#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2730
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #160 on: January 03, 2018, 11:39:20 PM »
As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
Dude. Seriously. That level of logic is about the same as me saying "When I close my eyes I can't see anything, therefore nothing can see me and I have thus become invisible".
You are basically claiming that if an object has a shadow cast by a light source then changing your perspective changes the angle of the shadow. That really isn't how shadows work.
The light source is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The object is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The shadow is cast because the photons from the PHYSICAL light source hit the PHYSICAL object at a certain angle. That angle depends on the physical relationship between the objects, not your perspective.
I did an experiment, so you don't have to. I suspended a Rubik's Cube from the ceiling and used a lamp as the light source. Here's the first photo.

The light source is physically above the cube so the top face of it is illuminated, as you would expect.
I then moved so that my perspective changed, here the light source now appears, from my new perspective to be UNDER the Rubik's Cube.
But guess what? The underside of the cube is not lit up.

Why? Because the physical objects have stayed where they are. The only way a shadow can be cast upwards if light travels in straight lines is for the light source (in this debate the sun) is PHYSICALLY below the other object (the mountain or clouds).

Quote
You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.
That seems extremely unlikely.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2018, 11:44:01 PM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### xenotolerance

• 307
• byeeeeeee
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #161 on: January 03, 2018, 11:45:25 PM »
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2730
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #162 on: January 04, 2018, 09:46:11 AM »
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:

Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### DSC

• 25
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #163 on: January 04, 2018, 10:35:03 AM »
With a 3000 mile high sun, no. No they don't. The color is completely irrelevant anyway. The light is hitting the clouds from underneath. You can clearly see that upon clouds in various positions to the left and right of the image where the underside is lit up, but the top is still dark. This is visible up towards the top of the image as well. How does this happen on a FE? You have to have bendy light on a FE, or this can't happen.

The sun is in a higher position in the sky when you are at a higher altitude vs when you are at a lower altitude. It is for this reason that you can rise the sun up from the horizon just after sunset by rapidly increasing your altitude.

An object at a higher altitude will be lit at a different angle than a lower altitude. Therefore, if the rays are hitting lower clouds differently than higher clouds they will be lit differently.

are you saying that the sun changes it's altitude according to where the observer is physically located? Hogwash. You really should give up mate. There is a mountain of evidence to prove our earth is round, and broken non relatable theories that are engaged or ignored depending on what evidence you are attempting to disprove.

#### ScienceFirst

##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #164 on: January 06, 2018, 07:45:42 AM »
Then demonstrate how it is possible for them to be lit from the side, when the sun is at 3000 miles and the clouds at most 10 miles.

It would be for the same reason why a receding airplane can descend into the horizon, despite being 5,000 feet in the air at all times.

Tom,

In order for the clouds to be lit from underneath, the sun has to be a lower altitude than the clouds.

The highest cloud altitudes are around 45,000 feet, less than 10 miles.

Please demonstrate how it is at all possible that a light source that is 3000 miles above a flat earth can light clouds that are 10 miles above it from underneath.

Where has it been shown that the clouds are being lit from underneath? I say that they are being lit from the side at those low altitudes and that is what causes the color change.
Are you just blind? The color change isn't even in discussion here. It's the fact the light of the sun is only showing up on the undersides of the clouds. The tops are completely unlit, and if it was just the sides of the clouds being lit, the vast majority of them in the picture I posted would have no sun shining upon them? Look at the picture Tom. Look at how the clouds are being lit on their bottoms. Not their tops, not their sides. Their bottoms. This cannot happen on a FE, because the sun is never below them. This is disregarding the hogwash about 'the clouds have a different angle on the sun' that is completely irrelevant when we're talking a 3000 mile high sun as compared to moving less than 5 miles into the sky. But sure, tell us how 'perspective' works in that regard, hmm? Because your perspective appears to simply be filler so you can say lines of sight exactly mimic what we would see on a RE. So convenient.

I don't know what you are talking about. It appears as if the higher grey clouds are being lit from above somewhere. If all of the light were coming from the bottom the top of those clouds should be dark. However, they are not dark.

This is a proof against your idea that all of the light is shining upwards from the bottom.

It cannot be argued that the top grey clouds are illuminated by the sky, either, since we see that there are areas of darkness and shadow in those top grey clouds; they are not universally lit by sky reflection.

Clouds are not solid. The tops do not have to be dark.
Clouds are droplets of water! Unless FE theories have some other unreasonable explanation for what clouds are too, the pictures are very clearly showing that clouds are lit from the bottom, with some passing through the top because they are thinner clouds.

#### ScienceFirst

##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #165 on: January 06, 2018, 07:50:30 AM »
I'm guessing there will not be any more FE replies to this post! They usually stop replying once their arguments run dry or have been counter-argued by multiple people! Which is annoying because I'm really curious as to what the response to the above posts will be (and do not tell me to read ENaG- it will not have the responses to these questions! This is a discussion, not a lecture.)

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2730
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #166 on: January 06, 2018, 09:29:48 AM »
I'm guessing there will not be any more FE replies to this post! They usually stop replying once their arguments run dry or have been counter-argued by multiple people! Which is annoying because I'm really curious as to what the response to the above posts will be (and do not tell me to read ENaG- it will not have the responses to these questions! This is a discussion, not a lecture.)
Yep, they always run away once they're definitively shown to be wrong. If Tom can provide some photos or models to demonstrate his ideas on perspective or show where I'm going wrong above then I'd like to see them. But he can't. So he ignores it. I called him out on that in another thread and he said "The ratio of RE to FE on here are 100 to 1, I can't reply to everyone". On a busier forum that would be a reasonable response but there really aren't many threads on here, if he was really interested in debate and had a coherent flat earth model which could really answer these questions then he would do so. But he doesn't. So he can't. But neither does he admit he is wrong.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### JohnAdams1145

##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #167 on: January 08, 2018, 07:45:16 AM »
I should point out that four angular measurements (I think; my geometry is rusty; always make more measurements if you're unsure) from points with known distances apart simultaneously conducted should instantly disprove the notion that the Sun is 32 miles in diameter/radius and/or that it is 3000 miles away. Of course, the math is rather complicated, and FE people love to muddy the waters by saying the optics is flawed (hint: invoke atmospheric distortion) when it supports the RE argument.

I wrote something about why the Sun cannot be 32 miles wide because of its energy budget at https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=8380.0

EDIT: I suggest we pressure the FE people to give an explanation for this thread by referring to it later on. They've been backed into an inescapable corner, and it would be a disgrace to let them off this one, as in the "the distance from New York to Paris is unknown" thread.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2018, 07:51:16 AM by JohnAdams1145 »

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2730
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #168 on: January 08, 2018, 09:42:49 AM »
Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### Curious Squirrel

• 1338
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #169 on: January 08, 2018, 01:57:26 PM »
Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.
You want 3 points. At 3 points you will show that both there is no 'standard' height of the sun, as well as you can thus show that there can't be a 'standard' size of the sun without introducing a fudge factor. 2 points (as Eratosthenes uses) isn't 100% definitive. But once you add that third point, the sun's necessary height will vary, potentially on the order of a thousand miles or so, depending on where your points are.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2730
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #170 on: January 08, 2018, 03:24:57 PM »
Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.
You want 3 points. At 3 points you will show that both there is no 'standard' height of the sun, as well as you can thus show that there can't be a 'standard' size of the sun without introducing a fudge factor. 2 points (as Eratosthenes uses) isn't 100% definitive. But once you add that third point, the sun's necessary height will vary, potentially on the order of a thousand miles or so, depending on where your points are.
Fair enough. I guess there's a clue in the word triangulate.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### JohnAdams1145

##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #171 on: January 10, 2018, 05:35:52 AM »
I believe that we have conclusively shown that the Earth is round. However, there has been a notable lack of FE response (esp by Tom Bishop) to this thread. On the other hand, he is busy debating Round Earth people on whether 2 + 2 is always equal to 4 (if you take the symbol 2 to represent what everyone knows it means and 4 in a similar way, then yes, 2+2 is always equal to 4).

This leads me to believe that his excuse that he doesn't have time to debate people is false. He's just simply cherry-picking things he can muddy the waters with to give the appearance of an unfinished debate. If FE theory accounted for all of the stuff we've posted here, he wouldn't have to spend time thinking about garbage ways to patch up the theory.

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2730
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #172 on: January 10, 2018, 10:13:14 AM »
Well, quite. This is why I question how serious Tom and the society are about developing a flat earth theory which actually works because the current one patently doesn't and when that is repeatedly demonstrated to them they leave the debate.
What are these forums for if not to debate this stuff and change the model as needed when flaws in it are demonstrated?

Their two options are either to concede that the earth is a globe or change their current flat earth model so it actually works.
The test of a good model is whether it explains observations and whether it can predict future events. Their current model can do neither.

As I said, my photos above do NOT prove a spherical earth, they simply prove that if light travels in straight lines (as Tom agrees it does) then for clouds to be lit from below then the sun must be PHYSICALLY below the level of the clouds. Tom talks about a row of street lamps and how as they recede to the distance they may appear to be below eye level:

Quote
If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible to raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand. The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

This is the logic of a child who thinks that the cows in the distant field are tiny and the ones close up are much bigger. That is not how the real world works. I could indeed look at a row of lamp-posts like this

And raise my hand so that from my perspective it appears as though my hand is above the level of the furthest lamp.
In real life of course this is how me and the lampposts are oriented. This is an artist's impression (unfortunately I was the artist) what someone looking at me and the lamp-posts from the side would see

I have drawn a line from the furthest lamp source to me. Which direction is it? Is the suggestion that the observer sees the shadow angling down and I would see the shadow angling up because of our different perspectives? That is absolutely not how shadows work, a shadow is cast because the photons from the physical light source hit the physical object at a certain angle. That angle depends on our physical positions in relation to one another.

To think of it another way, if Tom was sitting at the level of the light bulb of the furthest lamp and he wanted to shoot me for proving him wrong, which direction would he have to aim in, up or down? And would the answer change if I lift my hands in surrender so that from my perspective my hands were above his level?

So. In order for clouds to be lit from below and the sun to cast shadows angled upwards either:
1) The sun is PHYSICALLY below the level of the clouds
2) The light is bending somehow so it appears to be.

Pick one. But those really are the only two possibilities. There is no way a sun 3,000 miles high and 6,000 miles away can cast shadows like this otherwise.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### Rounder

• 779
• What in the Sam Hill are you people talking about?
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #173 on: January 10, 2018, 01:28:47 PM »
Don't you only need 2 measurements? If they're from a known distance apart then you've got your base of the triangle and the angles, trig should do the rest.
Obviously more measurements would corroborate and be helpful.

There is a growing list of debates I notice they've just stopped contributing to when they've been clearly shown to be wrong. They don't seem very serious about developing a flat earth model which actually works and can explain observations.
You want 3 points. At 3 points you will show that both there is no 'standard' height of the sun, as well as you can thus show that there can't be a 'standard' size of the sun without introducing a fudge factor. 2 points (as Eratosthenes uses) isn't 100% definitive. But once you add that third point, the sun's necessary height will vary, potentially on the order of a thousand miles or so, depending on where your points are.

Not only the height, but the location north to south as well.  Here, I've plotted the sunward vectors for three cities using values contributed by the artist formerly known as Intikam:

• If you consider only observations from Buenos Aires and Estonia, you get a figure of about 3000 miles, but pair either city with Baghdad and you get different heights, even though all three cities are looking at the same sun
• Even worse, each city pair yields a different latitude for the sub-solar point, even though all three cities are still looking at ONE sun
• Worse still, the apparent location of the sun as estimated from Estonia and Baghdad is actually SOUTH of Buenos Aires
All of this put together is pretty convincing.
Proud member of İntikam's "Ignore List"
Ok. You proven you are unworthy to unignored. You proven it was a bad idea to unignore you. and it was for me a disgusting experience...Now you are going to place where you deserved and accustomed.
Quote from: SexWarrior
You accuse {FE} people of malice where incompetence suffice

#### Ratboy

• 171
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #174 on: January 10, 2018, 07:46:29 PM »
If you include my observation of the noonday sun on Jan 22 being slightly below me when I was on a hill in the Arctic, this puts the sun 20 miles underground at Buenos Aires.

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6665
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #175 on: January 27, 2018, 01:26:23 PM »
As we have discussed in this thread, the sunset creates a band of darkness which originates from the horizon. If the sun is at the horizon at sea level in that picture, it is looking up at the mountain in the foreground, and therefore a shadow is created.

As per the argument of how the sun can be lower than the mountain in order to look up at it, this was discussed earlier in this thread. If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible and raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand.

The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.
Dude. Seriously. That level of logic is about the same as me saying "When I close my eyes I can't see anything, therefore nothing can see me and I have thus become invisible".
You are basically claiming that if an object has a shadow cast by a light source then changing your perspective changes the angle of the shadow. That really isn't how shadows work.
The light source is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The object is PHYSICALLY somewhere. The shadow is cast because the photons from the PHYSICAL light source hit the PHYSICAL object at a certain angle. That angle depends on the physical relationship between the objects, not your perspective.
I did an experiment, so you don't have to. I suspended a Rubik's Cube from the ceiling and used a lamp as the light source. Here's the first photo.

The light source is physically above the cube so the top face of it is illuminated, as you would expect.
I then moved so that my perspective changed, here the light source now appears, from my new perspective to be UNDER the Rubik's Cube.
But guess what? The underside of the cube is not lit up.

Why? Because the physical objects have stayed where they are. The only way a shadow can be cast upwards if light travels in straight lines is for the light source (in this debate the sun) is PHYSICALLY below the other object (the mountain or clouds).

Quote
You can learn more about how perspective works by reading Earth Not a Globe.
That seems extremely unlikely.

The error in your experiment is that you just put your camera below the cube. The cube is not seeing the light source parallel to it, as would be possible if it were distant enough. The cube and the light source would become eye level to each other with long distance perspective. If the light were at the horizon the cube would see it at 90 degrees, and would be lit from its side rather than from the top, just as your face is lit from the side and not from the top during sunset.
"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

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6665
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #176 on: January 27, 2018, 02:08:17 PM »
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:

Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".

Didn't we discuss this already? The mountain is seeing the sun at its horizon. The horizon is at 90 degrees. The sun is illuminating the mountain from the side.

A spotlight or bright flashlight illuminating your body from a 90 degree angle level with you would create a large outwardly growing shadow, correct? That is what is happening here.
"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

#### AllAroundTheWorld

• 2730
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #177 on: January 27, 2018, 07:57:41 PM »
The error in your experiment is that you just put your camera below the cube. The cube is not seeing the light source parallel to it, as would be possible if it were distant enough. The cube and the light source would become eye level to each other with long distance perspective. If the light were at the horizon the cube would see it at 90 degrees, and would be lit from its side rather than from the top, just as your face is lit from the side and not from the top during sunset.
OK. Thank you for your response. Your mistake is that cubes and mountains can't see. I know you're using the term metaphorically but perspective is NOT a factor in how shadows are cast.

You said:

Quote
If we have a series of lamp posts stretching into the horizon, it is possible to raise your hand to be above a small lamp post on the horizon in the distance. The distant lamp post is now looking up at your hand. The distant lamp post has the opposite perspective. It sees you at the horizon and it sees your hand slightly above the horizon, and therefore its photons are angled upwards at it.

That just isn't how things work in real life. This is what an observer would see:

So while yes, I could raise my hand and it would look from my perspective as though my hand was above the far lamp post, the lamp post light is still physically above the level of my hand. You can extend that row of lamp-posts as far as you like, all that would change is the angle which would become shallower but the shadow would always be angled downwards. The only way a shadow can be cast upwards is if the light source is physically below the level of the object which the shadow is cast of.

So, coming back to the sun and the mountain, I drew this very rough diagram. To even show them on the same scale I have imagined a mountain 1000 miles high.
The sun is 3000 miles high in your model, right?
I've shown the angle of the shadow if the sun is 4000 or 9000 miles away horizontally. From what I understand it can never actually be much further than that in daylight.
You can see that all that changes is the angle of the shadow:

What can never happen in your model are shadows being cast upwards. What is also not possible are the long shadows you get at sunrise or sunset:

The physical angle between the sun and the people would never be shallow enough to cause that.
So, the earth might well be flat BUT the sun cannot be 3000 miles above it at sunrise at sunset, the angle of the shadows proves that.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

#### Macarios

##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #178 on: January 27, 2018, 08:03:40 PM »
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:

Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".

Didn't we discuss this already? The mountain is seeing the sun at its horizon. The horizon is at 90 degrees. The sun is illuminating the mountain from the side.

A spotlight or bright flashlight illuminating your body from a 90 degree angle level with you would create a large outwardly growing shadow, correct? That is what is happening here.

Yes, this was discussed before.
And someone is every time trying to "explain" that "mountain gets sunlight at 90 degrees from Sun that is 3000 miles higher (while only 6000 miles farther)".
You are smarter than 90% of the people here.
Calculate the angle yourself.

And someone is always trying to skip to tell on what is shadow of the mountain cast.
(If it is on "thin air", then why we see only shadow of the top of the mountain?)
If "shadow of the mountain goes downwards", then where is the shadow of the clouds?

Blurring the explanation and "pushing it under the carpet" every time, will just "spill it back for every carpet cleaning".

#### Tom Bishop

• Zetetic Council Member
• 6665
• Flat Earth Believer
##### Re: Disproof: Clouds lit from below at sunset.
« Reply #179 on: January 27, 2018, 10:03:15 PM »
I have to say, for who knows how many times I have already, that Rowbotham is just not right about perspective. Earth Not A Globe is bunk. Reading it like it's a textbook is asking to get misled.
I am looking forward to the flat earth response to my post above although I suspect I won't get one.
And it should be noted that I haven't proved above that the earth is a globe, I have simply proved that for photos like this to occur:

Then:
EITHER, the sun has to be PHYSICALLY below the mountain
OR the light has to bend in some way so it appears to be.

One possible explanation for this of course is that light does travel in straight lines and the earth is a rotating globe.
But it doesn't rule out a flat earth. It just means that if light travels in straight lines then the sun cannot simply be circling above a flat earth. If it did then shadows could not be cast like this.

If they are going to cling to a flat earth model then they are going to have to rethink their circling sun or come up with some way for light to bend to explain photos like this.
I look forward to my Nobel (Ig Nobel?) Prize for contributions to Flat Earth...what I will charitably call "Physics".

Didn't we discuss this already? The mountain is seeing the sun at its horizon. The horizon is at 90 degrees. The sun is illuminating the mountain from the side.

A spotlight or bright flashlight illuminating your body from a 90 degree angle level with you would create a large outwardly growing shadow, correct? That is what is happening here.

Yes, this was discussed before.
And someone is every time trying to "explain" that "mountain gets sunlight at 90 degrees from Sun that is 3000 miles higher (while only 6000 miles farther)".
You are smarter than 90% of the people here.
Calculate the angle yourself.

And someone is always trying to skip to tell on what is shadow of the mountain cast.
(If it is on "thin air", then why we see only shadow of the top of the mountain?)
If "shadow of the mountain goes downwards", then where is the shadow of the clouds?

Blurring the explanation and "pushing it under the carpet" every time, will just "spill it back for every carpet cleaning".

That is more of an argument that the sun cannot make it to the horizon. This is answered in Earth Not a Globe and in the following Youtube video by p-brane, who basically comes up with the same explanation that Rowbotham did and illustrates it for us.

« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 10:37:48 PM 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