The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Dices on March 19, 2019, 02:55:48 PM
-
Hi all,
Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?
How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.
-
Maybe it is behind something that is blocking it from our sight! :D
-
Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?
How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.
The apparent rising and setting (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun) of the Sun is caused by perspective (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun) and, as the Sun grows increasingly farther away, it'll be hidden from sight by the atmosphere and limits of our eyes.
The Sun is perhaps 3000 miles high (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun). It is almost-definitely spherical (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_the_planets_are_round.2C_why_isn.27t_the_Earth.3F).
We have a wonderful Wiki. Please take some time to do some research.
-
Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?
How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.
The apparent rising and setting (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun) of the Sun is caused by perspective (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun) and, as the Sun grows increasingly farther away, it'll be hidden from sight by the atmosphere and limits of our eyes.
The Sun is perhaps 3000 miles high (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun). It is almost-definitely spherical (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_the_planets_are_round.2C_why_isn.27t_the_Earth.3F).
We have a wonderful Wiki. Please take some time to do some research.
Evidently the stars don't follow the same rules, because they're clearly visible at night right up to the horizon.
-
Hi all,
Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?
How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.
There are many different answers to this question depending on what flat earth model you believe in.
Even if you believe in a very specific flat earth model (like the one where the earth is shaped like a flat circle with the north pole in the middle) there are many possible answers.
1. You are unable to see the sun during the night because of refraction from the dome.
2. You are unable to see the sun during the night because of refraction from the firmament.
3. You are unable to see the sun during the night because of refraction from the atmosphere.
Here is a video demonstrating how a refractive element (glass in this case) could prevent light from reaching all of the earth.
https://youtu.be/UmgcJuMSTxQ
4. There is a limit to how far light can travel through the atmosphere. When you don't see the sun it is outside of that range.
5. The sun shines down like a spotlight. If you are not in the spotlight area you don't see the sun.
6. Some unknown thing/force/substance is blocking/bending the light.
7. The sun has set behind a part of the earth.
8. Gravity is bending the light from the sun preventing it from reaching your eye.
9. The sun has set behind the earth.
-
Genuine question. If the sun moves over the plane, why can't I see it in the sky at night?
How high is the sun supposed to be and what is the sun's shape? If it's a ball, it should be visible from all angles and radiate as much light from every angle.
The apparent rising and setting (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Setting_of_the_Sun) of the Sun is caused by perspective (https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun) and, as the Sun grows increasingly farther away, it'll be hidden from sight by the atmosphere and limits of our eyes.
The Sun is perhaps 3000 miles high (https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun). It is almost-definitely spherical (https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_the_planets_are_round.2C_why_isn.27t_the_Earth.3F).
We have a wonderful Wiki. Please take some time to do some research.
If the sun were to be small and local, then:
a) we would see the angular size of the sun constantly change
b) we would see the sun get smaller as it sets
c) Barrow, Alaska (the most northern city in Alaska) would not be dark all day, and wouldn't rise at around 1 am
d) wouldn't have the ability to watch 2 sunsets if you quickly ascend in altitude
e) wouldn't see a semicircle as it sets
-
If the sun were to be small and local, then:
first off not all flat earth models have a small local sun. The model supported by the wiki is definitely incomplete and struggles with answering many questions.
a) we would see the angular size of the sun constantly change]
b) we would see the sun get smaller as it sets
There are several responses to these. They all kinda touch on both topics.
1. We do see the size of the sun change (or change as it sets): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1TUpNkHcAM
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. I would link you to tom's post about it by i'm lazy. Basically oncoming headlights appear much larger than they are.
notice how on some of the headlights which are futher away appear much larger light sources than ones up close?
(https://ak0.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/10569050/thumb/1.jpg)
c) Barrow, Alaska (the most northern city in Alaska) would not be dark all day, and wouldn't rise at around 1 am
1. There are many flat earth models which function differently that the flat disk model in the wiki. There are flat earth models in which this happens.
2. The video below demonstrates how a refractive material such as a dome, firmament, or atmosphere can prevent the light from hitting the center in the flat disk model
https://youtu.be/UmgcJuMSTxQ
d) wouldn't have the ability to watch 2 sunsets if you quickly ascend in altitude
e) wouldn't see a semicircle as it sets
The most common explanation for these phenomenon is chaotic atmospheric/visual/optical conditions or some sort of atmospheric refraction.
If you watch this video and pretend the opposite buildings are light from the setting sun you will notice that, because of the optical/visual/and atmospheric conditions just above the water you are unable to see them. If you went to a higher altitude the light hitting your eye would not be passing through the chaotic optical/visual/and atmospheric conditions just above the water thus letting you see further or seeing two sunsets.
https://youtu.be/GyLzdQFU3Og
Another explanation is that as you increase in altitude the air is less dense therefore light is refracted less before hitting your eye letting you see further.
-
If the sun were to be small and local, then:
first off not all flat earth models have a small local sun. The model supported by the wiki is definitely incomplete and struggles with answering many questions.
a) we would see the angular size of the sun constantly change]
b) we would see the sun get smaller as it sets
There are several responses to these. They all kinda touch on both topics.
1. We do see the size of the sun change (or change as it sets): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1TUpNkHcAM
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. I would link you to tom's post about it by i'm lazy. Basically oncoming headlights appear much larger than they are.
notice how on some of the headlights which are futher away appear much larger light sources than ones up close?
(https://ak0.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/10569050/thumb/1.jpg)
If you poke around for sunsets/sunrises timelapse with a solar filter, you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxWY7Tiy-UU
-
If you poke around for sunsets/sunrises timelapse with a solar filter, you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxWY7Tiy-UU
This really does not affect the responses.
1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter.
-
If you poke around for sunsets/sunrises timelapse with a solar filter, you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxWY7Tiy-UU
This really does not affect the responses.
1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter
Sure it does, it points to 2.
1. We don't see the sun change size.
3. I don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on, just a crisp, clear orb in the sky.
4. There's no scattering of light otherwise we would see it all blurry, not like the crisp image we see here.
-
1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter
Sure it does, it points to 2.
Drawing a line through a point does not magically invalidate it.
1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
1. We don't see the sun change size
I've already presented evidence which shows that it DOES change size. I will present it again:
https://youtu.be/e1TUpNkHcAM
Notice how the sun DOES change size?
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
3. I don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on, just a crisp, clear orb in the sky.
This claim was made based you seeing a video. Lets understand what's going on here:
Photons going from the sun, through the atmosphere, through a solar filter and hitting a camera. The Camera then makes it's best attempt to turn those collections of photons into a digital image/video.
That digital image being loaded onto a computer to a monitor which generates photons which hit your eye, your eye then tries it's very best to turn those new set of photons into an electrical signal and sends it to your visual cortex.
Now your visual cortex has this huge cloud of electrons and it tries it's very best to create some sort of an image out of it.
Just because you don't see it does not mean that it does not exist. It just means that your eye's limited ability to turn photons into a cloud of electrical signals and your visual cortex's limited ability to translate that cloud of signals are both easily fooled. Allow me to give an example:
In the video below I see an arrow change direction and i don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on. Just because you SEE the arrow facing right does not mean that the arrow is facing right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls
4. There's no scattering of light otherwise we would see it all blurry, not like the crisp image we see here.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter
First off you didn't present any evidence that light scattering causes things to appear blurry. Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that the atmosphere does not cause any light from the sun to scatter?
Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that ANY time ANY light is scattered it will appear blurry in such a way that is perceivable to naked human eye?
Second off yes there is scattering of light. Allow me to present my evidence:
"When light from the Sun passes through the atmosphere, it gets scattered by the large number of particles in the atmosphere".
Unless the entire path the light took from the sun to the camera was in a vacuum (which I highly doubt it was) then light was scattered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsxxO1YgQVI
-
1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
2. The sun is not small and local the sun is large and very far away so we don't see the shape of the sun change.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter
Sure it does, it points to 2.
Drawing a line through a point does not magically invalidate it.
I didn't mean any offense buy striking, just visually teasing out #2 as presented.
1. We do see the size of the sun change based on evidence already provided.
1. We don't see the sun change size
I've already presented evidence which shows that it DOES change size. I will present it again:
https://youtu.be/e1TUpNkHcAM
Notice how the sun DOES change size?
Sure, and I presented evidence which shows that it DOESN'T change size. But like I said, find sunsets/sunrises timelapses with a solar filter, (yours is not) you'll find crisp images that show the angular size does not change. Find one of those where it does and let's chat.
3. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to change has to do with things like refraction. Light is refracted before hitting the solar filter.
3. I don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on, just a crisp, clear orb in the sky.
This claim was made based you seeing a video.
And so was yours.
Lets understand what's going on here:
Photons going from the sun, through the atmosphere, through a solar filter and hitting a camera. The Camera then makes it's best attempt to turn those collections of photons into a digital image/video.
That digital image being loaded onto a computer to a monitor which generates photons which hit your eye, your eye then tries it's very best to turn those new set of photons into an electrical signal and sends it to your visual cortex.
Now your visual cortex has this huge cloud of electrons and it tries it's very best to create some sort of an image out of it.
Just because you don't see it does not mean that it does not exist. It just means that your eye's limited ability to turn photons into a cloud of electrical signals and your visual cortex's limited ability to translate that cloud of signals are both easily fooled. Allow me to give an example:
In the video below I see an arrow change direction and i don't see any refraction/miraging/warbling going on. Just because you SEE the arrow facing right does not mean that the arrow is facing right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls
We don't live in a glass of water. Cool trick though.
4. There's no scattering of light otherwise we would see it all blurry, not like the crisp image we see here.
4. The sun is small and local and the reason it does not appear to with the oncoming headlights optical phenomenon. The light is already scattered before it hits the solar filter
First off you didn't present any evidence that light scattering causes things to appear blurry. Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that the atmosphere does not cause any light from the sun to scatter?
I didn't present evidence, you did, with your car lights image, look blurry to me. Not defined like the orb in the video I presented. I never claimed the atmosphere does not scatter light. Just saying that a crisp clean seemingly low atmospherically interactive event like in the video I presented, the light didn't appear 'scattered' to me. I'm sure it is scattered, to what degree, I don't know, but the sun seemed crisp in the image/video.
Do you have any evidence that supports your claim that ANY time ANY light is scattered it will appear blurry in such a way that is perceivable to naked human eye?
Nope, and never said I did, just referencing you car light image. Again, just saying the image looks crisp, minimally 'scattered' and minimally subject to some perhaps more than usual refraction like miraging.
Second off yes there is scattering of light. Allow me to present my evidence:
"When light from the Sun passes through the atmosphere, it gets scattered by the large number of particles in the atmosphere".
Unless the entire path the light took from the sun to the camera was in a vacuum (which I highly doubt it was) then light was scattered.
Cool, obviously there is scattering, that's what light generally does. How much is dependent upon the given situation I suppose. All kinds of environmental factors.
-
If perspective and atmoplanic scattering are the main reasons for sunset, then it stands to reason that if you get high enough, then you should be able to push the vanishing point further back and virtually eliminate the scattering so that the sun should still be visible during what should otherwise be night. Does anyone have any idea of what that altitude might be?
-
Cool, obviously there is scattering, that's what light generally does. How much is dependent upon the given situation I suppose. All kinds of environmental factors.
Well since we both agree that there is light scattering to a degree depending on all kinds of environmental factors then you can see the FE points. This light scattering happens in both the RE models and the FE models.
If perspective and atmoplanic scattering are the main reasons for sunset, then it stands to reason that if you get high enough, then you should be able to push the vanishing point further back and virtually eliminate the scattering so that the sun should still be visible during what should otherwise be night. Does anyone have any idea of what that altitude might be?
This depends largely on the flat earth model.
1. 30 miles
2. Less than 30 miles
3. between 30-90 miles.
4. infinite
5. Only heaven is beyond the atmosphere (immeasurable i guess)
6. You can't reach that altitude because you're being blocked by a dome/firmament.
-
Cool, obviously there is scattering, that's what light generally does. How much is dependent upon the given situation I suppose. All kinds of environmental factors.
Well since we both agree that there is light scattering to a degree depending on all kinds of environmental factors then you can see the FE points. This light scattering happens in both the RE models and the FE models.
Light scattering happens in any model, essentially it just happens on earth, light does that around these parts. But when a solar filter is put on your camera (or face), essentially on a clear eve or dawn, you basically remove this scatter=change in size business. So, no, I don't see FE's points.
No scatter, no size change (These are beautiful, btw) shots with sun filters - This one is insanely crisp and stunningly gorgeous:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngSQngfOjmY
Another crisp one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIviCNY3Txw
This is a good one b/c it does a side by side w/filter and without, about halfway through:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu9oYb4_AAo
-
Light scattering happens in any model, essentially it just happens on earth, light does that around these parts. But when a solar filter is put on your camera (or face), essentially on a clear eve or dawn, you basically remove this scatter=change in size business. So, no, I don't see FE's points.
No scatter, no size change (These are beautiful, btw) shots with sun filters - This one is insanely crisp and stunningly gorgeous:
I presented evidence which suggested that light from the sun scatters upon contact with the atmosphere and you agreed that this scattering took place. Now it's your claim that light viewed through a solar filter was not scattered by the atmosphere? Do you have any evidence to support your claim.
Or is your claim that light viewed through a solar filter was scattered by the atmosphere and that the solar filter somehow reverses that? Do you have any evidence to support that claim?
I already presented evidence that strongly suggested that light from the sun that passed through the solar filter was already scattered by the atmosphere.
-
Here is a DIY solar filter being used on a light bulb at home. Hmm...seems to me it works properly as described, revealing the true shape of an object.
-
Here is a DIY solar filter being used on a light bulb at home. Hmm...seems to me it works properly as described, revealing the true shape of an object.
I have a lot of issues with that statement.
1. There is a HUGE difference between these things:
Light which is generated under optical conditions of an indoor room, spending 100% of it's time traveling through optical conditions of an indoor room, and hitting a light detector in the optical conditions of an indoor room
Light which is generated under the optical conditions A the vacuum of space, passes through optical conditions B the exosphere, passes through optical conditions C the thermoshpere, then D the mesosphere, then E the stratosphere, then F the mesosphere, then hitting a light detector in the chaotic surface level optical conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls
notice this video.
Scenario 1:
let A = indoor air optical conditions
let B = glass optical conditions
let C = water optical conditions
path of light
A -> arrow -> A -> light detector = arrow facing left
A -> arrow -> A -> B -> A -> B -> A -> light detector = arrow facing left
A -> arrow -> A -> B -> C -> B -> A -> light detector = arrow facing RIGHT
Notice how passing through multiple different types of optical conditions DRAMATICALLY changes your perception?
2. You are using limited human perception here. Saying it looks like the true shape is like a doctor saying I don't need to wash my hands they look clean. Or like a physicist saying that the glass is not made of atoms because I don't see them.
Just because the limited abilities of the human eye and visual cortex are unable to perceive something does not mean that it does not exist.
We don't live in a glass of water. Cool trick though.
It's true we don't live in a glass of water. Yet the logic still applies.
The logic that still applies is this:
That video demonstrates that under conditions where the light that hits our eye has gone through multiple refractive mediums with different refractive indexes the electrical signal sent to the visual cortex, and the visual cortex's attempt to create a perception of said cloud of electrical signals can be grossly inaccurate to reality.
Light from the sun has gone through multiple different refractive mediums with different refractive indexes such as the vacuum of space, the exosphere, the thermoshpere, the mesosphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, and finally the complex different layers of your eye.
All you have done is added another variable to the equation by adding another set refractive medium transitions
New light path:
The vacuum of space, the exosphere, the thermoshpere, the mesosphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, a solar filter, more surface level chaotic atmospheric conditions after exiting the solar filter and finally the complex different layers of your eye.
-
New light path:
The vacuum of space, the exosphere, the thermoshpere, the mesosphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, a solar filter, more surface level chaotic atmospheric conditions after exiting the solar filter and finally the complex different layers of your eye.
Sounds pretty complex indeed. What's the specific point you're trying to make in regard to the topic: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
-
I can understand that you may perceive that the atmosphere is causing the light of the sun to do all sorts of crazy things. But no matter what time, location or conditions, a solar produces the same image of the sun. The rest of your arguments are straw men, and red herrings. I could say the same about your observations that the horizon is flat and therefore the earth is flat (in comparison to your physicist rebuttal about perceiving atoms).
-
Here is a DIY solar filter being used on a light bulb at home. Hmm...seems to me it works properly as described, revealing the true shape of an object.
I have a lot of issues with that statement.
1. There is a HUGE difference between these things:
Light which is generated under optical conditions of an indoor room, spending 100% of it's time traveling through optical conditions of an indoor room, and hitting a light detector in the optical conditions of an indoor room
Light which is generated under the optical conditions A the vacuum of space, passes through optical conditions B the exosphere, passes through optical conditions C the thermoshpere, then D the mesosphere, then E the stratosphere, then F the mesosphere, then hitting a light detector in the chaotic surface level optical conditions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G303o8pJzls
notice this video.
Scenario 1:
let A = indoor air optical conditions
let B = glass optical conditions
let C = water optical conditions
path of light
A -> arrow -> A -> light detector = arrow facing left
A -> arrow -> A -> B -> A -> B -> A -> light detector = arrow facing left
A -> arrow -> A -> B -> C -> B -> A -> light detector = arrow facing RIGHT
Notice how passing through multiple different types of optical conditions DRAMATICALLY changes your perception?
2. You are using limited human perception here. Saying it looks like the true shape is like a doctor saying I don't need to wash my hands they look clean. Or like a physicist saying that the glass is not made of atoms because I don't see them.
Just because the limited abilities of the human eye and visual cortex are unable to perceive something does not mean that it does not exist.
We don't live in a glass of water. Cool trick though.
It's true we don't live in a glass of water. Yet the logic still applies.
The logic that still applies is this:
That video demonstrates that under conditions where the light that hits our eye has gone through multiple refractive mediums with different refractive indexes the electrical signal sent to the visual cortex, and the visual cortex's attempt to create a perception of said cloud of electrical signals can be grossly inaccurate to reality.
Light from the sun has gone through multiple different refractive mediums with different refractive indexes such as the vacuum of space, the exosphere, the thermoshpere, the mesosphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, and finally the complex different layers of your eye.
All you have done is added another variable to the equation by adding another set refractive medium transitions
New light path:
The vacuum of space, the exosphere, the thermoshpere, the mesosphere, the stratosphere, the mesosphere, chaotic surface optical conditions, a solar filter, more surface level chaotic atmospheric conditions after exiting the solar filter and finally the complex different layers of your eye.
Yeah, so, the indices of refraction between vacuum and atmospheric density on the earths surface differ by about 0.0003. Those would bookmark the greatest difference as light passes through all these different layers.
Hence, the diffraction through medium is negligible.
Chaotic atmospheric conditions? What are you talking about?
If a butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand, and this creates a hurricane in Europe, which topples a tree in a forest with no one around to hear it, does your long diatribe make any sense?
Apparently not.
-
Yeah, so, the indices of refraction between vacuum and atmospheric density on the earths surface differ by about 0.0003. Those would bookmark the greatest difference as light passes through all these different layers.
Hence, the diffraction through medium is negligible.
Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that the refraction caused by light traveling through the different layers of the atmosphere is negligible?
allow me to present evidence which supports the claim that refraction caused by light traveling through the atmosphere is significant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9y5nwok1to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sj868IzNrk
Chaotic atmospheric conditions? What are you talking about?
notice how the water level LOOKS LIKE it has increased in altitude a good 15-20 feed over the course of a few minutes? The water level is not really raising and lowering by 20 feet this afternoon.
Because of chaotic atmospheric optical variables the path the photos take through the air TRICKS your visual cortex into creating an INCORRECT image.
https://youtu.be/GyLzdQFU3Og
If a butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand, and this creates a hurricane in Europe, which topples a tree in a forest with no one around to hear it, does your long diatribe make any sense?
Apparently not.
I don't know what anyone has to do with the topic.
-
Yeah, so, the indices of refraction between vacuum and atmospheric density on the earths surface differ by about 0.0003. Those would bookmark the greatest difference as light passes through all these different layers.
Hence, the diffraction through medium is negligible.
Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that the refraction caused by light traveling through the different layers of the atmosphere is negligible?
allow me to present evidence which supports the claim that refraction caused by light traveling through the atmosphere is significant
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9y5nwok1to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sj868IzNrk
Chaotic atmospheric conditions? What are you talking about?
notice how the water level LOOKS LIKE it has increased in altitude a good 15-20 feed over the course of a few minutes? The water level is not really raising and lowering by 20 feet this afternoon.
Because of chaotic atmospheric optical variables the path the photos take through the air TRICKS your visual cortex into creating an INCORRECT image.
https://youtu.be/GyLzdQFU3Og
If a butterfly flaps its wings in Thailand, and this creates a hurricane in Europe, which topples a tree in a forest with no one around to hear it, does your long diatribe make any sense?
Apparently not.
I don't know what anyone has to do with the topic.
A YouTube video showing a cartoon...is your evidence. Oh dear.
You know that anyone can make YouTube videos, right?
Why don’t you spend some time learning optics. Grab a textbook on the subject, and read through it. Look up indices of refraction, snell’s law, and then draw me a diagram with actual distances and numbers, using mathematics to demonstrate that we somehow see the Sun two minutes before it rises.
Good lord, kids these days and YouTube. Wouldn’t know evidence from their ass.
Also, chaotic has a precise definition. You are using it wrongly.
But do detail for me what these “chaotic atmospheric variables” are. In fact, if you even manage to state a variable, let alone an atmospheric one or one that exhibits chaotic behaviour, then I will award you one internet.
-
Here is what the British Astronomical Association have to say about atmospheric refraction.
https://britastro.org/node/17066
-
Here is what the British Astronomical Association have to say about atmospheric refraction.
https://britastro.org/node/17066
Hell of a lot better than YouTube.
-
A YouTube video showing a cartoon...is your evidence. Oh dear.
Good lord, kids these days and YouTube. Wouldn’t know evidence from their ass.
If something is a cartoon or on youtube not has no effect on if the information is correct or accurate. The correct, and accurate information, based on the evidence provided is that atmospheric refraction is significant.
Do I really need to present more evidence? I guess so. Here is more. Sorry they still have cartoon diagrams. I noticed how the CARTOON from the HONG KONG OBSERVATORY looks very similar to the CARTOON you so easily dismissed from youtube.
https://www.hko.gov.hk/m/article_e.htm?title=ele_00493
http://jgiesen.de/refract/index.html
good lord. Kids these days and their inability to determine if a youtube video is accurate and corroborated by places like the Hong Kong Observatory or just made up.
Why don’t you spend some time learning optics. Grab a textbook on the subject, and read through it. Look up indices of refraction, snell’s law, and then draw me a diagram with actual distances and numbers, using mathematics to demonstrate that we somehow see the Sun two minutes before it rises.
It's true I didn't take any optics classes. I did take some astronomy classes and guess what, we learned about atmospheric refraction.
Also, chaotic has a precise definition. You are using it wrongly.
But do detail for me what these “chaotic atmospheric variables” are. In fact, if you even manage to state a variable, let alone an atmospheric one or one that exhibits chaotic behaviour, then I will award you one internet.
I really don't like when people argue semantics about the definition of words. Since you don't like me using that word i looked up the definition of it online. I will correct that previous statement using the definition of chaotic instead of the word.
Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that i'm using the word chaotic incorrectly? Allow me to present my evidence which supports my claim that I AM using the word correctly:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaotic
Chaotic:
"marked by chaos or being in a state of chaos"
Chaos:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system such as the ATMOSPHERE
-
A YouTube video showing a cartoon...is your evidence. Oh dear.
Good lord, kids these days and YouTube. Wouldn’t know evidence from their ass.
If something is a cartoon or on youtube not has no effect on if the information is correct or accurate. The correct, and accurate information, based on the evidence provided is that atmospheric refraction is significant.
Do I really need to present more evidence? I guess so. Here is more. Sorry they still have cartoon diagrams. I noticed how the CARTOON from the HONG KONG OBSERVATORY looks very similar to the CARTOON you so easily dismissed from youtube.
https://www.hko.gov.hk/m/article_e.htm?title=ele_00493
http://jgiesen.de/refract/index.html
good lord. Kids these days and their inability to determine if a youtube video is accurate and corroborated by places like the Hong Kong Observatory or just made up.
Why don’t you spend some time learning optics. Grab a textbook on the subject, and read through it. Look up indices of refraction, snell’s law, and then draw me a diagram with actual distances and numbers, using mathematics to demonstrate that we somehow see the Sun two minutes before it rises.
It's true I didn't take any optics classes. I did take some astronomy classes and guess what, we learned about atmospheric refraction.
Also, chaotic has a precise definition. You are using it wrongly.
But do detail for me what these “chaotic atmospheric variables” are. In fact, if you even manage to state a variable, let alone an atmospheric one or one that exhibits chaotic behaviour, then I will award you one internet.
I really don't like when people argue semantics about the definition of words. Since you don't like me using that word i looked up the definition of it online. I will correct that previous statement using the definition of chaotic instead of the word.
Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that i'm using the word chaotic incorrectly? Allow me to present my evidence which supports my claim that I AM using the word correctly:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaotic
Chaotic:
"marked by chaos or being in a state of chaos"
Chaos:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a complex natural system such as the ATMOSPHERE
No - you needed to present SOME evidence, not more.
If you had actually taken an astronomy class, and paid attention, then you probably would have learned that YouTube is not good evidence.
Do tell me what you leaned in that class - go pull out your old notes. THAT would actually be meaningful.
Warning: if you try to BS this, then I will catch you.
It is not semantics...it’s science. We use precision in science. That’s something else an astronomy class would have taught you - I should know - I teach astronomy classes.
Some properties of the atmosphere are modelled using chaotic systems, and some are not. You are not using this word correctly. Now try again.
-
No - you needed to present SOME evidence, not more.
If you had actually taken an astronomy class, and paid attention, then you probably would have learned that YouTube is not good evidence.
Do tell me what you leaned in that class - go pull out your old notes. THAT would actually be meaningful.
1. You have yet to present ANY evidence. Please provide SOMETHING.
2. If you don't accept the Hong Kong Observatory and the British Astronomical Association as evidence then i don't know what you will accept as evidence.
It is not semantics...it’s science.
We are clearly speaking two separate languages. I'm speaking English as defined Merriam Webster. I don't know what language you are speaking.
I teach astronomy classes.
It's unfortunate that you teach this class and you are unable to present any evidence to refute the Hong Kong Observatory. Clearly you know more than they do but are unable to present any evidence to support your claims.
-
No - you needed to present SOME evidence, not more.
If you had actually taken an astronomy class, and paid attention, then you probably would have learned that YouTube is not good evidence.
Do tell me what you leaned in that class - go pull out your old notes. THAT would actually be meaningful.
1. You have yet to present ANY evidence. Please provide SOMETHING.
2. If you don't accept the Hong Kong Observatory and the British Astronomical Association as evidence then i don't know what you will accept as evidence.
It is not semantics...it’s science.
We are clearly speaking two separate languages. I'm speaking English as defined Merriam Webster. I don't know what language you are speaking.
I teach astronomy classes.
It's unfortunate that you teach this class and you are unable to present any evidence to refute the Hong Kong Observatory. Clearly you know more than they do but are unable to present any evidence to support your claims.
I.am.not.making.a.claim.
You are. I do not need to present evidence to refute your claim, you need to present evidence to support it.
That’s how it works, sparky.
Shiiit man, that astronomy course don’t taught you nuthin bout this here scientific method.
But you never really took any class did ya?
-
I.am.not.making.a.claim.
1. You made the claim that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
I also presented evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was also evidence provided from the British Astronomical Association.
2. You made the claim that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
3. you made the claim "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
-
I.am.not.making.a.claim.
1. You made the claim that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
I also presented evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was also evidence provided from the British Astronomical Association.
2. You made the claim that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
3. you made the claim "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
No, I can reject your evidence without it being a claim. See look: I reject your evidence.
But I even supply a reason. I’m just a generous guy!
-
I.am.not.making.a.claim.
1. You made the claim that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
I also presented evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was also evidence provided from the British Astronomical Association.
2. You made the claim that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
3. you made the claim "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
No, I can reject your evidence without it being a claim. See look: I reject your evidence.
Again I'm speaking English and you appear to be using your own language which I am unable to converse because you have different definitions of words than the English dictionary.
when i googled the definition of the world "claim"
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
1. You asserted that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube. Without providing evidence or proof.
2. You asserted that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly. Without providing evidence or proof.
3. You asserted "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer. Without providing evidence or proof.
By definition you did make claims.
Please stop debating semantics.
It's like i'm saying I dove into the water.
Your reply is a dove is a flying bird therefore you can't flying bird into the water.
-
I.am.not.making.a.claim.
1. You made the claim that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
I also presented evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was also evidence provided from the British Astronomical Association.
2. You made the claim that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
3. you made the claim "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer.
(without any evidence to support your claim)
No, I can reject your evidence without it being a claim. See look: I reject your evidence.
Again I'm speaking English and you appear to be using your own language which I am unable to converse because you have different definitions of words than the English dictionary.
when i googled the definition of the world "claim"
state or assert that something is the case, typically without providing evidence or proof.
1. You asserted that my evidence was not evidence because it was from youtube. Without providing evidence or proof.
2. You asserted that I was using the world chaotic incorrectly. Without providing evidence or proof.
3. You asserted "the diffraction through medium is negligible" in regards to sunlight refraction on the path from the sun to the eyes of the observer. Without providing evidence or proof.
By definition you did make claims.
Please stop debating semantics.
It's like i'm saying I dove into the water.
Your reply is a dove is a flying bird therefore you can't flying bird into the water.
Whelp, too bad lad, you can look in the dictionary all you want, but it won’t save you from your burden of proof.
Now fly away my little dove, we will not dive into any more silly distractions here. We were talking about your class - your astronomy class, and all the refraction that you learned there.
No more straw-manning this aside, little dove.
-
Whelp, too bad lad, you can look in the dictionary all you want, but it won’t save you from your burden of proof.
Now fly away my little dove, we will not dive into any more silly distractions here. We were talking about your class - your astronomy class, and all the refraction that you learned there.
No more straw-manning this aside, little dove.
I can't PROVE anything. I am not even trying to PROVE anything. I can only present EVIDENCE which you can then reject. With someone like you PROOF is IMPOSSIBLE. Even if I found the mathematical PROOF of atmospheric refraction you could just say "does not count" like you have been.
Why you would reject published evidence from Hong Kong Observatory and the British Astronomical Association is beyond me.
At this point I don't see the point of presenting more evidence. If you reject current evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory or the British Astronomical Association I don't see how me trying to figure out the name of my text book from years ago and researching the information it had about refraction will help anything.
-
Whelp, too bad lad, you can look in the dictionary all you want, but it won’t save you from your burden of proof.
Now fly away my little dove, we will not dive into any more silly distractions here. We were talking about your class - your astronomy class, and all the refraction that you learned there.
No more straw-manning this aside, little dove.
I can't PROVE anything. I am not even trying to PROVE anything. I can only present EVIDENCE which you can then reject. With someone like you PROOF is IMPOSSIBLE. Even if I found the mathematical PROOF of atmospheric refraction you could just say "does not count" like you have been.
Why you would reject published evidence from Hong Kong Observatory and the British Astronomical Association is beyond me.
At this point I don't see the point of presenting more evidence. If you reject current evidence from the Hong Kong Observatory or the British Astronomical Association I don't see how me trying to figure out the name of my text book from years ago and researching the information it had about refraction will help anything.
Lol, talk about equivocation fallacy. A burden of proof does not mean you prove anything. This is what happens when you rely too much on dictionaries instead of using your brain.
You will not find any mathematical proof, because you are not interested in evidence. You are interested in posting cartoons from YouTube and lying about classes you never took.
And when called on it, you will do what every other faker does: everything except verify. You will continue complaining, and then, predictably, at the very end say: well no point in me showing it now.
Congrats, you fit the pattern nicely.
-
You will not find any mathematical proof, because you are not interested in evidence.
Coming from the guy who has ignored evidence I have posted which was not from youtube while, at the same time, providing no evidence of his own.
You are interested in posting cartoons from YouTube and lying about classes you never took.
Another claim made without one single shred of evidence.
And when called on it, you will do what every other faker does: everything except verify. You will continue complaining, and then, predictably, at the very end say: well no point in me showing it now.
I sent you links to the Hong Kong Observatory. In addition there was evidence from British Astronomical Association. Which you ignored.
Here's the wikipedia page too. I notice it has cartoons so you won't accept them either:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction
Notice how it has many mathematical formulas to calculate refraction? It's not PROOF but it's evidence that we do have the ability to use math to come pretty close to calculating refraction.
Here is another source https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/refraction.html
I guess you won't accept that one either because it has a cartoon on it.
Here's another one:"
https://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/sunflat.htm
AN optics website. It still has cartoons on it so you won't accept it either.
Here's another
http://www.funscience.in/study-zone/Physics/RefractionOfLight/AtmosphericRefraction.php#sthash.uW4jeCa4.dpbs
What is the point of talking about this when you just basically make things up and provide no evidence whatsoever to your claims.
-
Very good! You have provided a set of links that discuss the issue with regards to various audience, and have provided a brief description below each to prompt the reader on what the link contains.
How hard it is for me to argue against those? Pretty hard. At least Not without making myself seem rather ridiculous.
This is what you do now instead of posting YouTube videos.
You recognise the difference.
-
Very good! You have provided a set of links that discuss the issue with regards to various audience, and have provided a brief description below each to prompt the reader on what the link contains.
How hard it is for me to argue against those? Pretty hard. At least Not without making myself seem rather ridiculous.
This is what you do now instead of posting YouTube videos.
You recognise the difference.
First off:
recognize not recognise
Second off:
What I did was search the internet and provide that information on this thread. What you did was argue about the definition of words, ignore the evidence presented, and failed to see that research can come in the form of text, spoken word, mathematical equations, diagrams, books, articles, and VIDEOS.
When the youtube evidence is matching the Hong Kong Observatory evidence and and also matching the British Astronomical Association evidence it's pretty safe to say there is a good chance that it's not bullcrap.
-
What's the specific point you're trying to make in regard to the topic: Why isn't the sun visible all night?
Are you arguing that refraction exists? Or that refraction is the cause for the sun to disappear below the horizon causing night?
If the former, yes, it does. If the latter, so far you've laid out that refraction exists. That's about it.
-
Very good! You have provided a set of links that discuss the issue with regards to various audience, and have provided a brief description below each to prompt the reader on what the link contains.
How hard it is for me to argue against those? Pretty hard. At least Not without making myself seem rather ridiculous.
This is what you do now instead of posting YouTube videos.
You recognise the difference.
First off:
recognize not recognise
Second off:
What I did was search the internet and provide that information on this thread. What you did was argue about the definition of words, ignore the evidence presented, and failed to see that research can come in the form of text, spoken word, mathematical equations, diagrams, books, articles, and VIDEOS.
When the youtube evidence is matching the Hong Kong Observatory evidence and and also matching the British Astronomical Association evidence it's pretty safe to say there is a good chance that it's not bullcrap.
First off, never start your post with first off - it just shows everyone what an angry jefferson you are.
On the Second hand, spelling errors really only matter in spelling bee's. Otherwise you're just being a cheater and misdirector and trying to make someone look stupid just because they misspelled a word. It's a rude thing to do and you should stop it. Since you weren't arguing about how to spell that word, I'd ask you stay on topic (oh by the way, you should have used a semicolon in your sentence above so let's make fun of you for not being smart enough to use correct punctuation (I'm kidding, but that was pretty scary huh? Everyone almost thought you weren't proficient with your semicolons)
Second hand clothes part II, would you be that guy reading the secret of life whose pointing out every typo? Maybe you just like causing conflict over nothing? Maybe you like picking on people and instead of responding to their thoughts which they spent a lot of time on, you'll try to embarrass them because they had a spelling error. Oh boy, you sound like basically all the teachers I've had the pleasure of putting in their place (their most disliked place, the place where people are equal).
Thirdsofall, why does this matter to you?
Thirdsofall, why does it matter if someone thinks the earth is flat?
Thirdsofall, do you go to LGBTgay websites and tell them why they’re wrong for wanting same sex with someone else? Do you come with carefully prepared arguments that explain they really don’t like it?
fifth of the good stuff of all, what if the earth is a triangle. What if it's 17,000 triangles all jammed together inside a potato. So what? Who cares? WHO CARES?
Sixthly, why are you in this argument? You don't really care what people here believe. You probably won't invite us to dinner with your family, again. You may as well tell your argument to a teacher for all the value that'll come of it.
Sevengetting-off, Why are you here other than to get into an argument with people you're angry at and think are stupid? Why do you want to interfere with people's peace and quiet and instead start challenging them and then challenging their answers. Do you treat everyone who thinks something different than you like this? Do you like to pick on people when you know that everyone else laughs at them and sees them as less than human?
eight - Every time you've been wrong in your life, you've thought the person who was right didn't know the answer.
You only get smarter by not having the right answer, and since it's so important to you to have it, you'll probably waste your gifts, because you can't own being wrong and learning (and don’t realize there's no correlation between wrong and smart, well there is, but it’s the opposite of what you think).
Good luck Matey!
-
Very good! You have provided a set of links that discuss the issue with regards to various audience, and have provided a brief description below each to prompt the reader on what the link contains.
How hard it is for me to argue against those? Pretty hard. At least Not without making myself seem rather ridiculous.
This is what you do now instead of posting YouTube videos.
You recognise the difference.
First off:
recognize not recognise
Second off:
What I did was search the internet and provide that information on this thread. What you did was argue about the definition of words, ignore the evidence presented, and failed to see that research can come in the form of text, spoken word, mathematical equations, diagrams, books, articles, and VIDEOS.
When the youtube evidence is matching the Hong Kong Observatory evidence and and also matching the British Astronomical Association evidence it's pretty safe to say there is a good chance that it's not bullcrap.
It is only “recognize” in the US. Most English speakers world-wide spell this word with an “s.”
I’m sorta bored with you, and this isn’t going anywhere.
Just keep remembering what I taught you about evidence.
-
On the Second hand, spelling errors really only matter in spelling bee's. Otherwise you're just being a cheater and misdirector and trying to make someone look stupid just because they misspelled a word. It's a rude thing to do and you should stop it. Since you weren't arguing about how to spell that word, I'd ask you stay on topic (oh by the way, you should have used a semicolon in your sentence above so let's make fun of you for not being smart enough to use correct punctuation (I'm kidding, but that was pretty scary huh? Everyone almost thought you weren't proficient with your semicolons)
When debating semantics spelling is everything.
Second hand clothes part II, would you be that guy reading the secret of life whose pointing out every typo? Maybe you just like causing conflict over nothing? Maybe you like picking on people and instead of responding to their thoughts which they spent a lot of time on, you'll try to embarrass them because they had a spelling error. Oh boy, you sound like basically all the teachers I've had the pleasure of putting in their place (their most disliked place, the place where people are equal).
Again several times we have had a disagreement about the definition of specific words. When being precise about how we define the words that we use then spelling does matter. In every day activity where the definition of words is not so important me dunt kare.
Thirdsofall, why does this matter to you?
It matters to me because people come here with questions about the flat earth models and many of them go unanswered.
Thirdsofall, why does it matter if someone thinks the earth is flat?
I does not matter at all.
Thirdsofall, do you go to LGBTgay websites and tell them why they’re wrong for wanting same sex with someone else? Do you come with carefully prepared arguments that explain they really don’t like it?
no
fifth of the good stuff of all, what if the earth is a triangle. What if it's 17,000 triangles all jammed together inside a potato. So what? Who cares? WHO CARES?
Clearly you do. You're here on a flat earth forum making posts about it.
Sixthly, why are you in this argument? You don't really care what people here believe. You probably won't invite us to dinner with your family, again. You may as well tell your argument to a teacher for all the value that'll come of it.
someone asked why the sun isn't visible at night in the flat earth models and I was answering the question.
Sevengetting-off, Why are you here other than to get into an argument with people you're angry at and think are stupid? Why do you want to interfere with people's peace and quiet and instead start challenging them and then challenging their answers. Do you treat everyone who thinks something different than you like this? Do you like to pick on people when you know that everyone else laughs at them and sees them as less than human?
I'm hear to answer people questions about the various flat earth models and point out that many of the flat earth ideas or concepts have some sort of evidence behind them.
eight - Every time you've been wrong in your life, you've thought the person who was right didn't know the answer.
ok?
You only get smarter by not having the right answer, and since it's so important to you to have it, you'll probably waste your gifts, because you can't own being wrong and learning
I know I don't have the right answer.
Most English speakers world-wide spell this word with an “s.”
Just keep remembering what I taught you about evidence.
Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that most English speakers spell this with an "s"? Or this this more things that you made up without presenting any evidence?
According to this website:
https://writingexplained.org/recognise-or-recognize-difference
The British use
both recognise and recognize.
According to this website:
The United States and Canada both use recognize.
https://grammarist.com/spelling/recognize-vs-recognise/
I believe that if you combined everyone in Canada, the United States, and Britain that would be most English speakers world wide.
-
On the Second hand, spelling errors really only matter in spelling bee's. Otherwise you're just being a cheater and misdirector and trying to make someone look stupid just because they misspelled a word. It's a rude thing to do and you should stop it. Since you weren't arguing about how to spell that word, I'd ask you stay on topic (oh by the way, you should have used a semicolon in your sentence above so let's make fun of you for not being smart enough to use correct punctuation (I'm kidding, but that was pretty scary huh? Everyone almost thought you weren't proficient with your semicolons)
When debating semantics spelling is everything.
Second hand clothes part II, would you be that guy reading the secret of life whose pointing out every typo? Maybe you just like causing conflict over nothing? Maybe you like picking on people and instead of responding to their thoughts which they spent a lot of time on, you'll try to embarrass them because they had a spelling error. Oh boy, you sound like basically all the teachers I've had the pleasure of putting in their place (their most disliked place, the place where people are equal).
Again several times we have had a disagreement about the definition of specific words. When being precise about how we define the words that we use then spelling does matter. In every day activity where the definition of words is not so important me dunt kare.
Thirdsofall, why does this matter to you?
It matters to me because people come here with questions about the flat earth models and many of them go unanswered.
Thirdsofall, why does it matter if someone thinks the earth is flat?
I does not matter at all.
Thirdsofall, do you go to LGBTgay websites and tell them why they’re wrong for wanting same sex with someone else? Do you come with carefully prepared arguments that explain they really don’t like it?
no
fifth of the good stuff of all, what if the earth is a triangle. What if it's 17,000 triangles all jammed together inside a potato. So what? Who cares? WHO CARES?
Clearly you do. You're here on a flat earth forum making posts about it.
Sixthly, why are you in this argument? You don't really care what people here believe. You probably won't invite us to dinner with your family, again. You may as well tell your argument to a teacher for all the value that'll come of it.
someone asked why the sun isn't visible at night in the flat earth models and I was answering the question.
Sevengetting-off, Why are you here other than to get into an argument with people you're angry at and think are stupid? Why do you want to interfere with people's peace and quiet and instead start challenging them and then challenging their answers. Do you treat everyone who thinks something different than you like this? Do you like to pick on people when you know that everyone else laughs at them and sees them as less than human?
I'm hear to answer people questions about the various flat earth models and point out that many of the flat earth ideas or concepts have some sort of evidence behind them.
eight - Every time you've been wrong in your life, you've thought the person who was right didn't know the answer.
ok?
You only get smarter by not having the right answer, and since it's so important to you to have it, you'll probably waste your gifts, because you can't own being wrong and learning
I know I don't have the right answer.
Most English speakers world-wide spell this word with an “s.”
Just keep remembering what I taught you about evidence.
Do you have any evidence which supports your claim that most English speakers spell this with an "s"? Or this this more things that you made up without presenting any evidence?
According to this website:
https://writingexplained.org/recognise-or-recognize-difference
The British use
both recognise and recognize.
According to this website:
The United States and Canada both use recognize.
https://grammarist.com/spelling/recognize-vs-recognise/
I believe that if you combined everyone in Canada, the United States, and Britain that would be most English speakers world wide.
According to all those websites, “recognise” is a validly recognised spelling of “recognize.”
So thank you for providing evidence which demonstrates that your claim is wrong, I wasn’t spelling it incorrectly.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to talk about sciency things again, but I invite you to remain in this thread and continue arguing with yourself.
You are a colourful fellow.
-
If I mischaracterized you I’m sorry - I have a lifelong bad habit of speaking before I understand, or at least have slightly less confusion. I saw what I thought was you arguing about spelling or words or whatever I missed, and I assumed you were seeing the black and white typeface but missing that they were written on the leg of a dinosaur who was on the phone buying stock in amazon. Anyway I guess as you say you don’t have the right answer, at least it would seem beyond the way different countries spell the same word. I wonder if you can try to see in a week how many things you think you don’t know, and compare that to how many earnest questions you asked.
Love you. Bette
-
notice how on some of the headlights which are futher away appear much larger light sources than ones up close?
(https://ak0.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/10569050/thumb/1.jpg)
Please folks, this one hurts FE. The more distant headlights look bigger in the photo because they also happen to be aimed more directly at the camera.
They are not flood lights like the sun, they are spot lights - especially if on high beam.
This means when they are pointing directly at the camera they will appear brighter because that's the directly most of their light is going.
They only look bigger because the camera exposure is set so high that imperfections in the lens and scattering in the air cause the bright spot to "bleed" onto nearby parts of the image sensor or film. If the exposure was reduced on the camera so it wasn't overexposed, the headlight would appear smaller if it was not as close.
Which is the exact same thing that causes the sun to look larger than life on camera -- because it's being over-exposed. If the exposure was set to where it wasn't overexposing, the size would be the correct size. Which is what people do with sun filters.
That also explains why the "oversized" headlights and sun is all blurry around the edges while a correctly exposed picture is not blurry - the extra sizes is not from the size of the sun but from the fuzzy region of over exposure.
If the headlights really were looking bigger from distance, wouldn't the whole cars also have to look bigger?
Please please go take pictures of a car in the distance but control the exposure so it's not overpowering the image sensor, and you'll see that the closer cars do have bigger headlights.