#### Iceman

• 1050
• where there's smoke there's wires
##### Sunsets in EA
« on: October 16, 2020, 01:40:39 AM »
So I understand the argument for EA influencing the apparent azimuth of the sun as it sets or rises, and how it accounts for an observer on the ground seeing the clouds illuminated from below.

But for a second observer, located above the clouds, how does EA account for what both of them see? Why doesnt the second observer, above cloud deck, see the sun anymore? Does the bending of light from EA apply to both observers simultaneously?

#### JSS

• 1365
• Math is math!
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #1 on: October 16, 2020, 02:08:39 AM »
So I understand the argument for EA influencing the apparent azimuth of the sun as it sets or rises, and how it accounts for an observer on the ground seeing the clouds illuminated from below.

But for a second observer, located above the clouds, how does EA account for what both of them see? Why doesnt the second observer, above cloud deck, see the sun anymore? Does the bending of light from EA apply to both observers simultaneously?

The Wiki describes clouds being lit from underneath due to light curving back upwards.

The following image is from the Electromagnetic_Acceleration Wiki page.

I have additional questions and observations related to yours.

The above image could work for a single cloud, but how does it work for a larger amount of cloud cover?  I made a modification below to illustrate. I would think you also would still be able to see light hitting the tops of the clouds over in Brazil.  So at some point the clouds would transition from being lit at the top to being lit at the bottom?

I understand cloud cover isn't continuous over the entire surface, but just the next two clouds would block all the light from the first.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 8745
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #2 on: October 16, 2020, 02:20:33 AM »
Quote from: JSS
I have additional questions and observations related to yours.

The above image could work for a single cloud, but how does it work for a larger amount of cloud cover?  I made a modification below to illustrate. I would think you also would still be able to see light hitting the tops of the clouds over in Brazil.  So at some point the clouds would transition from being lit at the top to being lit at the bottom?

I understand cloud cover isn't continuous over the entire surface, but just the next two clouds would block all the light from the first.

Fallacy. If there were clouds thousands of miles long curving around the "globe" it would also block the Sun under the RE idea.

#### stack

• 2108
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #3 on: October 16, 2020, 03:53:53 AM »
Quote from: JSS
I have additional questions and observations related to yours.

The above image could work for a single cloud, but how does it work for a larger amount of cloud cover?  I made a modification below to illustrate. I would think you also would still be able to see light hitting the tops of the clouds over in Brazil.  So at some point the clouds would transition from being lit at the top to being lit at the bottom?

I understand cloud cover isn't continuous over the entire surface, but just the next two clouds would block all the light from the first.

Fallacy. If there were clouds thousands of miles long curving around the "globe" it would also block the Sun under the RE idea.

How about a cloud right next to it? What's the calculation for how EA knows to curve up and reflect the underside of it too? Is it always like a Brazil to California distance thing?

#### Stilgar

• 6
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2020, 05:42:31 AM »
If the light coming from the Sun curves up, then the phenomenon show the Sun lower than it really is.
In that case the light coming from horizon also shows horizon lower than it really is.
Which means the horizon is higher than the horizontal plane.
So many people directly measure so many things.
And they are getting more precise each day.

#### Longtitube

• 189
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2020, 10:50:14 AM »
If there were clouds thousands of miles long curving around the "globe" it would also block the Sun under the RE idea.

That does happen. Ever been to Europe in winter?
Once again - you assume that the centre of the video is the centre of the camera's frame. We know that this isn't the case.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13208
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #6 on: October 16, 2020, 11:14:58 AM »
That does happen. Ever been to Europe in winter?
It does indeed happen. And because it does happen, we know that the clouds in this scenario would not be lit from below. That's why JSS's claim is bunk.

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Iceman

• 1050
• where there's smoke there's wires
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #7 on: October 16, 2020, 12:00:58 PM »
I guess I did a poor job outlining the question here, that's on me.

The thought was to accept EA as true and ask why those observations fit - why doesnt any light go straight to the hypothetical observer above the clouds (or in my image, the observer from the plane). I assume the answer relates to the spotlight nature of the sun in FE framework, as is illustrated in the diagrams provided above: all the light from the sun is emitted downwards, or at least in a relatively narrow cone.

Given that we all accept that the sun is round, based on the changing appearance of sun spots as they are observed passing across the sun, what is the phenomena that causes the light to only be emitted towards us, instead of radially, such that an observer located directly above someone observing sunset on earth would also only see the clouds lit from below.

Hopefully I've explained that a bit better, thanks to all who have offered clarification so far though.

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13208
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #8 on: October 16, 2020, 12:30:46 PM »
why doesnt any light go straight to the hypothetical observer above the clouds (or in my image, the observer from the plane)
Evidently, it does - you wouldn't be able to see any of the sky if no light was reaching you.

I assume the answer relates to the spotlight nature of the sun in FE framework, as is illustrated in the diagrams provided above: all the light from the sun is emitted downwards, or at least in a relatively narrow cone.
No, this is a misunderstanding. The "spotlight nature" of the Sun is caused by EA. The illustration focuses on some light rays of particular interest (specifically, it was adapted from an illustration demonstrating different times of day on the Earth), but this does not mean other rays are absent. The reason most of them are irrelevant is that they'd simply curve away before reaching the observer.

In both models, the explanation for your photograph is identical: the apparent position of the Sun is above the Earth's surface, but below the clouds. Each scenario can be projected onto the other.

I think it would be helpful if you were to elaborate on this part of your question:

Does the bending of light from EA apply to both observers simultaneously?

What do you mean by properties of light "applying to both observers"? If we think of light as particles for a moment (and if we ignore any relativistic effects which will not be significant here), light either is present in a certain location or it isn't. As long as both observers have a sense of sight, there is nothing to "apply" or "not apply" to them.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 12:37:17 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Iceman

• 1050
• where there's smoke there's wires
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #9 on: October 16, 2020, 01:28:25 PM »
Yep I will concede I've still not done a great job explaining my question, but I think your answer has taken care of my confusion... just to hopefully wrap this up:

As an analogy to explain the observed path of light rays in from the sun in EA, would it be best to think of them like magnetic field lines coming out of a dipole, like a bar magnet?

If that's reasonable (and I'm not trying to claim it is), what direction(s) is light being emitted from the opposite side of the sun above and away from earths surface? Predominantly upwards?

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13208
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #10 on: October 16, 2020, 02:02:21 PM »
As an analogy to explain the observed path of light rays in from the sun in EA, would it be best to think of them like magnetic field lines coming out of a dipole, like a bar magnet?
I don't want to speak with too much confidence (because someone will no doubt jump in with a "gotcha"), but I'm not immediately seeing an issue with thinking of it that way.

what direction(s) is light being emitted from the opposite side of the sun above and away from earths surface? Predominantly upwards?
If we imagine a point light source instead of a large object, then yes - there will be an angle at which all light will start curving up relatively soon, and will thus not be seen by many observers. By extension, this will be true of every point on the Sun's surface.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2020, 02:04:05 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### Iceman

• 1050
• where there's smoke there's wires
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #11 on: October 16, 2020, 02:16:43 PM »
As an analogy to explain the observed path of light rays in from the sun in EA, would it be best to think of them like magnetic field lines coming out of a dipole, like a bar magnet?
I don't want to speak with too much confidence (because someone will no doubt jump in with a "gotcha"), but I'm not immediately seeing an issue with thinking of it that way.

what direction(s) is light being emitted from the opposite side of the sun above and away from earths surface? Predominantly upwards?
If we imagine a point light source instead of a large object, then yes - there will be an angle at which all light will start curving up relatively soon, and will thus not be seen by many observers. By extension, this will be true of every point on the Sun's surface.

Ok, thanks Pete. I'll leave it there - that tackles my confusion around that aspect of EA at least.

#### RhesusVX

• 187
• 1/137.03599913
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #12 on: October 30, 2020, 05:14:42 PM »
As an analogy to explain the observed path of light rays in from the sun in EA, would it be best to think of them like magnetic field lines coming out of a dipole, like a bar magnet?
I don't want to speak with too much confidence (because someone will no doubt jump in with a "gotcha"), but I'm not immediately seeing an issue with thinking of it that way.

No, this is a misunderstanding. The "spotlight nature" of the Sun is caused by EA. The illustration focuses on some light rays of particular interest (specifically, it was adapted from an illustration demonstrating different times of day on the Earth), but this does not mean other rays are absent. The reason most of them are irrelevant is that they'd simply curve away before reaching the observer.

Let's posit that this EA theory is correct, that some mechanism causes sunlight to curve in such a way that it causes a "day spot", and at the edge of that day spot the light rays don't actually hit the Earth and are instead curved away from the observer again back into space.  Surely if that were the case, anything in the way of that light on its way back up would be illuminated from the edge/underside with just as much intensity?  But, you don't see Aeroplanes glowing in the night sky due to sunlight on its way back up do you?

With FET, the dark part of the Earth is dark because light never reached it due to being curved away.  As a result, those rays of direct sunlight must still exist on their way back to space in that region.
With RET, the dark part of the Earth is dark because light never reached it due to being blocked by one hemisphere.  As a result, NO rays of direct sunlight can exist in that region.

As stipulated earlier, aeroplanes flying across the night sky do not glow from the underside, so one can reasonably deduce that the RET best fits reality.  The only illumination the dark side gets is from Moonlight (reflected Sunlight) which is measurably different to direct Sunlight due to the surface of the moon changing its spectra.  In RET, there is no Sunlight detectable in the dark regions of Earth.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2020, 05:18:18 PM by RhesusVX »
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13208
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #13 on: October 30, 2020, 11:26:36 PM »
anything in the way of that light on its way back up would be illuminated from the edge/underside with just as much intensity?
Sure, like clouds. A common sight.

But, you don't see Aeroplanes glowing in the night sky due to sunlight on its way back up do you?
Well, yeah, you wouldn't be looking at "the night sky" - you don't really encounter many non-blocked upward-heading light rays in the night sky. You'd be looking at "seconds after sunset". In which case, yes, aeroplanes are lit from the underside. This is model-agnostic.

With FET, the dark part of the Earth is dark because light never reached it due to being curved away.
Not strictly - you arbitrarily chose to only consider one of two reasons. All light that reaches the Earth is blocked by an area of the Earth. All light that doesn't reach the Earth doesn't reach the Earth.

With RET, the dark part of the Earth is dark because light never reached it due to being blocked by one hemisphere.
Not strictly - you arbitrarily chose to only consider one of two reasons. All light that reaches the Earth is blocked by an area of the Earth. All light that doesn't reach the Earth doesn't reach the Earth.

As stipulated earlier, aeroplanes flying across the night sky do not glow from the underside
Your stipulation is based upon a flawed assumption. Or, well, about 5 of them.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2020, 11:29:45 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### RhesusVX

• 187
• 1/137.03599913
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2020, 09:42:23 AM »
Sure, like clouds. A common sight.
I'm glad we agree on the principle.

Well, yeah, you wouldn't be looking at "the night sky" - you don't really encounter many non-blocked upward-heading light rays in the night sky. You'd be looking at "seconds after sunset". In which case, yes, aeroplanes are lit from the underside. This is model-agnostic.
How do you figure curved light would only illuminate aeroplanes just "seconds after sunset"?  If the Earth is flat, and light is radiating out from the Sun in all directions (which you say is the case) the entire "night sky" would be flooded with rays of light on their way back up to space, not just those rays that are close to, and responsible for "daylight" and "sunset".  This would illuminate things like clouds and aeroplanes with as much intensity as they do during the day no matter what their location.

You can't just pick and choose which light rays you want to pay attention to so that they fit your hypothesis, or make up formulas with things like a Bishop Constant to fit a patchwork of contradictions.  Or are you going to turn around and say that those rays of light in darkness curve away from the Earth at altitudes far higher than aeroplanes?  That would be very convenient.

Not strictly - you arbitrarily chose to only consider one of two reasons. All light that reaches the Earth is blocked by an area of the Earth. All light that doesn't reach the Earth doesn't reach the Earth.
I could throw exactly the same back - that you arbitrarily choose one of two reasons.  It's a non-argument in that sense, but you choose to ignore the fact that empirical measurements of the spectra of direct sunlight and reflected moonlight are different.  They are different because direct sunlight is only impacted by our atmosphere.  Reflected moonlight is impacted by the surface of the Moon, and while its surface does reflect largely a white light, its composition is slightly different as a result.  This has been repeatedly and independently measured, so how do you explain that?  Consider that measurements don't just happen on the surface of the Earth either.  Or are you going to turn around and just say that this evidence is falsified and part of a bigger conspiracy theory?  In which case, the debate isn't really about whether the Earth is flat or round is it?

Anyway, if FET is correct, where is the evidence to support the fact that light is curved away from the surface of the Earth?

Your stipulation is based upon a flawed assumption. Or, well, about 5 of them.
Again, I could equally just state that your reasoning is also based upon a flawed assumption - that the Earth is flat and light is significantly curved away from its surface by some unknown force that you cannot explain and have no scientifically verified empirical formula for.

That the Earth is round, that light travels in a straight line unless acted on is a much simpler hypothesis, and explains everything we see in reality quite nicely.  In fact light is so reliably straight that it is used to accurately measure relative heights, speeds, levels, angles, and yes, curvature.  Sure, light does bend, but is bent by much larger astronomical bodies and EM forces, in accordance with formulae that are fully understood and utilised here on Earth to carry out experimentation on particle physics.

Here's the big difference between FET and RET.  FET is just that, a theory, with no evidence to prove or disprove the individual posits, just analogous models like "small and close" vs "large and far away".  Only one can be correct, yet only one model is accompanied by empirical, repeatable evidence.  Where is the FET evidence that shows the Sun and Moon are only 32 miles across and 3,000 miles away for example?  All you've done is taken the actual numbers and scaled them to produce an analogous model.  That's fine, but you have to be able to provide proof and evidence that supports your model.  If you don't or won't, at best it's just pseudoscience, and at worst it's a religion.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13208
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2020, 11:08:34 AM »
How do you figure curved light would only illuminate aeroplanes just "seconds after sunset"?
A simple analysis of observable evidence.

You attempt to force a weird narrative here. You assume that EA is an assumption, and that it needs to be verified through observation. This is not how Zetetic inquiry works. We have made the observation first, and reached a conclusion from it.

I could throw exactly the same back - that you arbitrarily choose one of two reasons.
Well, you quite literally couldn't. I elaborated on both parts of the puzzle for both models. You chose column A for one model, and column B for another model, while ignoring the rest. Instead of "throwing things back" at me, it might be time to start fixing your argumentation. This isn't a game in which you're trying to one-up me, it's a discussion. When a critical flaw in your argument is highlighted, you should try to understand it and respond - not just "nuh uh!" me. The latter makes you look childish.

You can't just pick and choose which light rays you want to pay attention to so that they fit your hypothesis
I agree. Will you be altering your position to fix this issue, then?

Anyway, if FET is correct, where is the evidence to support the fact that light is curved away from the surface of the Earth?
Everyday observation. Any trivial experimental setup will confirm the conclusion, and you've already agreed that you've observed clouds being lit from underneath.

Again, I could equally just state that your reasoning is also based upon a flawed assumption - that the Earth is flat and light is significantly curved away from its surface by some unknown force that you cannot explain and have no scientifically verified empirical formula for.
You might want to learn what an "assumption" is in propositional logic. To call the conclusion of a deduction an assumption is to flip the whole process on its head. I suspect that the problem is with your vocabulary, and not with your ability to follow logic, but the two are functionally the same when you end up saying things like this.

The rest of your post is summed as "I like RET and dislike FET", with no qualifying argumentation. Please keep in mind that such declarations are considered hopelessly off-topic in the debate boards. I'll be nice this time, since you're new, but keep your posts on-topic moving forward.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2020, 11:12:35 AM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### RhesusVX

• 187
• 1/137.03599913
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #16 on: October 31, 2020, 02:17:38 PM »
You attempt to force a weird narrative here. You assume that EA is an assumption, and that it needs to be verified through observation. This is not how Zetetic inquiry works. We have made the observation first, and reached a conclusion from it.
If my narrative is weird, please elaborate why.  Don't just reply with things like "I should try to understand it and respond", because clearly I'm asking, if EA predicts that light rays should be detectable in all regions of darkness on their way back up into space, why do we not detect that fact?  You choose to ignore that bit.  Aren't these forums for discussion and education?  So educate me if you think I'm wrong, do explain.

Regarding how Zetetic inquiry works, yes, I know.  It rejects traditional scientific methodology, chooses to only believe what you see, and concludes from there with no further hypothesis to validate a conclusion.  Science goes one step further than that and tests the hypothesis, thus providing evidence.

Well, you quite literally couldn't. I elaborated on both parts of the puzzle for both models. You chose column A for one model, and column B for another model, while ignoring the rest. Instead of "throwing things back" at me, it might be time to start fixing your argumentation. This isn't a game in which you're trying to one-up me, it's a discussion. When a critical flaw in your argument is highlighted, you should try to understand it and respond - not just "nuh uh!" me. The latter makes you look childish.
Well, quite literally I can.  I elaborated on both parts of the puzzle for both models.  I clearly articulated that with FET/EA, there would have to be detectable direct sunlight on its way back up into space through the night sky, and that with RET there could be no direct sunlight due to part of the Earth blocking it.  I'm really not sure why you think one is column A and one is column B.

On the subject of ignoring the rest, why is it that you are ignoring that fact that there is a difference in measured spectra between direct sunlight and reflected sunlight (i.e. day and night)?  You're right, it's not a game, but you do seem to be quite fond of just telling people that they are wrong without explaining why they are wrong, and simply that they should get more educated.  This makes you look foolish.

I agree. Will you be altering your position to fix this issue, then?
Fix what issue?  Again, you're quick to say there is an issue but slow to provide rationale.  I've already explained why I think EA predicts direct sunlight being detectable in all regions of darkness in FET as the light goes back up into space, so if that's wrong, please elaborate why so that I can better understand EA.

Everyday observation. Any trivial experimental setup will confirm the conclusion, and you've already agreed that you've observed clouds being lit from underneath.
So you're saying that any trivial experimental setup with confirm the conclusion that light curves upwards the further it travels?  OK, what causes it to travel upwards?  In EA there is a force that is, as yet, unexplained, with no mathematical model that can make predictions of it.

Clouds are lit from above, internally through reflection/refraction, and underneath.  Unlike the diagram shown in the Wiki, light can pass through clouds - it isn't just blocked.

You might want to learn what an "assumption" is in propositional logic. To call the conclusion of a deduction an assumption is to flip the whole process on its head. I suspect that the problem is with your vocabulary, and not with your ability to follow logic, but the two are functionally the same when you end up saying things like this.

The rest of your post is summed as "I like RET and dislike FET", with no qualifying argumentation. Please keep in mind that such declarations are considered hopelessly off-topic in the debate boards. I'll be nice this time, since you're new, but keep your posts on-topic moving forward.
If the conclusion of a deduction is not backed up by tested hypothesis, it can be considered an assumption.  It's interesting you say this is flipping it on its head, because that's exactly what things like this and Zetetic inquiry do - flip scientific methodologies on their head.  All I'm doing here is flipping it back again.

You are incorrect.  It's not that I "like RET" and "dislike FET", I find the subject and comparisons fascinating.  Call me a "globeliever" or whatever, I won't argue that siding, but then we live in a world where there is overwhelming amounts of scientific proof and evidence to show that the world is indeed globular.  Do I know this as fact?  No, of course not, but I don't just take things at face value as I see them either, and am quite capable of logical deduction, reasoning and challenging things.

But yes, you're right, generic claims of FET and RET do not belong here.  This is about EA and (as you have now introduced) differences in approaches to reaching those conclusions and validating them.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13208
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #17 on: October 31, 2020, 07:39:53 PM »
If my narrative is weird, please elaborate why.
I already did. You ignored half of it, and respond to the other half with a "nuh uh!".

I'm asking, if EA predicts that light rays should be detectable in all regions of darkness on their way back up into space
Which it doesn't.

why do we not detect that fact?
Because you predicated your logic on a flawed assumption. Again.

Aren't these forums for discussion and education?
No. You are expected to have familiarised yourself with the basics prior to posting in the debate forums.

Science goes one step further than that and tests the hypothesis, thus providing evidence.
And yet here you go, just spewing whatever assumption comes to your mind as "something FET predicts", having done none of your homework in advance. It is precisely this kind of zealotry that's slowly killing your preferred method. You might not want to be part of that.

Well, quite literally I can.
Very well. If you're unwilling to face your own argument, simply because you "quite literally can", then we're done here. After all, you "quite literally can" keep spamming me with non-sequiturs and demanding that I wade through them.

Since your new position is "I will contradict myself because I can", I see no further benefit to this conversation. If you'd like to change that, I'm open to resuming at your convenience.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2020, 07:43:19 PM by Pete Svarrior »

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

#### RhesusVX

• 187
• 1/137.03599913
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2020, 08:42:55 AM »
I already did. You ignored half of it, and respond to the other half with a "nuh uh!".
Well no, you simply stated my narrative was weird, then proceeded to talk about zetetic inquiry and how things don't need to be proven if the conclusion fits observation.  I also don't ever recall saying "nuh uh!" either.

Which it doesn't.
Umm, OK...well your Wiki that I read states that light curves more the the further it travels, and that any light that doesn't hit the Earth curves away from it back into space:

You clearly show light rays that are still within the Earth's atmosphere, above the parts of the Earth in darkness.  You also clearly state that such rays would illuminate clouds just before sunrise or after sunset on their way back up into space.  It follows, therefore, that those same rays on the way back up to space beyond the clouds would also be detectable and illuminate something if it were present in its path.  Are you saying that they would not be detectable?  If not, why not?  That level of detail is completely absent from your Wiki, so please, go ahead and elaborate.

You can't just say "All light that doesn't reach the Earth, doesn't reach the Earth" and leave it that, without explaining what the two models show on paper.  FET shows a night sky full of light rays on their way back up into space above the surface of the Earth in darkness.  RET shows a complete absence of direct sunlight in the area of darkness because the rays of light that miss the Earth are beyond it, not above it.  The former is based on Zetetic Inquiry with no tested hypothesis, and the latter has been scientifically tested with direct measurement of the spectra of light.  I'm not forcing one model onto anyone, just simply stating that EA does not seem to account for everything, and seemingly needs to be patched up with other conclusions to make it fit, such as "light rays on the way back up are not detectable", yet somehow they are able to illuminate clouds.

Because you predicated your logic on a flawed assumption. Again.
Again, read the above responses.  Why is my assumption flawed?  All I can do is look at the diagrams and deduce that those curved rays of light on their way back up into space (yet still above the surface of the Earth within its atmosphere) would be as detectable as those that hit the Earth directly.  If this is not the case, the model is not accurate enough.

No. You are expected to have familiarised yourself with the basics prior to posting in the debate forums.
I've read the Wiki and posts and familiarised myself with the basics.  Now I'm challenging the detail you can't seem to form a rational discussion.

And yet here you go, just spewing whatever assumption comes to your mind as "something FET predicts", having done none of your homework in advance. It is precisely this kind of zealotry that's slowly killing your preferred method. You might not want to be part of that.
Yet again, read the above responses.  I've done my homework, I've made my analysis of what EA would mean if it were true, and a lot of that is based on the diagrams and statements in the Wiki here.  You're telling my I'm wrong, yet provide no explanation as to why I'm wrong.

Very well. If you're unwilling to face your own argument, simply because you "quite literally can", then we're done here. After all, you "quite literally can" keep spamming me with non-sequiturs and demanding that I wade through them.  Since your new position is "I will contradict myself because I can", I see no further benefit to this conversation. If you'd like to change that, I'm open to resuming at your convenience.
Are you not the one who broke statements down line by line, forcing this type of argument?  I don't ever recall demanding that you wade through them either, it's your choice to, but this is the second time in this set of responses where you put words into my mouth - another thing I've seen many times reading replies on these forums.  The use of big words doesn't impress either, the conversation is perfectly logical and follows your method of splitting things up into discreet elements for denigration.

I look forward to understanding why sunlight on its way back up into space is not detectable under the EA theory.
Quote from:  Earth, Solar System, Oort Cloud, LIC, Local Bubble, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Local Group, Virgo Supercluster, Laniakea Supercluster, Universe
"Sometimes you need to take a step back to see the bigger picture, and sometimes you need to think outside the box dome"

#### Pete Svarrior

• e
• Planar Moderator
• 13208
• (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
##### Re: Sunsets in EA
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2020, 10:31:53 AM »
Where does it state that "light rays should be detectable in all regions of darkness"? The key word here is "all".

Indeed, you claim to have already seen the diagram which makes your position a geometrical impossibility.

Why is my assumption flawed?
Because you assume that conditions which apply uniquely to just after sunset persist throughout the night. If you have questions about the very basics, ask them - politely, in an appropriate thread. Don't just fill in the gaps in your understanding with your fantasy and demand that we explain why the wild conclusions you've reached don't match observation. And don't hijack threads which have already been resolved to just goofily declare that you don't understand anything that's been said.

I've read the Wiki and posts and familiarised myself with the basics.  Now I'm challenging the detail
Yes, the combination of "not having any idea what you're arguing against" and the "challenger" attitude is quite off-putting. It's unlikely to bring you much success.

I look forward to understanding why sunlight on its way back up into space is not detectable under the EA theory.
It is. You're just looking for it where it shouldn't be, and when this is pointed out to you, you explain that you'll keep looking for it there, because "you quite literally can".
« Last Edit: November 01, 2020, 10:34:29 AM by Pete Svarrior »