*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6743
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #40 on: December 12, 2018, 02:12:20 AM »
Quote
Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.

What makes you think that the light is coming from the bottom? The red parts of the clouds in such pictures can see horizontally to their reddish horizon. We have established and agreed that if "9 out of 10 doctors agree" could go up to the altitude of his red clouds, that he would be looking at a red horizon. The light is coming from the horizon.

Here is an image:



If a part of the cloud is lit, then that part of the cloud can see the sun/horizon. If it is in shadow, then it can't see the sun/horizon.

And, once again, should a piece hanging off of the underside of the cloud happen to see an airplane near the horizon, it does not mean that the airplane must be at a lower altitude than the cloud, anymore than seeing an airplane out of your kitchen window should mean that the airplane is lower than your ceiling.

Another:



Bright = Can see the sun
Dark = Cannot see the sun

Simple.

In the above image the sun isn't even below, or touching, the horizon, yet the clouds are still lit "from the bottom".

In truth it is the bottom parts sticking out from the bottom of the cloud that can best see the sun.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 02:31:15 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Curiosity File

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #41 on: December 12, 2018, 02:31:49 AM »
Quote
Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.

What makes you think that the light is coming from the bottom? The red parts of the clouds in such pictures can see horizontally to their reddish horizon. We have established and agreed that if "9 out of 10 doctors agree" could go up to the altitude of his red clouds, that he would be looking at a red horizon. The light is coming from the horizon.

That's right Tom, the light source  is coming from the horizon which is at a lower altitude than the clouds. Since it travels through the lower most parts of the atmosphere it becomes more red than the lighter colors the higher the sun is in the sky.
Thanks for making the RE case.

Also I pointed out in my earlier post that at altitude where I witnessed the color of the bottom of the clouds at the point I was at to not be the same brighter orange and yellow of the setting sun from that altitude. Go back and read my posts.

Non of which addresses the fact that I pointed out the fallacies in both your mirror theory and shrinking train track theory.   

Curiosity File

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #42 on: December 12, 2018, 02:34:52 AM »
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."


Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted. There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical that no one agrees with, let me know.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon. If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal. The clouds can see the horizon. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.
Even though you can see a plane out your kitchen window that appears to be ceiling height you can NOT see it in a mirror on your sealing. If you started angling the mirror, before it would reflect the image of the plan back at you, you would no longer see the reflective side of the mirror. Move the mirror farther away as to represent clouds in the distance the angle would be even less before you loss sight of the reflective side of the mirror. 
Not to mention if the plane were at cruising altitude in order for it to appear, by perspective, to be at the same height as you ceiling it would be too far away t see it.
Your mirror theory is horribly flawed.
Also we're not seeing the suns reflection, we are seeing the bottom of clouds being illuminated by a source of light. Big difference Tom.
If the clouds were reflecting the sun we would not be shadowed by the horizon. In other words after the sun drops below the horizon but still illuminate the bottoms of the clouds, if the clouds were truly reflect the sun they would shine light back on us, they absolutely do NOT. It's just as dark with or without clouds.

Your train track theory is also flawed.
Turn you train track vertically. Bottom track's the ground, top track the clouds respectfully 2 miles apart. Now ad a 3rd rail to represent the sun at 3,000 miles apart.  Now move the them away until the the two bottom rails by perspective almost come together. This represents the clouds an the ground where you can still see the sun between the two illuminating the clouds even before it drops blow the horizon. Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.     
 
   

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6743
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #43 on: December 12, 2018, 02:35:43 AM »
Quote
Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.

What makes you think that the light is coming from the bottom? The red parts of the clouds in such pictures can see horizontally to their reddish horizon. We have established and agreed that if "9 out of 10 doctors agree" could go up to the altitude of his red clouds, that he would be looking at a red horizon. The light is coming from the horizon.

That's right Tom, the light source  is coming from the horizon which is at a lower altitude than the clouds. Since it travels through the lower most parts of the atmosphere it becomes more red than the lighter colors the higher the sun is in the sky.
Thanks for making the RE case.

The bottom parts sticking out from the underside of the cloud can best see the sun; so it is of no surprise that they should be most lit up.

How can it be shown that the light is "coming from the bottom"?

Some of your comments such as "Not to mention if the plane were at cruising altitude in order for it to appear, by perspective, to be at the same height as you ceiling it would be too far away to see it" seem  misplaced. No one has ever seen a plane out of their window? If you see a plane out your window, then it is seemingly below the ceiling you are standing under. Look at the plane, then look up.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 03:24:13 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

Curiosity File

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #44 on: December 12, 2018, 03:34:01 AM »
Quote
Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.

What makes you think that the light is coming from the bottom? The red parts of the clouds in such pictures can see horizontally to their reddish horizon. We have established and agreed that if "9 out of 10 doctors agree" could go up to the altitude of his red clouds, that he would be looking at a red horizon. The light is coming from the horizon.

That's right Tom, the light source  is coming from the horizon which is at a lower altitude than the clouds. Since it travels through the lower most parts of the atmosphere it becomes more red than the lighter colors the higher the sun is in the sky.
Thanks for making the RE case.

The bottom parts sticking out from the underside of the cloud can best see the sun; so it is of no surprise that they should be most lit up.

Where has it been shown that the light is "coming from the bottom"?

Per the rest of your comment, I do not see where you have demonstrated anything. Your comments such as "Not to mention if the plane were at cruising altitude in order for it to appear, by perspective, to be at the same height as you ceiling it would be too far away t see it. " are obviously not true. No one has ever seen a plane out of their window?

I think you need to think about all of this a bit more.

You seem confused Tom.
Go back and read my posts thoroughly and then if you still have question about what I said, post the quote in its entirety instead of asking question that have obvious answers like, "No one has ever seen a plane out of their window?"
You know exactly what was said. You know exactly what I explained, and so does everyone else. 
 


   

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #45 on: December 12, 2018, 03:55:02 AM »

That's right Tom, the light source  is coming from the horizon which is at a lower altitude than the clouds. Since it travels through the lower most parts of the atmosphere it becomes more red than the lighter colors the higher the sun is in the sky.
Thanks for making the RE case.

No, the redness of the sunset is perfectly in line with the perspective theory of sunsets.  At sunset the light from the sun that is visible at an arbitrary point has to pass a greater distance than it does during the day to reach that point as the angle of the sun rays to the observer's eyes reaches its minimum and red has the longest wavelength of colors in the spectrum thus the visible light at sunset/sunrise is red/dark orange. 
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 04:06:58 AM by George Jetson »

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #46 on: December 12, 2018, 04:04:07 AM »
Turn you train track vertically. Bottom track's the ground, top track the clouds respectfully 2 miles apart. Now ad a 3rd rail to represent the sun at 3,000 miles apart.  Now move the them away until the the two bottom rails by perspective almost come together. This represents the clouds an the ground where you can still see the sun between the two illuminating the clouds even before it drops blow the horizon. Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.     
 
This (above) is a poor and convoluted analogy but I'll play: What would the observer from a given point of the lower train track see of the upper train track?  That depends upon the distance of the given point of the upper train track that he is observing and the height of the upper tracks above the lower tracks.  At a given distance (if both tracks were long enough), an arbitrary portion of the upper track (representing the sun) would appear so low that only observers situated at the bottom end of the lower train tracks would see that portion of the upper tracks (which is analogous to the sun illuminating the lower portion of clouds.)

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #47 on: December 12, 2018, 04:41:52 AM »
Quote
...perhaps slightly tilted ever so slightly so that it sees the horizon where the tracks meet...

No cheating. Mirror must be parallel. No tilting "so that it sees the horizon."

Do it. You're an empiricist. Not a "stands to reason" rationalist. Make sure your "stands to reason" approach isn't incorporating a flaw, like trying to tilt the mirror so that it "sees the horizon."

Since these are facts that we all agree with, then I don't believe that this is an experiment that needs to be conducted.

What? We don't agree.  Fundamentally, we don't. Perspective doesn't make a light source higher than an object illuminate the bottom of a lower object. Perspective doesn't alter the physical geometry. Perspective is perceptual. You are trying to rationalize a way for perceptual fact to account for a physical impossibility. We can just keep gainsaying each other, or you can demonstrate how you are right. I'd love to see it. 

But no tilting of the mirror. That's not demonstrating how perspective is accomplishing the impossible.

There is no controversy with these assertions. We are putting empirical facts together, not hypothetical facts together. If you do see me claim something hypothetical, let me know.

See above.

If you don't tilt the mirror then you won't see the horizon.

Uh, yeah. You don't see it IN THE MIRROR. That's the point. Perspective does not make the higher sun reflect its light on the bottom of lower clouds. The sun has to be actually lower than the clouds.


If the mirror is perfectly horizontal then you will always only see the ground when you look up at it.

That's the problem, isn't it? That's the flaw in explaining the phenomenon as a consequence of perspective. It doesn't work.

Recall that the analogy this comes from was the light reflecting off of the clouds; which can reflect light like mirrors, but are not mirrors positioned perfectly horizontal.

Whoa there, partner. You were the one who interjected the mirror analogy. Now, you see the problem with that and so you want to try to cheat to position the "mirror" in a way that salvages the analogy but violates the explanatory power of "perspective?"  I've already given you leniency on allowing that perspective is the reason the sun can reach the horizon at all. Perspective can't do that either but I gave you that one. Now, you want to help perspective even more my tilting the mirror?

The clouds can see the horizon, and can receive its reddish light. Higher clouds will be higher in altitude and will be seeing the sun higher above the horizon where the light isn't as reddish. I don't see where the "needing to be perfectly horizontal" piece comes in.

And I don't understand why you don't understand. What part of the clouds are "seeing" the sun light? The bottom of the clouds, right? Now, you're adding the required element that the bottom of the clouds be inclined toward the sun and THAT'S why they're illuminated that way?

So the picture I posted?

That's happening not because of any perspective rationalization because that cloud ceiling is higher over Ocotillo to the east and then slopes lower as they extend toward the west? If they were horizontal, they wouldn't reflect the sun light, correct? At least not on a flat earth. Is it the tilting and not perspective that explains that phenomenon?

The same reasoning applies if you have a mirror over your head. If it is facing horizontal it will only show the ground. If it is slightly tilted then it will be possible to see a plane in the distance that is much higher in altitude than the mirror. Should that observation be a shock or a mystery? It is none more shocking than seeing a plane apparently below your kitchen ceiling when looking out your kitchen window.

No. That observation wouldn't be a shock. But that's a different explanation from the perspective one you tried to foster here. Requiring that the cloud bottoms be tilted to satisfy the mirror analogy renders perspective void.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 04:44:20 AM by Bobby Shafto »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6743
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #48 on: December 12, 2018, 04:53:12 AM »
Clouds reflect light like mirrors, but they are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.

My original question is that if the clouds were mirrors, would you see the sun at the horizon? More in the sense of, if the clouds were shiny and reflective, like silver popcorn, would you see the bright reflection of the sun? Yes, you would. You would see the sun reflecting off of the clouds.

This is the point. The point is that the clouds are seeing the sun.

If you were to put your head somewhere where the red area is you would see the sun or the red horizon from that vantage point, or the glow through the clouds. If you were to put your head in a dark area, your view of the sun would be blocked by clouds.

That one part of the clouds is illuminated and another is not, does not tell us that the clouds are being lit from the bottom. It tells us that some parts of the clouds can see the sun and not others.

That those areas of the clouds happen to be the lowest parts of the cloud is expected.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 05:12:07 AM by Tom Bishop »
"The biggest problem in astronomy is that when we look at something in the sky, we don’t know how far away it is" — Pauline Barmby, Ph.D., Professor of Astronomy

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #49 on: December 12, 2018, 05:04:29 AM »
Clouds are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.

My original question is that if the clouds we're mirrors, would you see the sun at the horizon? More in the sense of, if the clouds were shiny and reflective, like silver popcorn, would you see the bright reflection of the sun? Yes, you would. You would see the sun reflecting off of the clouds.

This is the point. The point is that the clouds are seeing the sun.

If you were to put your head somewhere where the red area is you would see the sun or the red horizon from that vantage point, or the glow through the clouds. If you were to put your head in a dark area, your view of the sun would be blocked by clouds.

That one part of the clouds is illuminated and another is not, does not tell us that the clouds are being lit from the bottom. It tells us that some parts of the clouds can see the sun and not others.

That those areas of the clouds happen to be the lowest parts of the cloud is expected.

Clouds that are lit that way on a flat earth then must be tilted toward the sun. That's what you're saying. If they're horizontal, that underlit phenomenon can't happen on a flat earth. Correct?

The answer has to be yes, but I want to see you affirm it.

Curiosity File

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #50 on: December 12, 2018, 05:36:59 AM »
Turn you train track vertically. Bottom track's the ground, top track the clouds respectfully 2 miles apart. Now ad a 3rd rail to represent the sun at 3,000 miles apart.  Now move the them away until the the two bottom rails by perspective almost come together. This represents the clouds an the ground where you can still see the sun between the two illuminating the clouds even before it drops blow the horizon. Now think about it, at some point the sun drops below both rails A & B (clouds and ground) yet still illuminates the bottom of the clouds. This is a physical impossibility and even perceptional impossibility.     
 
This (above) is a poor and convoluted analogy but I'll play: What would the observer from a given point of the lower train track see of the upper train track?  That depends upon the distance of the given point of the upper train track that he is observing and the height of the upper tracks above the lower tracks.  At a given distance (if both tracks were long enough), an arbitrary portion of the upper track (representing the sun) would appear so low that only observers situated at the bottom end of the lower train tracks would see that portion of the upper tracks (which is analogous to the sun illuminating the lower portion of clouds.)

It was a poor convoluted analogy to start with.
Perception doesn't work that way.
 
 

 
 

 

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #51 on: December 12, 2018, 06:22:44 AM »
Clouds reflect light like mirrors, but they are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.

My original question is that if the clouds were mirrors, would you see the sun at the horizon? More in the sense of, if the clouds were shiny and reflective, like silver popcorn, would you see the bright reflection of the sun? Yes, you would. You would see the sun reflecting off of the clouds.

This is the point. The point is that the clouds are seeing the sun.

If you were to put your head somewhere where the red area is you would see the sun or the red horizon from that vantage point, or the glow through the clouds. If you were to put your head in a dark area, your view of the sun would be blocked by clouds.

That one part of the clouds is illuminated and another is not, does not tell us that the clouds are being lit from the bottom. It tells us that some parts of the clouds can see the sun and not others.

That those areas of the clouds happen to be the lowest parts of the cloud is expected.

Like I said before, it's not a perspective/distance issue. We're talking about straight rays of light coming from a source that is above, by quite a considerable distance, casting it's rays upward to the underside of a lower object. This applies to the underlit clouds and to the example of a lesser peak casting it's shadow upward beyond the summit of Everest.

No matter how far I move the sun away from the object at a constant height over a flat plane, the rays never break horizontal and cast at an upward angle. The only way for this to occur is that the sun is literally, physically lowering down to or rising up from the plane. Perspective does not address this issue. 

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

*

Offline Bobby Shafto

  • *
  • Posts: 1390
  • https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdv72TaxoaafQr8WD
    • View Profile
    • Bobby Shafto YouTube Channel
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #52 on: December 12, 2018, 07:04:45 AM »
Waiting for Tom to affirm, but it sounds like he's not arguing perspective (anymore) but rather that there is a tilt component to the bottom of the clouds responsible for that phenomenon. Because Perspective can't accomplish a physical change to the geometry. As Tom noted, the "mirror" must be tilted.

I wonder how much "tilt" is needed? Depends on the height of the sun, distance to the sun and height of the clouds. Whether the sun is 700 miles high or 3000 miles high makes a pretty big difference. But let's go with 700 since the lower the sun actually is, the better for Tom's explanation; and some FET models do argue for a 700 mile high sun.

If those clouds in my picture were miles high (as local meteorologist claimed) and the distance over the earth (flat or convex) was 6200 miles, then we can work out mathematically how tilted the clouds would have to be for the underside to be exposed to the sun and reflect its light. 

But rather than do the math, let's do it with a practical demo.

Scaled 1 mile = 1 inch...

Sun height over earth = 58 feet
Sun distance = 517 feet
Cloud height = 3 inches




I'll have my son shine a laser mounted on a tripod from the spot on the hill where the red arrow is pointing, and I'll position a mirror (or just a white foam board) 3" parallel to the ground at the white arrow. Then I'll start tilting the forward edge of the target "cloud" up until the laser is able to shine on the ground-facing side. The resulting angle will be the amount of tilt toward the rising or setting sun that such clouds over a flat earth would need in order to exhibit that under-lighting. Any less than that and the underside would not be lit up.

Any objections?


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1363
    • View Profile
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #53 on: December 12, 2018, 07:32:28 AM »
That seems like an interesting experiment and the parameters seem right. And generous with the 700 mile sun height - Though I suppose you could quadruple+ the tilt calculation to get 3000 miles version?

Ironically, this guy is arguing that non-tilting flat bottom clouds prove a flat earth:

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #54 on: December 12, 2018, 11:43:20 AM »
If you agree that the railroad tracks appears to merge a finite distance away, then it must also be possible for the sun to merge a finite distance away.
You know, I pretty much agree with this.
But the silliness is you claiming that you can still see the sun as a disc the same size as it is when it's directly overhead but it's so far away that you can't perceive the THREE THOUSAND MILE gap between the sun and earth.

If your railroad tracks were 3,000 miles apart and 32 miles (roughly the diameter of your sun, yes?) then at the distance where that 3,000 miles becomes imperceptible you really think you could still see the tracks? Now OK, the sun is bright so maybe you could still see it but if the 3,000 miles gap is hard to perceive then the sun would surely just be a speck, not a large disc slowly sinking below the horizon - sinking in exactly the way we perceive things going behind other things. When things disappear "by perspective" in the real world they just get smaller and smaller until you can no longer see them. In your rail tracks example yes, as the tracks go into the distance the gap between them gets smaller but so do the tracks. You want some model of perspective where the gap between the sun and earth, the 3,000 mile gap, get smaller and smaller until you can't see it...but the sun remains the same size throughout. I know you have some magnification of bright lights idea but all your examples show a lot of glare which masks the true size of the lights, we see by filtered pictures of the sun that it remains a constant size. And that means it remains a constant distance.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 12:01:36 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #55 on: December 12, 2018, 11:47:31 AM »
Clouds reflect light like mirrors, but they are not mirrors that are positioned perfectly horizontal.
Interesting, because your Wiki says...

Quote
The evidence for a flat earth is derived from many different facets of science and philosophy. The simplest is by relying on ones own senses to discern the true nature of the world around us. The world looks flat, the bottoms of clouds are flat

https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #56 on: December 12, 2018, 03:21:43 PM »
I'm just gonna bring this image back again from the last time we discussed this, as it seems pertinent once again.

(As an aside, if there's some BBC or something I can do to make it resizable in line, showing it so I can put it together for the image would be appreciated as I understand it's rather large)


I see a couple of things here. 1) The clouds in this image are clearly not getting ANY light hitting them from above. 2) The sun has moved to be (at least visually) below the 'horizon' of the clouds, but still casting light up into them from below. We once again have the Everest occurrence.



We have 3 parallel lines here. Now, I haven't added 'perspective effects' to them, I was hoping Tom might oblige doing that for me as this is something that still doesn't make any sense to me. Our black arrow is our plane and it's black plane above the orange clouds. The blue line is the ocean below the clouds. In the upper right we have the actual position of the sun. The lower right is our reddish/orange sun shining light up into the clouds, seemingly from below their plane. How? What happens to allow the sun to appear, not just below our personal sight plane/horizon, but that of something below *us* as well? If nothing else this sure seems to debunk the idea that the 'horizon rises to eye level' imo, but I don't understand how this can possibly occur on a FE.

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 872
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #57 on: December 12, 2018, 04:16:51 PM »
From time to time I would see an interesting thing while at sea in the middle of the ocean.  The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.  For sure you would assume that the ship was heading into some fog and we would have to be ready to operate in reduced visibility in a couple of hours.  Then as we progressed closer to the clouds, slowly the bottoms of the clouds would start to appear to rise above the level of the sea.  After a while we would actually pass under the clouds with about a 500 foot to 1000 foot ceiling.  This phenomenon wasn't all that unusual and would usually appear as we approached a weather front while at sea.  It illustrated the sunken ship effect only using clouds above the sea.  Perspective isn't an issue here because you would start by seeing the actual tops of the clouds at a far distance then slowly the side and then the bottoms would appear.  Finally the bottoms would appear to rise from the sea and then eventually the ship would pass under the clouds.  Only with a global earth would you expect to see something like this.   
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.

Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #58 on: December 12, 2018, 05:54:57 PM »
From time to time I would see an interesting thing while at sea in the middle of the ocean.  The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.  For sure you would assume that the ship was heading into some fog and we would have to be ready to operate in reduced visibility in a couple of hours.  Then as we progressed closer to the clouds, slowly the bottoms of the clouds would start to appear to rise above the level of the sea.  After a while we would actually pass under the clouds with about a 500 foot to 1000 foot ceiling.  This phenomenon wasn't all that unusual and would usually appear as we approached a weather front while at sea.  It illustrated the sunken ship effect only using clouds above the sea.  Perspective isn't an issue here because you would start by seeing the actual tops of the clouds at a far distance then slowly the side and then the bottoms would appear.  Finally the bottoms would appear to rise from the sea and then eventually the ship would pass under the clouds.  Only with a global earth would you expect to see something like this.
Maybe I'm not grasping fully what you're trying to say but it doesn't sound like anything that couldn't be explained by perspective.  Do you have any video or photographic evidence of what it is you claimed to see?  On a flat earth clouds the bottoms of the clouds would appear to rise as you got closer to them due to perspective just the same as on a globe earth.

Does this picture illustrate what you saw when you said "The ship would be under a perfectly clear sky and heading towards a bank of clouds ahead.  Those clouds appeared to extend all the way to the surface of the ocean and you could see the tops of the clouds above that.?"

« Last Edit: December 12, 2018, 06:08:40 PM by George Jetson »

*

Offline RonJ

  • *
  • Posts: 872
  • ACTA NON VERBA
    • View Profile
Re: Illumination of clouds' undersides at sunrise
« Reply #59 on: December 12, 2018, 06:24:42 PM »
Any photos or videos that I might have would just be claimed to be be altered so there's no point to showing them.  No one on here as ever written down acceptable photo or video authentication standards that everyone could accept.  It would just take one person to say 'fake' and then everyone would believe it.   

I tried to explain that perspective wasn't a factor in my observations.  We had a very good telescope on the bridge of the ship and we could only see the TOPS of the clouds at first.  As the ship progressed we could start to see more & more of the clouds until a small gap started to appear between the sea and the bottoms of the clouds.  What I was seeing couldn't be explained with the flat earth paradigm, but only with a globe earth one.   

What I saw was just a kind of a reversal of the 'sunken ship' effect that is so often 'debunked' on this site and I didn't really expect too many to believe me anyway. 
For FE no explanation is possible, for RE no explanation is necessary.