The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Nirmala on April 10, 2017, 01:53:19 AM
-
How can this happen when the sun is always 3000 miles above the earth according to flat earth models?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQKS0kvTWzQ
And how could Mount Rainier cast a shadow upwards?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVOx3sbKGTg
-
Are these videos you've taken yourself?
-
Several more images here: https://www.google.com/search?q=sun+rising+below+the+clouds&espv=2&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjB6Y2P5ZjTAhVK4YMKHWouDJIQsAQIIA&biw=1529&bih=864&dpr=1#tbm=isch&q=mount+rainier+casting+shadow+upward
-
Also why would tall mountains get dark from the bottom up at sunset and vice-versa at sunrise? If the sun was simply moving farther away, wouldn't the entire mountain get gradually darker or brighter at the same rate no matter how high or low you looked on the mountain?
-
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or will you just keep dodging questions?
-
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or will you just keep dodging questions?
Photos and videos are never accepted by flat earth theorists, despite the fact that they use them to support their claims.
Their defense is not only weak, it's dishonest.
This very video was used to support a flat earth argument on another forum while it clearly shows a pattern not supported by the Flat Earth theory.
Now, assess the video and respond rather than attacking the evidence.
-
I was sitting on my porch today, which has a wooden overhang to protect from the rain. I saw a plane fly over my house and off into the distance and apparently below the level of my overhang. It seems to be a little dangerous, I must say, for this plane to flying 10 feet above sea level.
As the plane got further still, it even got below the level of the deck railing, which was about 4 feet in height, the plane apparently crashing into the surface of the earth at the end of this whole ordeal.
-
I was sitting on my porch today, which has a wooden overhang to protect from the rain. I saw a plane fly over my house and off into the distance and apparently below the level of my overhang. It seems to be a little dangerous, I must say, for this plane to flying 10 feet above sea level.
As the plane got further still, it even got below the level of the deck railing, which was about 4 feet in height, the plane apparently crashing into the surface of the earth at the end of this whole ordeal.
But it got to the "earth crashing" part without fading into nothingness behind the atmospheric haze.
Interesting.
Also, it's quite brave of you to step up and say so proudly that, like your followers, you don't understand perspective.
I mean, we knew already, but to submit yourself to such a low-content post to be so honest is really touching.
Now back to the real point here - every flat earth model relies on the the sun being above the clouds - kilometers above the clouds - even the faq and the wiki say this.
Once again, you can't have it both ways.
-
Even your precious Rowbotham says that the sun is above the upper layer of the atmosphere (p. 129), which means that, given your assertion of atmospheric opacity, it is unlikely that the sun can appear to shine on the underside of the clouds before it had disappeared behind the thickening atmosphere.
You could give us some numbers to explain the exact distances, because some numbers will work here and others will not.
Do you dare giving some actual mathematics over to the scrutiny of the people who actually know what it means?
Or will you turn against your prophet?
How high is the sun? And how thick is the atmosphere? Where do the clouds lie? And what is the refractive index of the atmosphere?
These are the tools you need to refute my argument.
Be vary careful how you answer.
-
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or will you just keep dodging questions?
Photos and videos are never accepted by flat earth theorists, despite the fact that they use them to support their claims.
Their defense is not only weak, it's dishonest.
This very video was used to support a flat earth argument on another forum while it clearly shows a pattern not supported by the Flat Earth theory.
Now, assess the video and respond rather than attacking the evidence.
So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.
-
This post on another thread explains this same dilemma in response to a video posted by Tom Bishop: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6056.msg114298#msg114298
It explains the dilemma of the sun below the clouds, the shadow of the mountain going upward and also the angles of the sun and moon in the video on the other thread using both a flat earth model and a round earth model and simple geometry.
-
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or will you just keep dodging questions?
Photos and videos are never accepted by flat earth theorists, despite the fact that they use them to support their claims.
Their defense is not only weak, it's dishonest.
This very video was used to support a flat earth argument on another forum while it clearly shows a pattern not supported by the Flat Earth theory.
Now, assess the video and respond rather than attacking the evidence.
So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.
Pretty sure that counts as low-content posting.
Next time a flat earth theorists posts a video as evidence, they should be flagged for that too, since they clearly mean nothing.
Or perhaps you'd like to go and observe a sunset on a mountain yourself and provide calculations for us.
Go ahead - we can wait.
Then maybe you can bring something to the table.
I guarantee you that the numbers you propose, if they actually resemble reality, will prove that the sun cannot possibly be casting those rays from above the surface of the atmosphere.
-
Are you implying that the sun is literally ever underneath the clouds?
-
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or will you just keep dodging questions?
Photos and videos are never accepted by flat earth theorists, despite the fact that they use them to support their claims.
Their defense is not only weak, it's dishonest.
This very video was used to support a flat earth argument on another forum while it clearly shows a pattern not supported by the Flat Earth theory.
Now, assess the video and respond rather than attacking the evidence.
So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.
Pretty sure that counts as low-content posting.
Next time a flat earth theorists posts a video as evidence, they should be flagged for that too, since they clearly mean nothing.
Or perhaps you'd like to go and observe a sunset on a mountain yourself and provide calculations for us.
Go ahead - we can wait.
Then maybe you can bring something to the table.
I guarantee you that the numbers you propose, if they actually resemble reality, will prove that the sun cannot possibly be casting those rays from above the surface of the atmosphere.
You think pointing out your lack of evidence constitutes low-content? Well, it doesn't. I'd also encourage you to refrain from attempting to moderate threads.
You constantly make claims, but offer no evidence. You attempt to attack other people's positions, but never offer evidence to support yours. I'll point that out when I see it.
You sure do like to ask people to do your work for you, though. Then you get defensive when asked about your own reasoning (or lack thereof). A telling sign of a weak argument. You should work on that before posting again. Go ahead, we can wait.
-
Are you implying that the sun is literally ever underneath the clouds?
No, the sun is never closer than the clouds as it is 93 million miles away, but the round earth model suggests that the sun's rays can strike the clouds from a point near the horizon that is lower than the clouds. This happens anytime the underside of clouds is lit up during sunrise or sunset. The video just makes it more striking because the airplane is flying above the clouds that are being lit up on the under side.
In order for a sunset or sunrise to be particularly colorful, the clouds need to be overhead for a person standing on earth (or underneath the flying plane), while simultaneously the horizon is clear so that the last rays of the sun can still reach the underside of the clouds. I have waited patiently for a beautiful sunset to occur, only to be disappointed when the cloud cover along the horizon was too thick which prevented the sunlight from reaching the clouds overhead. And on a day that is totally overcast with clouds thickly covering the sky from horizon to horizon, there is often very little or even no color to the setting of the sun.
Check out my diagrams and explanation on the post on the other thread: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6056.msg114298#msg114298
Only for this situation, you can replace the moon that is overhead with the clouds that are overhead (or under the airplane). And again this is assuming that there are no other clouds between the observer on the earth and the distant sun appearing on the horizon. The airplane in the video would be located above the clouds instead of below the clouds as we are when we watch the sunset on earth.
Note that in the first diagram with the smaller rectangle that represents the flat earth model, there is no way for the sun's rays to get under the clouds as even when the sun was far to the west, it would still be above the clouds, as even in the flat earth model, the sun is much further away than the clouds.
And a reminder: you need to click on the actual diagrams in the other thread to make them appear large enough to see what is shown.
An aside: can anyone explain how I embed an image in a post on here? I click on the image icon and then something like (img)(img) appears in my post, but I do not know how to then actually display the image.
-
Are you implying that the sun is literally ever underneath the clouds?
From just above the atmosphere*
Thank you for that - that was rather ambiguous.
The height if the sun is something that still has not been satisfactorily established by any flat model and, until it has a definite number, no assertions can be made about the angle of the light it casts.
And sorry, guys, but the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the Flat Earth society. You guys are the ones trying to propose a different theory, since ours has for all intents an purposes been proven by every scientist who actually understands science for the past few centuries, plus a decent handful of them before that.
Especially since the evidence you claim we don't have comes in the form of thousands of years of cosmological research, countless mathematical proofs of the curvature and location of the earth and a plethora of direct photographic evidence that even the simplest of Google searches can find.
If you would like me to post the entire corpus of modern cosmology, then I suggest opening another board.
Otherwise, the "you have no evidence" defense is rather akin to the "if I can't see it it doesn't exist" defense.
So let's get back to the debate rather than attacking my attacking of lack of evidence - since last I checked there's been nothing consistent from the other side.
Step up, junker - show me what you got.
-
I created another diagram similar to the ones on the other thread linked to above that very roughly shows the positions of the airplane and clouds in the flat earth model. It is attached below and you need to click on the diagram to enlarge it.
The star is a person standing on earth under the clouds and the arrow is the plane flying above the clouds. The circle in the upper right show where the sun is supposed to be located in the flat earth model, and the circle in the lower right corner shows where the sun actually appears at sunset and also where the sunlight would need to be coming from to light up the underside of the clouds. So in the flat earth model the sunlight needs to bend or somehow the "perspective" on the sun causes it to appear lower in the sky, even though with enough cloud cover, the sun would actually be behind the clouds for the observer on earth (not for the airplane).
So, as another dilemma, how can the perspective of something affect our viewpoint when the object itself is not within view? The supposed actual location of the sun at the upper right in this flat earth version is behind the clouds, and yet supposedly perspective makes it look like it is down on the horizon. Again how can the persepctive with which we see an object affect its location when the object itself is behind another object? This question only applies to the observer on the ground who is looking up at the pretty pink clouds lit up by the sun at sunset. The clouds are between the ground based observer and the supposed actual location of the sun. And yet "perspective" is supposed to make the sun drop down far enough for it to reappear from behind the clouds and light them up on the underside. In order for perspective to affect the view of something, we have to be able to see it in the first place. I cannot experience the perspective of two train tracks converging in the distance if there is a wall between me and the train tracks. How does perspective affect the view of the sun which is not even in the field of view for the observer on the ground? And yet, we can often see the sun setting on the horizon when there are simultaneously lots of clouds overhead that are being illuminated with the colors of a sunset, and that would be blocking our direct view of the supposed actual location of the sun in the flat earth model.
Clouds lit up from below by a setting sun are another easily observed phenomenon that is simply explained by the round earth model, and impossible to explain with a flat earth model.
-
Note that in the first diagram with the smaller rectangle that represents the flat earth model, there is no way for the sun's rays to get under the clouds as even when the sun was far to the west, it would still be above the clouds, as even in the flat earth model, the sun is much further away than the clouds.
Have you considered that the position here is that the Sun appears to set into the horizon because of an optical illusion due to perspective? Have you accounted for that in your diagrams? Because even on a round earth, looking straight into the distance, the ground raises to meet the sky- which we know it doesn't really do.
-
Note that in the first diagram with the smaller rectangle that represents the flat earth model, there is no way for the sun's rays to get under the clouds as even when the sun was far to the west, it would still be above the clouds, as even in the flat earth model, the sun is much further away than the clouds.
Have you considered that the position here is that the Sun appears to set into the horizon because of an optical illusion due to perspective? Have you accounted for that in your diagrams? Because even on a round earth, looking straight into the distance, the ground raises to meet the sky- which we know it doesn't really do.
Again perspective can only affect something that we can see. The sun is behind the clouds in the diagram for an observer on the earth (represented by the star). If I cannot see something, I can not experience a perspective effect on my view of it. I can not see something get smaller as it moves away from me if I cannot see it in the first place because it is behind another object. So how can I supposedly observe the sun in a different position in the sky if I cannot see the sun in the first place? Even if perspective made my view of the earth (horizon) rise up, it would still be rising up towards a sun that I cannot see. How would the earth rising up due to perspective bring the sun out from behind the clouds? If there were no clouds, then yes the earth appearing to rise up would mean the sun ended up appearing closer to the horizon, but if the sun is not visible in the first place, no matter how high the view of the earth rises, it would never expose the sun to my view.
The other explanation that is sometimes offered is that the sun's light is bent by refraction, but with the geometry of a flat earth, the sun is never lower than about 10 degrees above the horizon for a viewer on the flat earth. So it would have to be a radical and impossible amount of refraction to bring the apparent position of the sun down to and even below the horizon. See this video for an exploration of the geometry involved with the sun's position on a flat earth that makes it so the sun has to be always fairly high in the sky (always at least ten degrees or so above the horizon):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ithkxW04imM
-
Step up, junker - show me what you got.
What?
-
Step up, junker - show me what you got.
What?
You want to defend the flat earth, defend it.
Show me your theory.
-
You want to defend the flat earth, defend it.
Show me your theory.
Sure, where do you want to start?
-
If you are going to discuss the entire flat earth theory, maybe you should start a new thread, so the discussion is not buried in this thread. I look forward to reading the debate/discussion :)
-
If you are going to discuss the entire flat earth theory, maybe you should start a new thread, so the discussion is not buried in this thread. I look forward to reading the debate/discussion :)
I agree.
-
If you are going to discuss the entire flat earth theory, maybe you should start a new thread, so the discussion is not buried in this thread. I look forward to reading the debate/discussion :)
I agree.
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
-
Note that in the first diagram with the smaller rectangle that represents the flat earth model, there is no way for the sun's rays to get under the clouds as even when the sun was far to the west, it would still be above the clouds, as even in the flat earth model, the sun is much further away than the clouds.
Have you considered that the position here is that the Sun appears to set into the horizon because of an optical illusion due to perspective? Have you accounted for that in your diagrams? Because even on a round earth, looking straight into the distance, the ground raises to meet the sky- which we know it doesn't really do.
That same perspective effect would apply to clouds as well. It's only a perspective effect, the sun doesn't actually touch the horizon as you obviously know, which means it would never be at an altitude above flat earth that would allow it to illuminate the clouds from below.
Last time I did a thread asking this question (Brocken spectre), the only reply that resembled an answer was trying to explain the illumination of the clouds from beneath with sunlight being reflected by the earth's surface. Until sandokhan came along that is.
-
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.
-
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.
The kind of shadow being created by Mount Rainier is an "umbra" shadow. It can only happen with a point source of the light (i.e. the sun) and could not form from reflected light.
-
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.
The kind of shadow being created by Mount Rainier is an "umbra" shadow. It can only happen with a point source of the light (i.e. the sun) and could not form from reflected light.
Your source?
-
I misspoke as the Sun is not purely a point source. However on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow it explains that:
"A point source of light casts only a simple shadow, called an "umbra". For a non-point or "extended" source of light, the shadow is divided into the umbra, penumbra and antumbra. The wider the light source, the more blurred the shadow becomes. If two penumbras overlap, the shadows appear to attract and merge. This is known as the Shadow Blister Effect.
The outlines of the shadow zones can be found by tracing the rays of light emitted by the outermost regions of the extended light source. The umbra region does not receive any direct light from any part of the light source, and is the darkest. A viewer located in the umbra region cannot directly see any part of the light source.
By contrast, the penumbra is illuminated by some parts of the light source, giving it an intermediate level of light intensity. A viewer located in the penumbra region will see the light source, but it is partially blocked by the object casting the shadow.
If there is more than one light source, there will be several shadows, with the overlapping parts darker, and various combinations of brightnesses or even colors. The more diffuse the lighting is, the softer and more indistinct the shadow outlines become, until they disappear. The lighting of an overcast sky produces few visible shadows."
The shadow in the photos of Mount Rainier do not show the properties of a shadow created by reflected light which would be much more diffuse than the light from the sun. Instead they show the properties of a shadow cast by a fairly concentrated light source such as the sun.
-
Or we could start with the part that is relevant to this discussion - the height of the sun and exactly how it can't produce the shadows shown in the video.
The Sun's rays are reflecting off of the Earth.
The kind of shadow being created by Mount Rainier is an "umbra" shadow. It can only happen with a point source of the light (i.e. the sun) and could not form from reflected light.
Your source?
http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=Umbra+shadow
Light reflected off any partially reflective surface (One that is not a perfect mirror), especially a diffuse one like clouds, is scattered and dimmed and usually takes on the colour of the object reflecting it, if it has any. The shadows cast by a diffusely reflected light source are nebulous and indistinct compared to the sharp edges of an "umbra" shadow coming from a direct light source.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/refln/Lesson-1/Specular-vs-Diffuse-Reflection
https://www.cheapjoes.com/artist-resources/artist-tips-and-lessons/artist-tip-1
(Treated from an artistry perspective, but essentially verifiable by any amount of experimentation, as seen below.)
You can perform an experiment to verify this yourself by taking a flashlight and shining it on a wall.
Any object you hold up where the reflected rays of the flashlight can shine on it will be lit far less and will have a much less defined shadow line both on the object itself, and in the shadow it casts on a far wall than if it were being shone on directly. In fact, there is no way you can angle the flashlight to produce the same shadow either on the object or behind it that would occur if the object were directly in line with the beam.
Now let's consider what has to happen for this reflection to occur.
In our little mockup here, the flashlight is the sun, the wall is the cloud and the object is the mountain.
For light to be reflecting off the clouds from the sun to hit the mountain, both the sun and the mountain would have to be on the same "side" as the clouds.
According to the sacred text of the Flat Earth Society, Earth: Not a Globe by S. Rowbotham, (pg 99 and fig 66 on pg 129) the sun is always above the surface of the earth and the upper layers of the atmosphere, well above where the clouds are.
There is no configuration of the Flat Earth, it's sun and it atmosphere that can account for the angle, intensity and colour of the light shown in the video, or any other video of shadows cast at sunrise unless said sun at some point is at an angle that throws light upwards at the clouds. To do that, it must be below a projected line thay the clouds are above. No amount of messing with perspective and using arbitrary distances can get around this - if there is a case where this is possible, then precise measurements of distance and relative angle to the observer need to be proposed.
There is only one way around this: contravene this argument with numbers.
Tell us the exact height of the sun, the size of its orbital circle and the angle it makes between its position, its orbital centre and the height of the cloud cover and then we might have something to go on.
Otherwise, reflection is not a plausible explanation. At all.
-
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?
Interesting...
-
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?
Interesting...
The question is not how much light is reflected by water or snow, but whether that light would form a point of light that would cast a shadow like the one in the photos. Reflected light off of a large surface would tend to be very diffuse and would not cause that kind of shadow. The light from the sun is all coming from that round area in the sky. The light from the snow would be coming from all directions, and so any shadow would be spread out and not well defined.
Also Mt. Rainier is not near the coast and so water would not be a factor, although the light reflected off of water would be even more diffuse.
This particular shot was taken in October, and I doubt there was much snow coverage that early in the season: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/06/picture-of-the-day-mt-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds/
Furthermore, the area around Mt. Rainier is quite mountainous, so it is not like there is a big flat field of snow out in front of it acting as a huge concentrating reflector.
-
I have learned some more about refraction and why that cannot bring the apparent position of the sun down lower than its actual position in either a flat earth or a round earth. The explanation is on this post: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6056.msg114904#msg114904
-
Is this entire thread just a bunch of entitled noobs who failed to read up on EAT?
-
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?
Interesting...
The question is not how much light is reflected by water or snow, but whether that light would form a point of light that would cast a shadow like the one in the photos. Reflected light off of a large surface would tend to be very diffuse and would not cause that kind of shadow. The light from the sun is all coming from that round area in the sky. The light from the snow would be coming from all directions, and so any shadow would be spread out and not well defined.
Also Mt. Rainier is not near the coast and so water would not be a factor, although the light reflected off of water would be even more diffuse.
This particular shot was taken in October, and I doubt there was much snow coverage that early in the season: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/06/picture-of-the-day-mt-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds/
Furthermore, the area around Mt. Rainier is quite mountainous, so it is not like there is a big flat field of snow out in front of it acting as a huge concentrating reflector.
It is only 133 miles to the Pacific Ocean to Mt. Rainier.
The entire area is filled with rivers and lakes.
October of what year?
The entire area west of Rainier is an alluvial plain.
The Sun, reflecting rays off of the water, is certainly not as intense as the direct sunlight, but I am sorry.
Nothing you have written is conclusive.
You did not even address the need for polarized glasses when on the water or the issue of snow blindness.
Naturally reflected sunlight is not as diffuse as you wish it to be.
Lots of opinion.
-
Is this entire thread just a bunch of entitled noobs who failed to read up on EAT?
EAT?
I am hungry.
But it seems they just willy nilly write things off without any serious thought applied and what appears to be a tremendous lack of personal experience.
-
It is the direct light of the Sun.
What Nirmala said.
Both of you now deny concentrated reflection of the Sun's rays off of water, snow, and ice, sometimes so intense as to require extremely dark glasses to avoid eye damage or blindness?
Interesting...
The question is not how much light is reflected by water or snow, but whether that light would form a point of light that would cast a shadow like the one in the photos. Reflected light off of a large surface would tend to be very diffuse and would not cause that kind of shadow. The light from the sun is all coming from that round area in the sky. The light from the snow would be coming from all directions, and so any shadow would be spread out and not well defined.
Also Mt. Rainier is not near the coast and so water would not be a factor, although the light reflected off of water would be even more diffuse.
This particular shot was taken in October, and I doubt there was much snow coverage that early in the season: http://twistedsifter.com/2012/06/picture-of-the-day-mt-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds/
Furthermore, the area around Mt. Rainier is quite mountainous, so it is not like there is a big flat field of snow out in front of it acting as a huge concentrating reflector.
It is only 133 miles to the Pacific Ocean to Mt. Rainier.
The entire area is filled with rivers and lakes.
October of what year?
The entire area west of Rainier is an alluvial plain.
The Sun, reflecting rays off of the water, is certainly not as intense as the direct sunlight, but I am sorry.
Nothing you have written is conclusive.
You did not even address the need for polarized glasses when on the water or the issue of snow blindness.
Naturally reflected sunlight is not as diffuse as you wish it to be.
Lots of opinion.
133 miles is not close at all. There are lots of mountains west of Rainier and few lakes or rivers: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mount+Rainier+National+Park/@46.9026898,-122.5803192,47095m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490cde6eec94b87:0x5cf4a1fb4f91a418!8m2!3d46.8799663!4d-121.7269094
From the link to the photo: This particular image was shot on the morning of October 26th, 2011
Diffuse reflected light will not create a shadow with an umbra because the light is reflected in all directions (unlike a mirror or highly polished surface). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection And in the case of light reflecting off of many square miles of ground, there is even more scattered light coming from even more directions. So any shadows from all of that light coming from many different directions would in effect cancel each other out. That is why photographers use diffusers over their lights: to spread out the light source and eliminate harsh shadows. The only source of light that can cast a shadow like the one in the pictures is a point source or something close to a point source like the sun.
The fact that sunlight off of snow or water can cause blindness has nothing to do with the type of shadow that light would cast, or rather not cast. Try standing under an overhanging roof (to block direct sunlight) in front of a field of white snow, and see if the light from the snow can cause a dark shadow behind you. It won't. Yes there is a lot of light being reflected from all over that field into your eyes, and you better have sunglasses on. But again, because the light is coming from all directions, there would be no dark, well defined shadows behind you.
However, you are correct that nothing I write is ever conclusive.
-
Novarus also explains above why reflected light is not a possible explanation given the geometry of the flat earth, so I suggest you re-read his post also.
-
133 miles is not close at all. There are lots of mountains west of Rainier and few lakes or rivers: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mount+Rainier+National+Park/@46.9026898,-122.5803192,47095m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490cde6eec94b87:0x5cf4a1fb4f91a418!8m2!3d46.8799663!4d-121.7269094
From the link to the photo: This particular image was shot on the morning of October 26th, 2011
Diffuse reflected light will not create a shadow with an umbra because the light is reflected in all directions (unlike a mirror or highly polished surface). See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffuse_reflection And in the case of light reflecting off of many square miles of ground, there is even more scattered light coming from even more directions. So any shadows from all of that light coming from many different directions would in effect cancel each other out. That is why photographers use diffusers over their lights: to spread out the light source and eliminate harsh shadows. The only source of light that can cast a shadow like the one in the pictures is a point source or something close to a point source like the sun.
The fact that sunlight off of snow or water can cause blindness has nothing to do with the type of shadow that light would cast, or rather not cast. Try standing under an overhanging roof (to block direct sunlight) in front of a field of white snow, and see if the light from the snow can cause a dark shadow behind you. It won't. Yes there is a lot of light being reflected from all over that field into your eyes, and you better have sunglasses on. But again, because the light is coming from all directions, there would be no dark, well defined shadows behind you.
However, you are correct that nothing I write is ever conclusive.
Lots of mountains west of Rainier?!?!
Where?
I think you need to pony up pal.
You make the claim the light is diffused.
I happen to know for a fact light reflected from snow will cast a significantly dark shadow.
Same with light reflected from water.
Seen it with my own two eyes.
133 miles is obviously going to be a subjective measure, but unlike you I believe it distinctively qualifies as close.
It is not the entirety of the mountain casting a shadow, but rather that part subjected to light.
Any part of the top of the mountain would certainly cast a shadow from a light source below it.
And light from the Sun reflected off the surface of the Earth at an altitude lower than the summit of Rainier would qualify.
-
Novarus also explains above why reflected light is not a possible explanation given the geometry of the flat earth, so I suggest you re-read his post also.
Novarus' explanation is a waste of space.
All opinion.
And one totally in error.
Novarus claims the sunlight is reflecting off the clouds.
...For light to be reflecting off the clouds from the sun to hit the mountain, both the sun and the mountain would have to be on the same "side" as the clouds.
That is an absurd and total misinterpretation of what experience tells all of us.
-
The sun on that day would have been about 248 degrees from Rainier which is west-southwest. Switch to map view on the link to google earth I posted and you will see there are lots of mountains between Rainier and the shore when traveling west-southwest. (Map view shows the mountains more clearly with a topographic shadowing effect)
Show me a photo of diffuse reflected light casting a dark shadow that is shaped like it has formed from a point source of light.
Snow cover would have been nil anyways at that time of year.
I don't know what to say to the claim that 133 miles is close by.
And you do realize that the picture shows heavy cloud cover overhead? On any of the existing flat earth models, the sun would be behind those clouds anyways which would radically reduce and diffuse the light further. There is no way that perspective can bring a hidden object into view, nor can it hide an object that is in view (although an abject can be so distant that the eye can no longer distinguish it from the surroundings). Refraction can only make objects above the atmosphere appear higher than they really are, so no effect of refraction would be able to bring the sun down into view as it clearly is in the photo.
But hey, diffuse light from a sun hidden behind the clouds can cause all kinds of dark shadows, right?
-
The sun on that day would have been about 248 degrees from Rainier which is west-southwest. Switch to map view on the link to google earth I posted and you will see there are lots of mountains between Rainier and the shore when traveling west-southwest. (Map view shows the mountains more clearly with a topographic shadowing effect)
You post the map view.
Between Rainier and the Pacific, there are what could be called foothills.
Show me a photo of diffuse reflected light casting a dark shadow that is shaped like it has formed from a point source of light.
Light reflected off of the water or snow can certainly be diffuse, but it is not that way all the time.
Snow cover would have been nil anyways at that time of year.
Look it up.
You are making the claim.
I know there was 907 inches of snow in that area in 2010/2011.
That is a lot of snow.
I don't know what to say to the claim that 133 miles is close by.
I know you don't.
Hard to believe a freaking MOUNTAIN within 133 miles could be considered close (2 - 2.5 hours by car).
And you do realize that the picture shows heavy cloud cover overhead? On any of the existing flat earth models, the sun would be behind those clouds anyways which would radically reduce and diffuse the light further. There is no way that perspective can bring a hidden object into view, nor can it hide an object that is in view (although an abject can be so distant that the eye can no longer distinguish it from the surroundings). Refraction can only make objects above the atmosphere appear higher than they really are, so no effect of refraction would be able to bring the sun down into view as it clearly is in the photo.
But hey, diffuse light from a sun hidden behind the clouds can cause all kinds of dark shadows, right?
And the Sun is quite a distance to the EAST of Rainier in that photo and surely you must realize those clouds quite possibly DO NOT EXTEND as far east as the Sun, correct?
-
Foothills would further diffuse the light. And those are some pretty rugged foothils west-southwest of Rainier (especially the ones northeast of Cinebar, and southwest of Boistfort): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Little+Tahoma+Peak/@46.6890044,-123.401533,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490d20059ca9a55:0xa0257ed9e9dab45d!8m2!3d46.8495529!4d-121.7123171!5m1!1e4
Again, show me proof of your claim that diffuse reflected light can cast a shadow with an umbra.
We are talking about October 2011 which would have been the 2011-2012 snow season which was widely regarded as a dud: http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/robinson_pubs/non_refereed/Weatherwise2011-12SnowArticle.pdf
Even the year before, I am sure most of that 907 inches of snow you reference fell after October. I am also pretty sure you are referencing the snowfall on top of Rainier, and not the snowfall at the much lower elevations to the southwest.
The sun in the flat earth model never is below about 10 degrees above the horizon which is why flat earthers make up all kinds of ridiculous explanations for how it can appear that low in the sky in the first place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ithkxW04imM
So the simple fact that the sun even appears on the horizon in the photo debunks a flat earth before we even discuss the shadows. And this means that on a flat earth, the sun would be behind the clouds as explored in this post: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6074.msg114329#msg114329
-
Did a similar series of diagrams here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5225.msg102411#msg102411) in Totes's RE information repository.
Love the new avatar Nirmala.
-
Did a similar series of diagrams here (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5225.msg102411#msg102411) in Totes's RE information repository.
Love the new avatar Nirmala.
Thanks for posting those. The only thing worse than my video skills are my graphic skills, so it is great to have some decent graphics to refer to.
Also that entire thread is something I had not really explored yet, even though you got me to post a link on there to the conversation I had with Tom Bishop about flight times. It is a great resource and will save me a lot of googling when I want to counter someone's flat earth info. So again, thanks :-B
-Nirmala aka The Heron
-
If they did make that thread into a round earth wiki, then all of the debates on here could just go like this:
RE: Question about sun, horizon, etc.?
FE: See the Wiki
RE: No, you go see our Wiki
FE: But our Wiki came first!
RE: But our Wiki is correct and rational!
FE: Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.
-
If they did make that thread into a round earth wiki, then all of the debates on here could just go like this:
RE: Question about sun, horizon, etc.?
FE: See the Wiki
RE: No, you go see our Wiki
FE: But our Wiki came first!
RE: But our Wiki is correct and rational!
FE: Please refrain from low content posting in the upper fora.
Please stay on topic and refrain from low content posting in the upper fora. Next one is a 3 day ban.
-
Foothills would further diffuse the light. And those are some pretty rugged foothils west-southwest of Rainier (especially the ones northeast of Cinebar, and southwest of Boistfort): https://www.google.com/maps/place/Little+Tahoma+Peak/@46.6890044,-123.401533,9z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x5490d20059ca9a55:0xa0257ed9e9dab45d!8m2!3d46.8495529!4d-121.7123171!5m1!1e4
Again, it is only the peak of the 5th highest mountain in the contiguous US that is casting a shadow.
And Rainier is distinctive in that there are not other such tall mountains surrounding it.
It is the most distinctively prominent mountain in the Lower 48.
Again, show me proof of your claim that diffuse reflected light can cast a shadow with an umbra.
The photo of Rainier and its shadow is my proof.
We are talking about October 2011 which would have been the 2011-2012 snow season which was widely regarded as a dud: http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/robinson_pubs/non_refereed/Weatherwise2011-12SnowArticle.pdf
Even the year before, I am sure most of that 907 inches of snow you reference fell after October. I am also pretty sure you are referencing the snowfall on top of Rainier, and not the snowfall at the much lower elevations to the southwest.
At 5400 ft, Paradise, known for its high annual snowfall totals. 700 inches fell in 2011/2012.
Not a dud.
And not accounting for the light reflecting off the lakes and rivers in the area.
The sun in the flat earth model never is below about 10 degrees above the horizon which is why flat earthers make up all kinds of ridiculous explanations for how it can appear that low in the sky in the first place:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ithkxW04imM
The Sun is not visible for an entire night, 365 days a year at the latitude of Rainier.
So the simple fact that the sun even appears on the horizon in the photo debunks a flat earth before we even discuss the shadows. And this means that on a flat earth, the sun would be behind the clouds as explored in this post: http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6074.msg114329#msg114329
Nope.
-
Yes, it is a mountain that is less than 3 miles high and in the flat earth model, the sun is never less than 2500-3000 miles high. And the coast is 133 miles away, so that is equivalent to a quarter standing on its edge and the water being 3.7 feet off to the side. At this same scale, the Sun in a flat earth model is constantly 70-85 feet above the earth's surface. How does the sun at that height above the quarter ever cast a shadow upwards? Even if the ocean was a perfectly flat mirror, the relatively focused reflected sunlight would reflect off at a similar angle to the angle at which it struck the ocean's surface and would miss the quarter completely.
Watch the video again that I linked to in order to see why the sun would never be even close to the horizon on a flat earth or less than 10 degrees above the horizon, let alone hidden from view behind the horizon for hours every night as you mentioned, and especially not from a 3 mile high vantage point that would have a much more distant line of sight to the west on a flat earth. Your pointing this out just further debunks the flat earth model as it supports the point of view that the video is providing, namely that the sun would never set or subsequently rise on a flat earth.
This photo shows the sun in the frame of the picture, so it cannot be proof of diffuse light casting a shadow with an umbra, since there is a more localized source (the sun) that is clearly present:
(http://twistedsifter.com/2012/06/picture-of-the-day-mt-rainier-casting-a-shadow-on-clouds/)
I can link to thousands of photos showing a shadow with an umbra that are cast by direct sunlight: https://www.google.com/search?q=umbra+shadow&espv=2&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikkZ-f6rXTAhVn34MKHdxnA9cQ_AUIBygC&biw=1529&bih=913#tbm=isch&q=shadow+cast+by+sunlight
(Note that a picture of Rainier casting a shadow upwards is on that page of search results)
I am asking you for proof of a similar dark shadow cast when the sun is clearly blocked from shining on the object casting the shadow. The Rainier photo does not qualify.
The Paradise area is south of Rainier, not west-southwest. And again, most of that 700 inches of snow fell after October. In fact, only 4 inches fell in October,2011 in the Paradise area: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMONtsnf.pl?wa6898 Most early snow like that melts fairly quickly as the average daily high temperature in October at Paradise is 48 degrees, and the ground has not had time to freeze. Also Paradise as you mention is at 5,400 foot elevation. Most of the area west-southwest of Rainier is much lower elevation and so probably did not even see 4 inches that entire month of October, 2011.
I only see 3 or 4 fairly small lakes that are roughly on a west-southwest line from Rainier, and they are tucked into the hills/mountains in that area.
Finally, just saying "Nope" to one of my arguments is not a reasoned response backed up by evidence. The only relevant reply to your "Nope" would be "Yup".
-
Opinionated disagreement...
Your video is simply wrong.
I wrote nope because your arguments are rather specious and lacking simple reasoning.
A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer.
Farther away, it will be darkness.
Finally, reflected sunlight is capable of casting shadows whether you like it or not.
Depending on the type of reflective surface, it can burn human skin as easily as direct sunlight or cause blindness.
There is no reason to believe that intense a light could not also cast shadows.
-
"A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer. Farther away, it will be darkness."
-----------------------------------
if the sun is 3000 miles up then it is about 2645.75 miles from the spot on earth underneath the sun?
that is a really high angle, isn't it(48.59 degrees?)...for the sun appearing on the horizon under the clouds?
or if you mean 4000 miles from the spot directly under the sun(as apposed to direct to the sun) then
that would make your direct line of sight with the sun at 5000 miles distant at a 36.87 degree angle...?
and that is at sunset/rise...(with the 3000/4000/5000 right triangle?)
-
"A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer. Farther away, it will be darkness."
-----------------------------------
if the sun is 3000 miles up then it is about 2645.75 miles from the spot on earth underneath the sun?
that is a really high angle, isn't it(48.59 degrees?)...for the sun appearing on the horizon under the clouds?
Where do you derive 2645.75 miles?
I do not know if the Sun is at a consistent 3000 mile altitude.
I am beginning to think it varies during the seasons.
or if you mean 4000 miles from the spot directly under the sun(as apposed to direct to the sun) then that would make your direct line of sight with the sun at 5000 miles distant at a 36.87 degree angle...? and that is at sunset/rise...(with the 3000/4000/5000 right triangle?)
A 3/4/5 triangle is natural and could be part of the issue, bu that holds only for a consistent 3000 mile altitude.
I am thinking the only consistent measurement is the 4000 mile distance resulting in darkness.
-
I do not know if the Sun is at a consistent 3000 mile altitude.
I can help with that. It isn't.
-
"A person on a flat earth with be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer. Farther away, it will be darkness."
-----------------------------------
I am thinking the only consistent measurement is the 4000 mile distance resulting in darkness.
What is the mechanism by which the sun goes dark? And why doesn't it get smaller as it approaches that point, just as everything else gets smaller when it moves further away from us due to our perspective changing?
-
What is the mechanism by which the sun goes dark? And why doesn't it get smaller as it approaches that point, just as everything else gets smaller when it moves further away from us due to our perspective changing?
I would think the mechanism would be the Sun is now out of sight.
Perhaps it might be because it is operating in its own realm of the dome, with a "curtain," made of unknown properties following closely behind and preceding it.
It is within the "curtain," that all appears dark.
-
What is the mechanism by which the sun goes dark? And why doesn't it get smaller as it approaches that point, just as everything else gets smaller when it moves further away from us due to our perspective changing?
I would think the mechanism would be the Sun is now out of sight.
Perhaps it might be because it is operating in its own realm of the dome, with a "curtain," made of unknown properties following closely behind and preceding it.
It is within the "curtain," that all appears dark.
Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?
-
Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?
Perhaps I am having difficulty communicating the point.
The Sun never goes behind the curtain.
The stars and moon may produce a different type of light not affected by the properties of the curtain.
It might be better to use the word veil instead of curtain.
They never just blacken a movie theatre when they are about to show a movie, do they?
Nope, they slowly fade to dark.
-
Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?
Perhaps I am having difficulty communicating the point.
The Sun never goes behind the curtain.
The stars and moon may produce a different type of light not affected by the properties of the curtain.
It might be better to use the word veil instead of curtain.
They never just blacken a movie theatre when they are about to show a movie, do they?
Nope, they slowly fade to dark.
A different kind of light sounds super implausible. This light would have to consist of a hitherto unknown subatomic particle that appears exactly like a photon, but for some reason, it does not interact with this veil. Another option is that the veil represents a new fundamental interaction which has never been observed which absorbs one frequency of light but not most.
-
Why doesn't the curtain hide the stars which fill the entire sky at night when the sun is supposedly still in the sky but hidden behind the curtain? Are the stars closer than the sun, so they are in front of the curtain? Why does the sun not just go out like a light switch when the curtain is drawn in front of it, instead of the gradual fading of the light at sunset that we see every day?
Perhaps I am having difficulty communicating the point.
The Sun never goes behind the curtain.
The stars and moon may produce a different type of light not affected by the properties of the curtain.
It might be better to use the word veil instead of curtain.
They never just blacken a movie theatre when they are about to show a movie, do they?
Nope, they slowly fade to dark.
The sun has many frequencies of light, so the veil would have to block a lot of frequencies, and yet somehow allow the frequencies of starlight to still pass through.. Also it would have to be arranged to block light on half the earth, while allowing light to strike the other half that was in daylight. And then it would even have to sometimes allow light to hit the surface in a complete circle of light surrounding a central area of darkness (see http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.0 ), all while gradually fading the light out in all areas of sunset and gradually fading the light in in all areas of sunrise. On top of all of that, somehow it would block the light from the sun, but not only allow the starlight to pass through the veil, but even allow the stars that were located behind the sun to shine through both the sun and the veil.
That is one elaborate and complicated veil ::)
-
Where do you derive 2645.75 miles?
I do not know if the Sun is at a consistent 3000 mile altitude.
I am beginning to think it varies during the seasons.
"A person on a flat earth [would] be in daylight when the sun is 4000 miles or closer"
I could not tell if this meant the strait line from the sun angled up to meet it or the distance on the ground from directly below the sun
the 2645.75 is taking 4000 if it was the hypotenuse of the traingle and 3000 miles up as one of the sides
it would make it (A² + 9mil) = 16mil so A² = 7mil and the square root of 7 million is about 2645.75
and I added that if sides A and B are the 4000 and 3000 that that makes it easy at 5000 miles direct eye to sun at sunset.
with the variable sun height and constant distance from sun to be int he dark the radius of the spotlight circle would vary, too.
I think it would have to be teh hypotenuse of the triangle that would have to be the constant though as that is the straight line between observer and sun, right? (rather than the distance seen between the two points when seen from above?)
-
Here is a video showing the sun reappear after sunset when the camera is raised up 1000 feet by a drone. So we must add to the amazing feats of this hypothetical veil that it can block the sun at ground level while allowing it to shine at higher locations (without moving the camera closer to the sun...just higher):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_-dTwDYiWs&feature=youtu.be
-
Here is a video showing the sun reappear...
Looks more like a video of a MacBook screen and then an iPhone screen.
-
Here is a video showing the sun reappear...
Looks more like a video of a MacBook screen and then an iPhone screen.
The video within the video is a live video feed of the camera in the drone. Starting at about 3:10 in the video, he alternates between showing us the live video feed from the drone and the actual view of the sunset where he conducted the experiment to verify that the two views are consistent, at least until the drone climbs up to 1000 feet and shows the sun above the horizon while the direct view is still showing it as below the horizon.
Pilots do this kind of thing in their airplanes for fun: http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/tip-week/create-your-own-sunsets
From the article:
"Simply get into the airplane shortly before sunset and climb to a safe altitude. Make some nice smooth turns or just fly along until the sun slips below the horizon. Once it does, all you have to do is climb high enough that the glowing ball once again crests the surface of the earth. Then you can either wait until it disappears again or descend and make your own sunset. You can even create sunset after sunset by practicing Chandelles or Lazy Eights."
You can easily make a similar observation anywhere there are mountains or hills to the east of your position. They will remain illuminated by the sun after it has appeared to have set, even though they are further away from the setting sun, due to their higher elevation
-
I swear to god, people are like "Where's your evidence for a round earth?" and you show them multiple pictures of a setting sun, pictures from space, pictures at the north pole, the moon, planes, evidence of gravity and all they spurt out is "but you didn't take that photo, CGI, perspective!" even though it makes literally no sense for a community of people to stop people thinking the earth is flat. Like how would it help them? How?
-
Here is the problem with the light reflection theory. Video was taken from a plane above the clouds. FE theory states the sun is alway above the clouds. Thus we should be able to see the sun in the picture because both are above the clouds, correct? But we can't all we see is the light illuminating the clouds from underneath which is not possible in the flat earth theory is the sun is alway above the clouds.
-
Here is a video showing the sun reappear after sunset when the camera is raised up 1000 feet by a drone. So we must add to the amazing feats of this hypothetical veil that it can block the sun at ground level while allowing it to shine at higher locations (without moving the camera closer to the sun...just higher):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_-dTwDYiWs&feature=youtu.be
Everyone knows if you move higher above ground you are getting closer to things that are above you in the sky.
-
Here is a video showing the sun reappear after sunset when the camera is raised up 1000 feet by a drone. So we must add to the amazing feats of this hypothetical veil that it can block the sun at ground level while allowing it to shine at higher locations (without moving the camera closer to the sun...just higher):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_-dTwDYiWs&feature=youtu.be
Everyone knows if you move higher above ground you are getting closer to things that are above you in the sky.
Really? If I go 1000 feet up, I am not moving much closer to an object that in the flat earth model would be roughly 5,000 miles (26,400,000 feet) away from me and roughly 3000 miles (15,840,000 feet) above the surface when it was appearing to set. And why do mountains that are much further away to the east from the sun still catch the light of the setting sun after it has set where I am standing? What is blocking the view of the sun where I am standing, but not blocking the sun 1000 feet up, or on the tops of mountains several miles to the east of me? Like our good friend, Mt Rainier:
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7188/6911570315_dec17eede8_o.jpg)