The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: QED on April 07, 2019, 05:51:00 PM
-
Sup FEers!
Purpose
To begin detailing how we can describe the motion of the Sun and Moon over the FE.
Assumptions
- Vanishing Perspective Theory holds
- No constraint is made upon the reason for the motions - this is a purely kinematic study. Dynamics require FET to define the time derivative of momentum for their purposes
Audience
Hopefully this drags some FEers out of the lower fora :). Their insight is critical to the positive development of their movement.
First Thoughts
So, from Vanishing Perspective Theory (VPT), light rays may not propagate through atmospheric densities indefinitely. This is NOT due to limitations of our sensory organs (Not THOSE organs, Pete! Grow up! :D), but due to refractive scattering which decollamates coherent phase from a line of sight. That is, atmosphere scatters it away and we lose all optical information.
FET defines this point of VP convergence as the horizon.
The first issue that arises right away is how we can see the Moon at all. Please follow:
1. At night, the Sun is beyond our VP horizon, hence we experience night time.
2. We see the Moon at night.
3. The rays from the Sun scatter off the Moon, and hit our eyes.
4. The rays from the Sun at night must hence travel farther than the VP to reach the Moon, and then scatter to our eye.
NOTE: a scattering event cannot RESET the VP, since this would negate a VP from existing at all! That is, it is created by scattering in the first place.
Therefore, the Sun cannot illuminate the Moon.
Also, since eclipses are not viewable everywhere on Earth, zetetic deduction demands that the Moon is not an emitter.
So what illuminates the Moon? And why do we not see it?
-
It may be that the Sun and Moon are high enough bodies that the vanishing point, or atmolayer buildup, or whatever is limiting light and visual propagation on the surface, has less effect between bodies of higher altitudes. Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?
-
Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?
Obviously. Because you can see further over the curve of the earth. The horizon distance increases with altitude so yes, you can see further.
In the FE model the sun and moon would have to be above the atmolayer so the light from the sun to the moon would be going through a vacuum. That, and the fact the sun is very bright, is why the moon would be visible.
But as I’ve said in another thread if the sun is roughly the same height as the moon there is no way a full moon would be possible. Even if you hypothesise that the moon and/or sun change altitude I can’t see how the angles could work out to create a full moon.
-
It may be that the Sun and Moon are high enough bodies that the vanishing point, or atmolayer buildup, or whatever is limiting light and visual propagation on the surface, has less effect between bodies of higher altitudes. Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?
I find that to be an excellent observation.
What prevents this hypothesis from being a solution is the nature of scattering events. Light scatters off of atmosphere and bodies via the same mechanism. Hence, if light could trace a non-vanishing ray to the Moon, scatter, and find our eye, then that same ray would scatter off atmolayer nearby the Moon, and likewise find our eye.
What we would observe is a smooth gradient of daylight into night time as we traced an angular path from the moon to where the Sun resides. That is, the moon would always be in daylight.
Does this make sense what I am saying?
What I appreciate about your hypothesis is that it constrains the location of the Moon and Sun to both be entirely beyond the atmolayer.
This is a step forward, and one that is zetetically flush.
-
Would you say that we see further from the top of a mountain than we do at sea level?
Obviously. Because you can see further over the curve of the earth. The horizon distance increases with altitude so yes, you can see further.
In the FE model the sun and moon would have to be above the atmolayer so the light from the sun to the moon would be going through a vacuum. That, and the fact the sun is very bright, is why the moon would be visible.
But as I’ve said in another thread if the sun is roughly the same height as the moon there is no way a full moon would be possible. Even if you hypothesise that the moon and/or sun change altitude I can’t see how the angles could work out to create a full moon.
I appreciate this input, but please slow down - you are getting too far ahead of the matter. We need to establish proper constraints so that identifying trajectories only needs to happen once.
If both moon and sun are above atmolayer, then a full moon must be possible (see discussion above).
-
If both moon and sun are above atmolayer, then a full moon must be possible (see discussion above).
I asked in another thread for a diagram showing how that could happen. I can’t picture it. Predictably, no one responded.
If you have some idea of how that could work then I’d love to see it.
-
If both moon and sun are above atmolayer, then a full moon must be possible (see discussion above).
I asked in another thread for a diagram showing how that could happen. I can’t picture it. Predictably, no one responded.
If you have some idea of how that could work then I’d love to see it.
It’s trivial. Example:
Moon is east of you. Sun is west. Sun is too far away for you to see it. Hence nighttime. Since both are above atmolayer, Sun’s Rays can make it to moon, illuminating all of it. We see that illumination.
The reason (probably) that you find it impossible is because you are implicitly using too many assumptions.
You’re probably assuming “conservation of reality.”
Lol.
Suspend that a moment. Let the sun and moon do whatever they want. Allow the details to fall out later.
What we need is to find a trajectory that explains lunar phases across the FE. If we can do that - that is, find a solution that permits the phases to agree with observations while SIMULTANEOUSLY having the correct parts of the Earth night and day, then FET can actually move forward.
*Spoiler Alert*
It won’t work. It requires either the Sun to occupy two distinct locations at once (multiple times) or it requires light to bend drastically for no reason.
But they need to recognize this for themselves, so that they can focus on parts of their effort that COULD make sense.
Too many folks have bullied them - they won’t buy into any progress unless they make it.
So let’s help them out!
-
If both moon and sun are above atmolayer, then a full moon must be possible (see discussion above).
I asked in another thread for a diagram showing how that could happen. I can’t picture it. Predictably, no one responded.
If you have some idea of how that could work then I’d love to see it.
It’s trivial. Example:
Moon is east of you. Sun is west. Sun is too far away for you to see it. Hence nighttime. Since both are above atmolayer, Sun’s Rays can make it to moon, illuminating all of it. We see that illumination.
The reason (probably) that you find it impossible is because you are implicitly using too many assumptions.
You’re probably assuming “conservation of reality.”
Lol.
Heh. Nice. Maybe a diagram would be helpful to explain the issue I see. So looking sideways at the disc:
(https://i.ibb.co/nBLsSnt/FullMoon.jpg)
I've made the moon and sun the same size, I think in the FE model this is probably how it is. That might be wrong although I don't think that help the problem.
I've put the sun more over the southern "hemisphere", that would be the southern summer, the northern winter.
At this distance the northern pole never "sees" the sun because of perspective. This picture shows how silly an idea that is, but I digress.
I've no idea where they think the moon is although it must be visible from the night side of the disc so I've put it there roughly above the equator.
And I've put the moon higher than the sun as this is how FE explains moon phases. The sun and moon change altitude because of reasons and with no change in angular size.
That explanation works up to a point but the line I've drawn shows the furthest point round the moon the light of the sun can reach.
So how is the dude in the southern "hemisphere" on the night side of the disc seeing a full moon?
You could make the sun illuminate more of the moon by increasing the altitude further but it would have to be a lot higher than the sun to illuminate the whole of the bottom of the moon so the dude sees a full moon. Does the altitude of it really vary that much without any change in angular size?
I have probably got some things wrong here and made some wrong assumptions, that's why I was hoping someone on the FE side would make a diagram.
As the Wiki says "If you don't know something, and cannot demonstrate it by first principles, then you shouldn't believe it."
EDIT: Just noticed another issue - with this diagram someone in the northern "hemisphere" is nearer the side of the moon the sun is illuminating - given where I've put the moon.
So someone in the north would see close to a full moon, someone in the south would not. But I'm pretty sure that's now how moon phases work in real life.
-
Yes you are already honing I’m on the issue. Someone in the northern hemisphere can see a full moon but someone in the Southern Hemisphere cannot.
It does not take long to see that this cannot work - it is such an easy test to do.
The next obvious question you’d ask (as I did) is: there’s no way FEers have not realized this.
And here begins a logical chain at ends at a particular conclusion.
-
How married are you to pushing perspective for the core of all of this. Because imo dusting off the Electromagnetic Accelerator is a much better way to explain observations regarding the celestial bodies. It comes with its own set of problems in certain areas, but I feel it explains pretty much everything to do with how the sun and moon appear far better than perspective allows. At least without having to rewrite a number of rather common things about how we view the world.
-
EA does solve some problems although I’m not sure if this is one of them.
Would like to see a FE response to how they think this works.
-
I don’t know much about this EA. Can you give me the quick and dirty on it so I don’t have to wade through the awful wikis? What’s your technical assessment of it?
-
I don’t know much about this EA. Can you give me the quick and dirty on it so I don’t have to wade through the awful wikis? What’s your technical assessment of it?
Essentially light slowly bends towards the perpendicular (and maybe horizontal). This allows the light from the sun to appear to be hitting you along a horizontal when setting (as seen everyday) AND it sets up everyone seeing the same face of the moon no matter where you are. Plus it sets up why the moon is full when it's away from the sun, and new when it's closer. I'll see if I can find a visual or two that I've seen around when I've got a bit more time later.
-
Oh no. That sounds like a terrible idea. If we make light do that, then it will change its energy. Basically, it will act as an emitter when bending, creating all sorts of optical effects that we don’t observe.
Well, I’ll just sit on it for a while until I learn more about it. But my initial reaction to EA is that it doomed from the beginning.
-
I don’t know much about this EA. Can you give me the quick and dirty on it so I don’t have to wade through the awful wikis? What’s your technical assessment of it?
Essentially light slowly bends towards the perpendicular (and maybe horizontal). This allows the light from the sun to appear to be hitting you along a horizontal when setting (as seen everyday) AND it sets up everyone seeing the same face of the moon no matter where you are. Plus it sets up why the moon is full when it's away from the sun, and new when it's closer. I'll see if I can find a visual or two that I've seen around when I've got a bit more time later.
So basically, it applies the curvature of the earth to light to match RE observations better while keeping the earth flat?
-
There's a Wiki page about EA here
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Accelerator
But there are no details about how the equation was derived or what experiments have been done to test it. I'm not really convinced it helps here although it does help with some things like sunsets.
-
I like where Curious Squirrel is going with his line of thinking.
In the past there has been a lack of interest in EA theories, since there was no evidence that light was bending upwards. However, in the last year there has been some evidence that light is bending at large scales. JTolan has some interesting videos on his channel (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjHW3sIVWspvEw9yRW_Hcw/videos) where a camera with an infrared filter is taken up on a plane and he is able to see much further than the Round Earth Theory should allow.
In his videos he performs analysis showing that, although he can see various bodies much further than should be seen in his videos, the horizon is never where it should be on either a Flat Earth or a Round Earth prediction.
Infrared Flight over Gulf of Mexico HD1080 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7M107rgdmM) (16:00 mark)
(https://i.imgur.com/oRShdJM.jpg)
"Globe Horizon" is the prediction for the globe. "Globe Horizon (4/3R)" is the globe earth + standard refraction theory.
If the above analysis is accurate it would suggest that either:
- The earth is round and massive downwards bending of light is occurring
- The earth is flat and massive upwards bending of light is occurring
- Light is traveling in straight lines and the earth is something else (ie. a globe much larger than claimed, other)
If the earth is flat, JTolan's work might suggest that light is bending upwards on a large scale.
Previous Thread: IR Video from FL310 -> 500 mile visibility? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10629.0)
-
I'll admit I haven't watched all that video but his camerawork looks handheld so I'm not sure how well calibrated that all is.
I'm not clear how he's worked out the angles in the freezeframe and the dot on the horizon is not clearly identifiable so I'm not clear how he knows how far he can see.
It is an interesting line of enquiry but that doesn't seem to be a well calibrated experiment.
-
Well, this is a home video from which nothing really can be reliably deduced. There is no way to verify any part of this video as genuine, was taken under controlled conditions, or is free from doctoring.
Actually, there is no mechanism by which I could conclude that is not a faked video, just as some folks believe NASA has done - though clearly a more amateur job if so.
I hold my data to high standards, and at best, the only thing I can conclude from this data is that someone might have taken a home video.
-
The scale is not based on a leveling experiment, and so there is nothing to calibrate. The scales JTolan creates in his videos are based on the knowledge of his position, the distance to bodies in the distance, and the concept of radians and angular sizes.
I'll invite JTolan to come back to the forum and break down his process step-by-step, for our knowledge, and inclusion in the Wiki. If the scale is accurate, it has some important consequences.
-
There's a scale which shows eye level and marks degrees below it, that's the bit I don't understand. You surely have to have some levelling device to know where eye level is and where 1 degree below that is and so on. But yes, if the person who made that video is available to explain his method then that would be helpful.
-
It is possible if you have knowledge of your position and the positions of distant bodies or structures.
If your eye is at an altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, and there is an object, say a red ball on a post, 500 feet away from you, which is also at altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, then the position of that ball to you will be parallel on the horizontal. The path to that object will be at your eye level.
Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.
Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator (https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php). At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.
-
The scale is not based on a leveling experiment, and so there is nothing to calibrate. The scales JTolan creates in his videos are based on the knowledge of his position, the distance to bodies in the distance, and the concept of radians and angular sizes.
I'll invite JTolan to come back to the forum and break down his process step-by-step, for our knowledge, and inclusion in the Wiki. If the scale is accurate, it has some important consequences.
Yes, I do understand the concepts of radians and angular sizes ;)
Whenever a positional instrument is operative, then calibration is necessary.
The entire process appears to be in a poorly controlled setting. Hence, i am concerned about your automatic inclination to include the results in the wiki.
It’s your wiki, of course, so do whatever the hell you want.
I simply notice a contrast between the standard and depth of scrutiny you are presenting towards this video (which shows an outcome potentially favourable to your beliefs) compared to the previous media regarding curvature of the horizon.
With the former, you presented a tireless list of complaints and critiques, many of which were questionable in their scientific impact. With the latter, you appear to have absolutely none!
This appears to objective audiences as bias, and degrades the merit and reputation of FE efforts.
I am extending an olive branch here. It is critical that you learn proper scientific inquiry procedures, in order to insulate your conclusions from bias. I can teach you these, but you must be receptive.
-
It is possible if you have knowledge of your position and the positions of distant bodies or structures.
If your eye is at an altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, and there is an object, say a red ball on a post, 500 feet away from you, which is also at altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, then the position of that ball to you will be parallel on the horizontal. The path to that object will be at your eye level.
Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.
Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator (https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php). At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.
I am surprised that you do not belief any camera distortion effects are at play. In previous discussions, you held deep concerns about apparently well known distortive effects that when viewing images on th horizon.
-
I mainly post things to the Wiki that the entire community has discussed several times. I post the community's consensus position. The method I described above is strong, has been discussed by the community at length, and does not rely on leveling tools that need to be calibrated or carefully aligned. That method for finding eye level should be in the Wiki, with examples.
The angular diameter method is strong, whereby this is not strong:
(https://i.imgur.com/cvH6Uo9.jpg)
You yourself gave no disagreement to the method I described. As I said, we will need more details from JTolan on his specific steps and, if we determine it is accurate, as a community, then we can include some of his examples.
If you view some of his videos, JTolan is claiming to see mountains and structures that should be hidden by the curvature of the earth with his IR camera. So far his observations do not appear to be distortion.
See the previous thread we had on the topic: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10629.0
-
I mainly post things to the Wiki that the entire community has discussed several times. I post the community's consensus position. The method I described above is strong, has been discussed by the community at length, and does not rely on leveling tools that need to be calibrated or carefully aligned. That method for finding eye level should be in the Wiki, with examples.
The angular diameter method is strong, whereby this is not:
(https://i.imgur.com/cvH6Uo9.jpg)
You yourself gave no disagreement to the method I described. As I said, we will need more details from JTolan on his specific steps and, if we determine it is accurate, as a community, then we can include some of his examples.
If you view some of his videos, JTolan is claiming to see mountains and structures that should be hidden by the curvature of the earth with his IR camera. So far his observations do not appear to be distortion.
See the previous thread we had on the topic: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=10629.0
As a published scientist, I find your evaluation of this video clumsy and biased. Each piece of evidence stands and falls on its own merits, not on previous work. The apparent lack of integrity and equity of this address is disappointing.
You should strive to fill your wiki with solid, well-tested evidence, not a plethora of poorly interrogated evidence that spells a narrative.
That is, of course, if the goal of the wiki is to seek the truth.
-
The theory of angular diameter is solid and well tested. What evidence is there that the angular diameter theory is false? Why shouldn't that method be described in the wiki? Can you find an error in my example?
If you wish to create a rebuttal, I would encourage you to do more than state that it is an an "uncontrolled setting" and "camera distortion effects" and "Whenever a positional instrument is operative, then calibration is necessary." There really isn't much to do with that, except to point out that this method does not rely on calibration or leveling, and isn't an experiment at all, but an observation to which an equation is applied to bodies in the scene. As I see, the author is using a normal rectilinear lens on a high quality camera, which would not create the distortion necessary to bring the horizon down to where it needs to be.
In my example with the red ball, the observer doesn't need to be in a "controlled setting" to capture a picture of the ball in the distance.
The lack of effort on your part seems unsatisfactory. Screaming "uncontrolled setting!" is insufficient on this matter, as this "experiment" relies on no other variables except a normally taken rectilinear photograph and appropriate mathematical axioms which have been long demonstrated to be true, categorizing the method to be far superior than the uncalibrated surveying experiments which you seem to favor--which actually are experiments that need very careful consideration, as slight errors in alignment in the foreground can create large errors many miles away.
If there is a flaw, or if it is wrong, then you should show how it is wrong. The matter is really no more than an observation and an interpretation, which puts it into a very different class of integrity. It is not an experiment with many variables. It is mainly the interpretation and underlying axioms which need to be vetted for truth.
-
The theory of angular diameter is solid and well tested. What evidence is there that the angular diameter theory is false? Why shouldn't that method be described in the wiki? Can you find an error in my example?
If you wish to create a rebuttal, I would encourage you to do more than state that it is an an "uncontrolled setting" and "camera distortion effects" and "Whenever a positional instrument is operative, then calibration is necessary." There really isn't much to do with that, except to point out that this method does not rely on calibration or leveling, and isn't an experiment at all, but an observation to which an equation is applied to bodies in the scene. As I see, the author is using a normal rectilinear lens on a high quality camera, which would not create the distortion necessary to bring the horizon down to where it needs to be.
In my example with the red ball, the observer doesn't need to be in a "controlled setting" to capture a picture of the ball in the distance.
The lack of effort on your part seems unsatisfactory. Screaming "uncontrolled setting!" seems insufficient on this matter; as this 'experiment" relies on no other variables except a normally taken rectilinear photograph and appropriate mathematical axioms which have been long demonstrated to be true, categorizing the method to be far superior than the uncalibrated surveying experiments which you seem to favor--which actually are experiments that need very careful consideration.
If there is a flaw, or if it is wrong, then you should show how it is wrong. The matter is actually an observation and an interpretation, which puts it into a very different class of integrity. There is not an experiment with many variables. It is mainly the interpretation and underlying axioms which need to be vetted for truth.
I take issue with your reply in its entirety. First, you erect a straw-man by implying that I was challenging the mathematics behind angular measures. I was not. Next, you attempt to mischaracterise my statements as wild red herring waving of the conspiracy flag without cause.
I would like to note the irony of that particular approach.
Indeed, my critique never resolved particulars of the video, precisely because no particulars are provided. It is this lack that raises concerns.
Nevertheless, my salient issue is with YOUR unflappable acceptance of this piece, despite it having no more scientific basis than previously pieces against which you rallied endlessly, waving your red herring flag of contempt.
No, sir, you do not distract me. And I am confident that no one reading this thread will fall for the transparent ruse you attempt to manufacture.
You invite this fellow here. I will be in attendance, and will bring to the discussion proper avenues of scientific address.
The FE community, being intelligent, thoughtful, and honest, will recognize the merit of that address. And when juxtaposed to the flaccid lip service of biased praise, they no doubt will be able to distinguish integrity from dogma.
As will I.
And so, I look forward with great anticipation to see which you elect to bring with you.
-
It is possible if you have knowledge of your position and the positions of distant bodies or structures.
If your eye is at an altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, and there is an object, say a red ball on a post, 500 feet away from you, which is also at altitude of 5 feet, 6 inches, then the position of that ball to you will be parallel on the horizontal. The path to that object will be at your eye level.
Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.
Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator (https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php). At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.
Interestingly, that actually does make some sense. Although using the same logic and a known viewer height and distance to the horizon surely we could determine horizon dip angle and find it is not 0...
For the scale to be accurate you'd have to know some things very precisely
1) Your altitude
2) The distance from the plane to the object you're viewing and the altitude of it if it's a peak.
Elsewhere you've argued that planes don't know how fast they're going, you seem strangely willing to accept that they know their altitude with accuracy.
Knowing the distance to the object involves knowing exactly where the plane is at the time of the observation - if planes know exactly where they are at any given moment then they surely know their speed - and exactly where the object you're viewing is. In the video you posted it was dots on the horizon, it was far from clear what those dots were. How could an accurate distance be ascertained?
And I'm not clear how any of this may be affected by the claim that the horizon rises to eye level. Surely that would affect angles?
The way of calculating angles you outline WOULD work, but only if you know all the distances precisely which is extremely difficult.
As QED has said and as I have picked you up on before, the issue is your level of critical thinking is wildly different depending on whether the result appears to back up FE or not. You assert in another post in this thread that the water level experiments are not accurate (despite the repeated assertion that the earth can't be a globe because "water finds its level", these tests consistently giving the same result and that result being verified by other methods of testing this) but everyone on here who has seen you post knows that if these experiments showed the horizon at the same level as the water you would be posting those claiming it clearly backed up the assertion about horizon rising to eye level.
-
At night, I can see stars over the complete dome. Doesn't this mean I can see a relatively dim light over the maximum distance? Why can I see a star at a greater distance from me than the sun, but can't see the sun? How do I see stars on the farthest part of the dome, but not the sun, which is closer?
-
Instead, lets say that the red ball is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude. In order to find its position in degrees below eye level we can use the knowledge that there is a gap of 3 feet, 6 inches; a space which represents where the hypothetical eye level ball would be.
Perform the calculations for angular diameter of that space manually or find an angular diameter calculator (https://rechneronline.de/sehwinkel/angular-diameter.php). At 500 feet, 3.5 feet (3 feet, 6 inches) makes up 0.401 degrees of space. Therefore a ball that is 500 feet away from you and 2 feet in altitude is 0.401 degrees below eye level.
Surely all you need do here is apply right-angle triangle trigonometry?
The horizontal distance to the 5ft6in point above the new position is one side, the 3ft6in another, and you have two sides of a right triangle. Solve for the angle at your location.
-
The sun will come up before the moon goes down. That is why you will at times see the moon out during the day but never see the sun out at night. So, as the earlier diagram showed, the sun can illuminate the moon as they are both up from the horizontal earth. But your eyes cannot see far enough to see the sun and moon clearly especially through clouds. The sun is almost always in sight but since the flat earth is so large from its north point to its south point and from its east point to its west point that you will not see them at the same time. But the rays from the sun are large enough and long enough to illuminate the sun.