[Nirmala]

How can this happen when the sun is always 3000 miles above the earth according to flat earth models?



And how could Mount Rainier cast a shadow upwards?

[juner]

Are these videos you've taken yourself?

[Nirmala]

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

[Nirmala]

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?

[juner]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or will you just keep dodging questions?

[Novarus]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Novarus]

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.

[Novarus]

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.

[juner]

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.

[Nirmala]

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.

[Novarus]

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.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

Are you implying that the sun is literally ever underneath the clouds?

[juner]

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.

[Nirmala]

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.

[Novarus]

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.

[Nirmala]

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.

[TheTruthIsOnHere]

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.

[Nirmala]

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):

[juner]

Step up, junker -  show me what you got.

What?