The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: shootingstar on January 20, 2019, 11:35:24 AM
-
FEW states that the Suns area of light is elliptical. Why not circular unless the Sun is somehow shining down on the Earth from an angle with directed beam like a stage light? For the light from the Sun to be confined to a specific area, like the lighthouse analogy that FEW suggests, then this would need some kind of reflector and director in order to send the light into a specific direction.
-
If I remember correctly, some FEers propose the electromagnetic accelerator theory (see this thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9358.0)).
By the way, I assume you are working with the unipolar model of the FE but that version has been "proved" impossible (thread (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6633.0)). Mr Bishop than said that the FE is bipolar (voilà (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9447.0)). I asked a similar question here (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9470.0) but with no response.
-
Yes... I feel quite uncomfortable with anything which 'accelerates' electromagnetic radiation. Mind you if Mr Bishop can prove himself right with his equation and the 'Bishop' constant then he will make a fortune and force the re-writing of every physics textbook that has ever been written!
-
FEW states that the Suns area of light is elliptical. Why not circular unless the Sun is somehow shining down on the Earth from an angle with directed beam like a stage light? For the light from the Sun to be confined to a specific area, like the lighthouse analogy that FEW suggests, then this would need some kind of reflector and director in order to send the light into a specific direction.
Shootingstar,
Here's a video. In this demo a "spotlight" sun shining through a refractive element can be many different shapes confined to a specific area.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmgcJuMSTxQ
Depending on your flat earth model the refractive element could be the dome, the firmament, the atmosphere, or any combination of those things.
-
Cheers for that iamcpc. So all we need to do now is find a massive glass dome up there somewhere.
-
It strikes me that there is something obvious that people are missing re the idea of a local sun beaming down a spotlight onto the surface of a flat earth. That is that if you are standing on a plain at dawn, with the boundary of that plain having mountains, you see light striking the top of the mountain first, then work its way down. The ground gets lit up last. If there were a beam of light shining down, the edge of that beam approaching you would light up the plain first - in fact you’d see the leading edge of the beam approaching across the plain. Then you would see the mountain light up from the bottom. Obviously this not what you see. Ever been on a long haul flight and seen the sunrise? Ever seen the shadow of a mountain range across lower lying clouds? How is this possible if there is a local sun beaming down?
-
Cheers for that iamcpc. So all we need to do now is find a massive glass dome up there somewhere.
The demonstration is not so much about a dome. It's more about light behaving in an unusual manner when passing through some sort of refractive material.
In models with a dome or firmament someone can claim that is the refractive material.
In models without a dome or firmament someone can claim that the atmosphere is the refractive material.
-
And that's all they will remain until evidence is provided.
-
The demonstration is not so much about a dome. It's more about light behaving in an unusual manner when passing through some sort of refractive material.
In models with a dome or firmament someone can claim that is the refractive material.
In models without a dome or firmament someone can claim that the atmosphere is the refractive material.
Or, we could simply say that day and night is due to sunlight only illuminating half of a spherical Earth which is rotating. That seems to me to be a far more simple explanation and one that is entirely consistent with every day experience.
Why try to make something more complicated than it actually is just to make it work with the flat Earth ideology?
-
I see no-one has responded to my question, (above, re local sun) which makes me wonder if it’s because I’ve raised one of those questions that is kinda unanswerable without exposing a deep flaw in the FE argument, or because I didn’t articulate it very well?
To repeat a little more clearly and concisely if I can: A local sun beaming down in a lamp-like fashion would light tall objects from the bottom to the top as it approaches them, not top to bottom, e.g. mountains, tall buildings etc. What we experience is top to bottom. As this video shows:
https://youtu.be/124RXnzAqak
Also, we have all seen the undersides of clouds lit by the setting sun. Only possible on a globe.
Any thoughts?
Warm wishes and God bless.
-
I see no-one has responded to my question, (above, re local sun) which makes me wonder if it’s because I’ve raised one of those questions that is kinda unanswerable without exposing a deep flaw in the FE argument, or because I didn’t articulate it very well?
To repeat a little more clearly and concisely if I can: A local sun beaming down in a lamp-like fashion would light tall objects from the bottom to the top as it approaches them, not top to bottom, e.g. mountains, tall buildings etc. What we experience is top to bottom. As this video shows:
https://youtu.be/124RXnzAqak
Also, we have all seen the undersides of clouds lit by the setting sun. Only possible on a globe.
Any thoughts?
Warm wishes and God bless.
In your diagram on the video the sun is only omitting light downward. If the sun were omitting light in a circle then wouldn't that match the observation you are making?
The tops of the hills would be within the suns "circle" first therefore would be lit first.
-
FEW states that the Suns area of light is elliptical. Why not circular unless the Sun is somehow shining down on the Earth from an angle with directed beam like a stage light?
It's only elliptical at certain times of the year: at other times it's shaped like a crescent, a 'D', and everything in between.
-
FEW states that the Suns area of light is elliptical. Why not circular unless the Sun is somehow shining down on the Earth from an angle with directed beam like a stage light? For the light from the Sun to be confined to a specific area, like the lighthouse analogy that FEW suggests, then this would need some kind of reflector and director in order to send the light into a specific direction.
What happens to light when it is subject to constrictive reflection?
-
I've no idea. I guess it would depend on what was causing the reflection and where the reflectors were in relation to the light source. How is that relevant to this anyway given that light from the Sun simply radiates outwards into space in all directions?
-
Please explain to me what constrictive reflection is. The only reference I can find is to philosophy and how one uses stereotypes constrict their self-image.
To my knowledge, there are only two types of reflection. Diffuse and Specular.
-
I will leave it to totallackey to explain fully what he means. Constrictive though means to squeeze, as in boa constrictor snakes. I have never heard of constriction though in the context of reflection so I'm a little perplexed about that as well.
-
I know what the two words mean separately.
I am a mechanical engineer. I took several physics classes in college. I never heard of constrictive reflection.
-
Yes I have also done physics at college and university and as a term constrictive reflection is not something that I have heard of before. I can only guess it must be a kind of directed or focused reflection that only allows light rays to be reflected into a specific path.
I'm sure it all will become clear and obvious once we get the answer!
-
I see no-one has responded to my question, (above, re local sun) which makes me wonder if it’s because I’ve raised one of those questions that is kinda unanswerable without exposing a deep flaw in the FE argument, or because I didn’t articulate it very well?
To repeat a little more clearly and concisely if I can: A local sun beaming down in a lamp-like fashion would light tall objects from the bottom to the top as it approaches them, not top to bottom, e.g. mountains, tall buildings etc. What we experience is top to bottom. As this video shows:
https://youtu.be/124RXnzAqak
Also, we have all seen the undersides of clouds lit by the setting sun. Only possible on a globe.
Any thoughts?
Warm wishes and God bless.
In your diagram on the video the sun is only omitting light downward. If the sun were omitting light in a circle then wouldn't that match the observation you are making?
The tops of the hills would be within the suns "circle" first therefore would be lit first.
The video shows light emitting downward to be in keeping with claims made by FEers. This argument is used to explain how the sun doesn’t light up the whole of a flat earth if the sun is local (within a few hundred or a few thousand miles of the surface of the flat earth).
To be clear, in keeping with that model, the sun would be emitting a beam of light (some are saying an ellipsis, others a circular beam) that would have a distinct edge on whatever it’s shining down upon. Imagine shining a torch down onto a table in a darkened room from a height of, say, 6 inches, with the torch held vertically, the light beam facing straight down. The circle of light on the table has an edge. If you move the torch one way the beam of light illuminates anything that is in its path. If it comes toward a tall structure, say a vase sitting on the table, the edge of the beam of light will touch the very base of the vase first. You can try this yourself - very easy to replicate.
The video show light hitting the very top of the mountain first, slowly moving downwards and illuminating the ground last.
The sun is visible 24 hours a day in the very far North in summertime, the same in the Southern Hemisphere in their summer, perfectly in keeping with the globe model. How does this work in the FE model?
I’ve heard that some people deny there is 24 daylight in summer in the Antarctic - because access to the Antarctic is difficult, some claim, no-one can check this out for themselves (not true btw, you can visit via cruise ship). The phenomena of a midnight sun is also true at the other pole. Well, my daughter happens to live in Norway, just below the Arctic circle. Currently (early Feb) daylight is from around 10am until 3 pm. In the summer the sun barely sets - just touches the horizon and rises again.
Hope this is clearer. Warm wishes and God bless.
-
The video shows light emitting downward to be in keeping with claims made by FEers. This argument is used to explain how the sun doesn’t light up the whole of a flat earth if the sun is local (within a few hundred or a few thousand miles of the surface of the flat earth).
Such an argument (excuse the punn) falls flat though because the Sun is not just a few hundred or thousand miles away it is 150 million km away. That is a figure that has been measured in various ways. One such way was by determining the distance of Venus using radar and then working out the distance of the Sun by using trigonometry from the maximum elongation angle of Venus from the Sun. Other methods have been used since then and reached the same answer. The Sun > Earth distance is now a well established fact and as such it is used as a standard unit of distance measurement in astronomy as 1 astronomical unit.
The flat Earth community will I am sure dismiss all this with the usual claims that they always come up with.
-
I see no-one has responded to my question, (above, re local sun) which makes me wonder if it’s because I’ve raised one of those questions that is kinda unanswerable without exposing a deep flaw in the FE argument, or because I didn’t articulate it very well?
To repeat a little more clearly and concisely if I can: A local sun beaming down in a lamp-like fashion would light tall objects from the bottom to the top as it approaches them, not top to bottom, e.g. mountains, tall buildings etc. What we experience is top to bottom. As this video shows:
https://youtu.be/124RXnzAqak
Also, we have all seen the undersides of clouds lit by the setting sun. Only possible on a globe.
Any thoughts?
Warm wishes and God bless.
Yeah, your claim the underside of clouds can only be lit by the setting sun only made possible by a globe is total malarkey.
Sunlight is certainly capable of reflecting off all surfaces of the earth.
You can get sunburn or suffer blindness from the sun being reflected off of water or snow.
-
Snow is a very good reflector of UV light (the cause of sunburn) on account of it being white but less than 10% of any incident UV light on water is reflected so that would have a much less significant effect.
-
Yeah, your claim the underside of clouds can only be lit by the setting sun only made possible by a globe is total malarkey.
Sunlight is certainly capable of reflecting off all surfaces of the earth.
You can get sunburn or suffer blindness from the sun being reflected off of water or snow.
[/quote]
Hmm, certainly water, ice etc will reflect light, but won’t illuminate the underside of clouds; not to the degree that will illuminate clouds in the way we see when the sun is setting.
There’s also the issue of the colours at sunset/sunrise. The colours we see are due to the angle of the light passing through atmosphere.
Here’s a good example of the sun very obviously below the clouds due to Earth’s curvature.
https://youtu.be/XQKS0kvTWzQ
Warm regards.
-
There has already been a thread discussing the sun lighting the underside of the clouds and Mt. Rainier throwing a shadow on the bottom of the clouds. The thread is 3 years old with no FE response to the last post of the Mt. Rainier photo.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5286.0
-
Yeah, your claim the underside of clouds can only be lit by the setting sun only made possible by a globe is total malarkey.
Sunlight is certainly capable of reflecting off all surfaces of the earth.
You can get sunburn or suffer blindness from the sun being reflected off of water or snow.
Hmm, certainly water, ice etc will reflect light, but won’t illuminate the underside of clouds; not to the degree that will illuminate clouds in the way we see when the sun is setting.
Wrong.
Even city lights have the effect of illuminating the underside of clouds.
You really just need to put whatever you are using back in your bag and take time off from posting.
There’s also the issue of the colours at sunset/sunrise. The colours we see are due to the angle of the light passing through atmosphere.
Here’s a good example of the sun very obviously below the clouds due to Earth’s curvature.
https://youtu.be/XQKS0kvTWzQ
Warm regards.
Sunlight will always pass through the atmoplane.
And the sun will never be obscured by the clouds unless you are higher than the clouds and the sun is far away.
If I stand on the beach I am taller than the water below me. Whitecaps on the water can still obsure my vision of far away objects.
-
If I stand on the beach I am taller than the water below me. Whitecaps on the water can still obsure my vision of far away objects.
Not if you're higher than the whitecaps.
An obstacle can only obscure more of an object beyond it than its own height if your eye level is below the height of the top of the obstacle.
Three scenarios shown below.
Top, your eye is below the level of the obstacle, more of the elephant than the obstacle's height is obscured.
Middle, your eye is level with the top of the obstacle, the same amount of elephant as the obstacle's height is obscured
Bottom, your eye is higher than the obstacle, less of the elephant than the obstacle's height is obscured:
(https://image.ibb.co/c10wpe/Elephant.jpg)
That's the theory, here's my real life experiment demonstrating this:
Here's the set up:
(https://image.ibb.co/kimGTc/setup.jpg)
Here's the 3 scenarios:
(https://image.ibb.co/dPvnZH/below2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cyGuEH/level2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/mm7C1x/above.jpg)
-
The context of this is getting shifted. The context is the sun. If the sun, in the FE model, is rotating at a constant 3000 miles above the earth's surface, it cannot by direct exposure light the underside of clouds. Reflections off of something, yes, can light the underside of clouds. But reflections off of water or other surface will not cast a shadow of Mt. Rainier on the underside of clouds. This is only possible if the sun rises and sets, as in the RE model.
-
The context of this is getting shifted. The context is the sun. If the sun, in the FE model, is rotating at a constant 3000 miles above the earth's surface, it cannot by direct exposure light the underside of clouds. Reflections off of something, yes, can light the underside of clouds. But reflections off of water or other surface will not cast a shadow of Mt. Rainier on the underside of clouds. This is only possible if the sun rises and sets, as in the RE model.
One FE response is "perspective". From the Wiki:
In a long row of lamps, the second, supposing the observer to stand at the beginning of the series, will appear lower than the first; the third lower than the second; and so on to the end of the row; the farthest away always appearing the lowest, although each one has the same altitude; and if such a straight line of lamps could be continued far enough, the lights would at length descend, apparently, to the horizon, or to a level with the eye of the observer. This explains how the sun descends into the horizon as it recedes.
So the idea is that the horizon ascends to eye level and the sun descends to eye level and thus they merge.
This doesn't work as an explanation though, you can calculate distance at which the 3,000 mile supposed gap between the earth and sun would be difficult to distinguish and it's far further than the known distances on earth. If the earth was going over us at a fixed height then we'd see a change in size during the day, there would be a change in angular velocity and none of this is observed.
An important point I've been meaning to mention - objects below eye level remain below eye level no matter the distance, objects above eye level remain above eye level no matter the distance.
It's possible that they can become hard to distinguish but you can't get a sun slowly setting below the horizon by perspective.
EA works better as an explanation.
-
Correct, perspective would explain on a flat earth the apparent setting of the sun. But perspective, no matter what, will not cast a shadow of a mountain on the underside of a cloud. It is physically impossible unless the sun ACTUALLY is lower than the clouds.
-
Correct, perspective would explain on a flat earth the apparent setting of the sun. But perspective, no matter what, will not cast a shadow of a mountain on the underside of a cloud. It is physically impossible unless the sun ACTUALLY is lower than the clouds.
Yes.
In this scenario:
(https://i.ibb.co/yfHvTPv/Shadows.jpg)
The sun would appear to be below the level of the cloud because of your perspective. But the shadow of the cloud cast by the sun's light will be angled downwards because the sun is physically above the level of the cloud. Shadow angle depends on the physical relationship between the light source and the object which the shadow is cast of, not anyone's perspective.
-
The highest clouds form at an altitude of 45,000ft. The sun would have to be at or below 8.52 miles in altitude on a flat earth to cast a shadow of anything on the underside of a cloud. Reflection of any type off of any natural surface will not provide a distinct shadow as shown in the Mt Rainier shadow photo.
-
The context of this is getting shifted. The context is the sun. If the sun, in the FE model, is rotating at a constant 3000 miles above the earth's surface, it cannot by direct exposure light the underside of clouds. Reflections off of something, yes, can light the underside of clouds. But reflections off of water or other surface will not cast a shadow of Mt. Rainier on the underside of clouds. This is only possible if the sun rises and sets, as in the RE model.
While I did not post on that particular thread, my point being that any light intense enough to burn your skin or cause blindness is certainly intense enough to cast shadows.
You statement that reflected light could not cast shadows is pure hoakum; disingenuous at best, and a purposeful lie at worst.
-
You are again taking me out of context. I said casting a mountains shadow on the underside of a cloud. Stay focused.
And you obviously do not understand the mechanics of a sunburn. First off, it is UV rays that cause sunburn - which is a subset of the sun's rays.
Second, reflected light off any surface that is rough will cause a diffuse reflection, and therefore will not be the total sum of the direct rays.
A sunburn is therefore the reflected UV component + the direct UV component.
Also, snowblindness does not mean going blind. It is a temporary symptom of UV light burning your cornea.
There is obviously a reason why lots of sunglasses have UV protection - due to the fact that your corneas are more susceptible to damage than your skin.
A reflected light may cast a shadow, but it has to be a very specific set of circumstances - which is what you FE'ers do - providing an extremely specific set of circumstances (or context) to prove a point.
Water and snow will not reflect enough visible light to cast a shadow. Just look up the reflection properties of both and you will know that they are much better at reflecting UV rays than the whole spectrum of light. You would basically need a mirror or piece of glass to reflect the sunlight to cast a shadow from Mt Rainier on to the above clouds. Anyone know of a piece of glass or mirror that big in the vicinity of Mt Rainier?
And interestingly enough - "It only happens when the sun rises farther to the south as we head toward the winter solstice and has to be in the exact position to where Rainier blocks the first rays of morning light." If reflections were the cause of the shadow on the bottom side of the cloud, then it would happen at any time. Not just as the sun rises (RE) or appears through the atmoplane (FE).
-
You are again taking me out of context. I said casting a mountains shadow on the underside of a cloud. Stay focused.
No.
I'm not.
And you obviously do not understand the mechanics of a sunburn. First off, it is UV rays that cause sunburn - which is a subset of the sun's rays.
Yeah, so what?
Second, reflected light off any surface that is rough will cause a diffuse reflection, and therefore will not be the total sum of the direct rays.
Reflected light can certainly be concentrated to specific points.
A sunburn is therefore the reflected UV component + the direct UV component.
No.
You could have a cover over your head and then sunlight reflected from below can still blind you or burn you.
Also, snowblindness does not mean going blind. It is a temporary symptom of UV light burning your cornea.
Who said fully blind?
Snowblindness means you cannot see for period of time.
Not being able to see means...
Your blind.
There is obviously a reason why lots of sunglasses have UV protection - due to the fact that your corneas are more susceptible to damage than your skin.
Thank you Copernicus.
A reflected light may cast a shadow, but it has to be a very specific set of circumstances - which is what you FE'ers do - providing an extremely specific set of circumstances (or context) to prove a point.
You mean a specific set of circumstances like a couple of pictures of the shadow of Rainier.
Gotcha.
Water and snow will not reflect enough visible light to cast a shadow.
Wrong.
"Water and glass not only reflect but also refract light. This means that as a light beam enters water or glass, the light bends." - https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2001Feb.cfm (https://www.uu.edu/dept/physics/scienceguys/2001Feb.cfm)
Just look up the reflection properties of both and you will know that they are much better at reflecting UV rays than the whole spectrum of light. You would basically need a mirror or piece of glass to reflect the sunlight to cast a shadow from Mt Rainier on to the above clouds. Anyone know of a piece of glass or mirror that big in the vicinity of Mt Rainier?
There does not need to be mirror.
Plenty of water and snow around Rainier to do the trick.
And interestingly enough - "It only happens when the sun rises farther to the south as we head toward the winter solstice and has to be in the exact position to where Rainier blocks the first rays of morning light." If reflections were the cause of the shadow on the bottom side of the cloud, then it would happen at any time. Not just as the sun rises (RE) or appears through the atmoplane (FE).
Just pure hoakum again.
-
From the same source you just quoted.
" When incident light hits a snowflake, some of the light is reflected off the crystal back towards the observer. However, most of the light penetrates the crystal and is bent, or refracted."
Yes, I totally understand that visible light does reflect off of objects or surfaces. Water and snow DOES NOT REFLECT 100% OF VISIBLE LIGHT! In the case of water, most of it is absorbed into the water - aka it continues traveling through the water at an angle defined by the refractive index. Refraction of light does not reverse the course of light. It enters the material at a certain angle and travels through the material at a different angle. Refraction has nothing to do with the angle at which light is reflected. That is my point.
And yes you are taking me out of context - you purposefully and misleadingly only quoted one sentence out of a paragraph that pertains specifically to Mt. Rainier's shadow. I never said that reflected light does not have the ability to cast shadows. I said reflected light does not have the ability to cast a DISTINCT SHADOW OF A MOUNTAIN ON THE UNDERSIDE OF CLOUDS. There is quite the difference in your generalization of my statement and my actual statement.
And to address the accusation that I am painting you into a corner on the context of Mt. Rainier. Completely false. I am presenting you with a phenomenon that is actually occurring. I am not giving you a set of parameters to confine your thinking, or a bunch of what if scenarios.
-
Correct, perspective would explain on a flat earth the apparent setting of the sun. But perspective, no matter what, will not cast a shadow of a mountain on the underside of a cloud. It is physically impossible unless the sun ACTUALLY is lower than the clouds.
Yes.
In this scenario:
(https://i.ibb.co/yfHvTPv/Shadows.jpg)
The sun would appear to be below the level of the cloud because of your perspective. But the shadow of the cloud cast by the sun's light will be angled downwards because the sun is physically above the level of the cloud. Shadow angle depends on the physical relationship between the light source and the object which the shadow is cast of, not anyone's perspective.
Correct, no matter how far away a 3000 mile high sun is, it will not break the plane so as to be able to cast upward underneath the clouds.
(https://i.imgur.com/hGOOpFf.jpg)
Same goes for this, no matter how far away a 3000 mile high sun is, it will not break the plane so as to be able to cast an upward shadow from a lower mountain to the top of the highest mountain on earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/n4nbfOR.jpg)
-
Prove that the perspective lines recede into infinity. I can equally draw a scene where the sun descends the eye line and the lands ascend to the eye line.
-
Prove that the perspective lines recede into infinity. I can equally draw a scene where the sun descends the eye line and the lands ascend to the eye line.
Perspective has absolutely nothing to do with it. The physical location and the geometry of each object is what counts. Perspective does not change the fact that a sun that is supposedly 3000 miles above the earth's supposed flat surface cannot throw a shadow with "direct sunlight" of a mountain on the underside of a cloud. Stop throwing red herrings in here.
-
Prove that the perspective lines recede into infinity. I can equally draw a scene where the sun descends the eye line and the lands ascend to the eye line.
I don't need to, irrelevant. What's relevant is that no matter how far away a 3000 mile high sun is, it will not break the plane so as to be able to cast an upward shadow from a lower mountain to the top of the highest mountain on earth.
Why don't you draw a scene showing what you claim yet is not observed?
-
Perspective lines meeting is observed. Look at a long straight line of railroad scene. The tracks appear to meet to perspective. There is zero evidence for your infinitely receding perspective lines idea.
-
Tom, we get it. You like perspective. But again, perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the sun's ability to cast a shadow. Physical location of the sun is the only thing that matters. No one, literally no one, in this thread besides you is talking about perspective lines. Stop derailing the thread.
-
Perspective lines meeting is observed. Look at a long straight line of railroad scene. The tracks appear to meet to perspective. There is zero evidence for your infinitely receding perspective lines idea.
Last time I looked, railroad tracks weren't 3000 miles high up in the sky and 32 miles wide.
Perspective is out in this scenario. Literally irrelevant. Dig a little deeper and find something else. In the mean time, a 3000 mile high sun can't magically cast a shadow from a mountain up on to the highest mountain on the planet.
Again, if you would like to diagram how it could on a flat earth, 3000 mile altitude sun, please do so. Looking forward to it.
-
Perspective lines meeting is observed. Look at a long straight line of railroad scene. The tracks appear to meet to perspective. There is zero evidence for your infinitely receding perspective lines idea.
Again, this is nothing to do with perspective. Shadow angle relies on the physical relationship between the light source and the object which the shadow is cast of.
Please show a diagram demonstrating how you think an object which is physically above you can appear to be below you by perspective.
If "the horizon rises to eye level" (which has shown to be false multiple ways) and the sun "descends to eye level" by perspective (which it doesn't) and they thus merge, causing sunset, then if you're standing on Mount Rainier the shadow would surely be pointing directly behind you, not pointing upwards as in the famous picture.
Or is your claim that the photo only works because it's taken from ground level so from that perspective the sun does appear below the mountain so the shadow points upwards?
If so you are basically claiming that the angle of the shadow depends on where you are, if you're at ground level the sun appears to be below the mountain so the shadow points upwards and hits the clouds and if you're on the mountain then the sun appears level with the top of the mountain so the shadow is directly behind you? ???
It can't be both, the shadow points where it points.
I'd love to see a diagram of what you think is going on in the famous Rainier photo.
My advice, look into EA more - it has its problems but it works a lot better at explaining certain things than this botched model of perspective does.
-
Can I just pop into the mix of this discussion a related question about the Sun. If FE theorists are so convinced that the Sun is rotating over their Earth 3000 miles above it what is making it rotate and holding it up? And indeed keeping it conveniently fixed above the centre point of the Earth?
-
Can I just pop into the mix of this discussion a related question about the Sun. If FE theorists are so convinced that the Sun is rotating over their Earth 3000 miles above it what is making it rotate and holding it up? And indeed keeping it conveniently fixed above the centre point of the Earth?
Do you mean revolving?
-
The Sun is said to be rotating (following a circular path) about a fixed point centric with and above (3000 miles) the centre point of the Earth is it not? Or have I got that wrong?
-
Can I just pop into the mix of this discussion a related question about the Sun. If FE theorists are so convinced that the Sun is rotating over their Earth 3000 miles above it what is making it rotate and holding it up? And indeed keeping it conveniently fixed above the centre point of the Earth?
Do you mean revolving?
Means the same thing.
Manic, I believe that is generally regarded as unknown. I'd suspect some put it up to the Aether, and other's attribute it to 'celestial gears'. The most interesting suggestion I've ever seen is the idea there's literal poles coming up out of the North Pole that the moon and sun are on that carry them around.
-
So in other words just something completely made up in order to make something else they believe remotely credible. I am surprised totallackey hasn't come back to me yet with an answer after posting so quickly after me asking the question. Perhaps he has gone away to 'research' it.
FE people are very quick to challenge us about providing evidence about everything that challenges the FE theory yet when we ask them to provide the simplest explanations about their ideas, often nothing comes back.
The most interesting suggestion I've ever seen is the idea there's literal poles coming up out of the North Pole that the moon and sun are on that carry them around
Classic example of my point. So who put this 'pole' there and what makes it rotate, revolve, go round or however I should put it? In the 21st century the most ridiculous thing in my view is that we are actually discussing such things! Poles stuck in the ground...Really?
Going back to this directional thing with sunlight. Sunlight doesn't shine 'down' as such. Sunlight is emitted from the Sun into space in all directions. Some of that light happens to travel out into the direction of the Earth.
We live on the surface of the Earth and have arbitrarily called the ground down and the sky up. Since the Sun always appears in the sky above our heads, we say the Sun is shining 'down' on us. Some of that light is reflected back in to the atmosphere (about 39% overall on average - its called albedo) so some times the clouds are illuminated from their base by reflected sunlight off the surface. End of.