

And not accounting for the light reflecting off the lakes and rivers in the area.

The sun in the flat earth model never is below about 10 degrees above the horizon which is why flat earthers make up all kinds of ridiculous explanations for how it can appear that low in the sky in the first place:
The Sun is not visible for an entire night, 365 days a year at the latitude of Rainier.

So the simple fact that the sun even appears on the horizon in the photo debunks a flat earth before we even discuss the shadows. And this means that on a flat earth, the sun would be behind the clouds as explored in this post: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6074.msg114329#msg114329
Nope.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 11:45:18 PM by totallackey »

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #49 on: April 21, 2017, 05:13:48 PM »
Yes, it is a mountain that is less than 3 miles high and in the flat earth model, the sun is never less than 2500-3000 miles high. And the coast is 133 miles away, so that is equivalent to a quarter standing on its edge and the water being 3.7 feet off to the side. At this same scale, the Sun in a flat earth model is constantly 70-85 feet above the earth's surface. How does the sun at that height above the quarter ever cast a shadow upwards? Even if the ocean was a perfectly flat mirror, the relatively focused reflected sunlight would reflect off at a similar angle to the angle at which it struck the ocean's surface and would miss the quarter completely.

Watch the video again that I linked to in order to see why the sun would never be even close to the horizon on a flat earth or less than 10 degrees above the horizon, let alone hidden from view behind the horizon for hours every night as you mentioned, and especially not from a 3 mile high vantage point that would have a much more distant line of sight to the west on a flat earth. Your pointing this out just further debunks the flat earth model as it supports the point of view that the video is providing, namely that the sun would never set or subsequently rise on a flat earth.

This photo shows the sun in the frame of the picture, so it cannot be proof of diffuse light casting a shadow with an umbra, since there is a more localized source (the sun) that is clearly present:


I can link to thousands of photos showing a shadow with an umbra that are cast by direct sunlight: https://www.google.com/search?q=umbra+shadow&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikkZ-f6rXTAhVn34MKHdxnA9cQ_AUIBygC&biw=1529&bih=913#tbm=isch&q=shadow+cast+by+sunlight
(Note that a picture of Rainier casting a shadow upwards is on that page of search results)

I am asking you for proof of a similar dark shadow cast when the sun is clearly blocked from shining on the object casting the shadow. The Rainier photo does not qualify.

The Paradise area is south of Rainier, not west-southwest. And again, most of that 700 inches of snow fell after October. In fact, only 4 inches fell in October,2011 in the Paradise area: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.pl?wa6898  Most early snow like that melts fairly quickly as the average daily high temperature in October at Paradise is 48 degrees, and the ground has not had time to freeze. Also Paradise as you mention is at 5,400 foot elevation. Most of the area west-southwest of Rainier is much lower elevation and so probably did not even see 4 inches that entire month of October, 2011.

I only see 3 or 4 fairly small lakes that are roughly on a west-southwest line from Rainier, and they are tucked into the hills/mountains in that area.

Finally, just saying "Nope" to one of my arguments is not a reasoned response backed up by evidence. The only relevant reply to your "Nope" would be "Yup".

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #50 on: April 21, 2017, 10:57:04 PM »
Opinionated disagreement...
Your video is simply wrong.

I wrote nope because your arguments are rather specious and lacking simple reasoning.

A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer.

Farther away, it will be darkness.

Finally, reflected sunlight is capable of casting shadows whether you like it or not.

Depending on the type of reflective surface, it can burn human skin as easily as direct sunlight or cause blindness.

There is no reason to believe that intense a light could not also cast shadows.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2017, 11:47:40 PM by totallackey »

*

Offline Baraccafuu

  • *
  • Posts: 10
  • Rascal Of Unusual Size
    • View Profile
Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #51 on: April 23, 2017, 06:59:06 PM »
"A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer. Farther away, it will be darkness."
-----------------------------------
if the sun is 3000 miles up then it is about 2645.75 miles from the spot on earth underneath the sun?
that is a really high angle, isn't it(48.59 degrees?)...for the sun appearing on the horizon under the clouds?

or if you mean 4000 miles from the spot directly under the sun(as apposed to direct to the sun) then
that would make your direct line of sight with the sun at 5000 miles distant at a 36.87 degree angle...?
and that is at sunset/rise...(with the 3000/4000/5000 right triangle?)
I am a potato.

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #52 on: April 24, 2017, 11:59:02 AM »
"A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer. Farther away, it will be darkness."
-----------------------------------
if the sun is 3000 miles up then it is about 2645.75 miles from the spot on earth underneath the sun?
that is a really high angle, isn't it(48.59 degrees?)...for the sun appearing on the horizon under the clouds?
Where do you derive 2645.75 miles?

I do not know if the Sun is at a consistent 3000 mile altitude.

I am beginning to think it varies during the seasons.
or if you mean 4000 miles from the spot directly under the sun(as apposed to direct to the sun) then that would make your direct line of sight with the sun at 5000 miles distant at a 36.87 degree angle...? and that is at sunset/rise...(with the 3000/4000/5000 right triangle?)
A 3/4/5 triangle is natural and could be part of the issue, bu that holds only for a consistent 3000 mile altitude.

I am thinking the only consistent measurement is the 4000 mile distance resulting in darkness.

Rama Set

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #53 on: April 24, 2017, 01:13:11 PM »
I do not know if the Sun is at a consistent 3000 mile altitude.

I can help with that.  It isn't.

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #54 on: April 24, 2017, 01:35:39 PM »
"A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer. Farther away, it will be darkness."
-----------------------------------
I am thinking the only consistent measurement is the 4000 mile distance resulting in darkness.

What is the mechanism by which the sun goes dark? And why doesn't it get smaller as it approaches that point, just as everything else gets smaller when it moves further away from us due to our perspective changing?

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #55 on: April 24, 2017, 04:27:11 PM »
What is the mechanism by which the sun goes dark? And why doesn't it get smaller as it approaches that point, just as everything else gets smaller when it moves further away from us due to our perspective changing?
I would think the mechanism would be the Sun is now out of sight.

Perhaps it might be because it is operating in its own realm of the dome, with a "curtain," made of unknown properties following closely behind and preceding it.

It is within the "curtain," that all appears dark.

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #56 on: April 24, 2017, 04:38:02 PM »
What is the mechanism by which the sun goes dark? And why doesn't it get smaller as it approaches that point, just as everything else gets smaller when it moves further away from us due to our perspective changing?
I would think the mechanism would be the Sun is now out of sight.

Perhaps it might be because it is operating in its own realm of the dome, with a "curtain," made of unknown properties following closely behind and preceding it.

It is within the "curtain," that all appears dark.

Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?

totallackey

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #57 on: April 24, 2017, 05:44:26 PM »
Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?
Perhaps I am having difficulty communicating the point.

The Sun never goes behind the curtain.

The stars and moon may produce a different type of light not affected by the properties of the curtain.

It might be better to use the word veil instead of curtain.

They never just blacken a movie theatre when they are about to show a movie, do they?

Nope, they slowly fade to dark.

Rama Set

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #58 on: April 24, 2017, 09:09:33 PM »
Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?
Perhaps I am having difficulty communicating the point.

The Sun never goes behind the curtain.

The stars and moon may produce a different type of light not affected by the properties of the curtain.

It might be better to use the word veil instead of curtain.

They never just blacken a movie theatre when they are about to show a movie, do they?

Nope, they slowly fade to dark.

A different kind of light sounds super implausible. This light would have to consist of a hitherto unknown subatomic particle that appears exactly like a photon, but for some reason, it does not interact with this veil. Another option is that the veil represents a new fundamental interaction which has never been observed which absorbs one frequency of light but not most.

Re: sun rising below the clouds
« Reply #59 on: April 24, 2017, 09:57:03 PM »
Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?
Perhaps I am having difficulty communicating the point.

The Sun never goes behind the curtain.

The stars and moon may produce a different type of light not affected by the properties of the curtain.

It might be better to use the word veil instead of curtain.

They never just blacken a movie theatre when they are about to show a movie, do they?

Nope, they slowly fade to dark.

The sun has many frequencies of light, so the veil would have to block a lot of frequencies, and yet somehow allow the frequencies of starlight to still pass through.. Also it would have to be arranged to block light on half the earth, while allowing light to strike the other half that was in daylight. And then it would even have to sometimes allow light to hit the surface in a complete circle of light surrounding a central area of darkness (see http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.0 ), all while gradually fading the light out in all areas of sunset and gradually fading the light in in all areas of sunrise. On top of all of that, somehow it would block the light from the sun, but not only allow the starlight to pass through the veil, but even allow the stars that were located behind the sun to shine through both the sun and the veil.

That is one elaborate and complicated veil  ::)