# What actually happens when the sun sets?



## User1 (Feb 9, 2022)

Peace

Firstly, thanks to all the who post such interesting content, I find many fascinating ideas at SH and that's a credit to the members who contribute to this site.

I'm hoping members more knowledgeable than myself could assist in clarifying the issue of sunset for me, as I don't understand exactly what is happening when the sun sets.  In the interest of disclosure, I wholly reject the globe earth theory, though I don't identify as being a flat earther. I'm of the view that our universe is incomprehensible and that is part of the reason why there are so many "inexplicable" phenomena in the world.  It also highlights the greatness of our Creator as the mechanics of His creation is beyond our understanding and of those who came before us.

On to the matter of science and specifically, the sunset.  Many may have seen the videos of flat-earthers stating the sun doesn't actually set but it just disappears behind the vanishing point and if you zoom in, you'll see the sun hasn't set at all.  And they then proceed to show the footage of a sun that is setting, but is not actually setting, just moving away.  It all seems very convincing.  Until you look at images of clouds when the sun sets, such as this:






Or something like this:




To my eye, it would seem the sun is lighting up the clouds from below in the first image and is busy descending in the second one. We do observe the sun above the clouds throughout the day so I'm having a hard time reconciling a setting sun lighting up the clouds from beneath with footage showing that you need only zoom to see the sun is not actually setting.

As an aside, does anyone know of a link where someone films a sunset and in real-time streams a sunrise from another part of the world? Where I live I'm unable to see the sunset or sunrise otherwise I would do so myself.  I'm just interested in observing this for my own curiosity.

Thanks for any feedback or comments.

Peace


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 9, 2022)

Hello
Perhaps this PDF could help.


----------



## Daniel (Feb 9, 2022)

The sun doesn't "set". It simply moves too far away to be fully seen by the naked human eye.
But, even after the sun has visibly(to the human eye) "set", it can still be seen with the aid of a powerful telescope.


----------



## wommak (Feb 9, 2022)

Can I say in other words that light has to much particles on the way to our eyes so we cannot see it? That would indicate to me - sun is close. 
Then:


Daniel said:


> it can still be seen with the aid of a powerful telescope.



Telescope, does it 'transfer' our eye closer to observing object? Yes I know agreed science on that but it seems to me it is not exactly what I have been thought and older I get it is less and less logical?


----------



## mifletzet (Feb 9, 2022)

Sunrise & Sunset set to music at 2.52 from the intro to the movie "Extreme Prejudice"!


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUzP8pbnQLs_


_"It is my firm belief that the sun revolves around the earth, as I have also declared publicly on various occasions and in discussion with professors specializing in this field of science." _(Lubavitcher Rebbe) ie zero-velocity result of Micheslon-Morley experiment + positive velocity result of Michelson-Gale experiment!


----------



## User1 (Feb 9, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Hello
> Perhaps this PDF could help.


Thanks. I've looked through it though it doesn't really speak to the question.  The flat earth models I've seen look something like this (nothing there are way more intricate ones):





The idea is that the sun (and moon) are at a fixed altitude.  If the altitude is fixed, and the sun is not setting, simply moving along a fixed course on a fixed altitude, then how does the underside of a cloud ever get lit up by the sun if the sun is above the clouds?


Sunlight on the underside of clouds:




Sun above the clouds:







Daniel said:


> The sun doesn't "set". It simply moves too far away to be fully seen by the naked human eye.
> But, even after the sun has visibly(to the human eye) "set", it can still be seen with the aid of a powerful telescope.



I've seen the numerous videos demonstrating this and I don't dispute that it has been observed.  How do we reconcile a sun that is above the clouds lighting up the underside of clouds during sunrise/sunset?  Again, I don't think the answer is a globe earth, it's just that this is where the flat earth model doesn't correspond with my observation of the skies when the sun is setting.



wommak said:


> Can I say in other words that light has to much particles on the way to our eyes so we cannot see it? That would indicate to me - sun is close.
> Then:
> 
> 
> Telescope, does it 'transfer' our eye closer to observing object? Yes I know agreed science on that but it seems to me it is not exactly what I have been thought and older I get it is less and less logical?



I don't really understand the first question   Regarding the second part of your post, I'm pretty much at a similar place where I'm not really convinced by agreed science, simply because the science does not satisfactorily explain something as seemingly straightforward as this.  If the earth is flat and the sun is above the clouds, there would be no underside lighting.  If the earth is a globe, then there would be no telescope that would "fetch" the sun from over the horizon.



mifletzet said:


> Sunrise & Sunset set to music at 2.52 from the intro to the movie "Extreme Prejudice"!
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUzP8pbnQLs_
> ...



Thanks though I'm looking for a real-life example. Like sunrise in New York at 06h00 and sunset at Bangkok 18h00 (they don't actually match up, they're about 12 hours and 30 minutes apart) so streaming the sunset and the sunrise from 2 locations on opposite sides of the earth (whatever that means). Surely there is a place where the sunset coincides exactly with the time of another place's sunrise, and then a livestream or just a video of both events as they happen.

Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 9, 2022)

User1 said:


> Thanks. I've looked through it though it doesn't really speak to the question


Au contraire. It explains how our eyes work. Without understanding this you are going to be a prisoner of belief.

Edit to add
Sandokhan is sandboxed in his own thread but he has posted his answer, well set of links, which may be of use to you as well.

Sandokhan's Link and Post Collection


----------



## User1 (Feb 9, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Au contraire. It explains how our eyes work. Without understanding this you are going to be a prisoner of belief.


My understanding is that our eyes do not create light effects, it simply perceives light through the light receptors.

How do our eyes (perception) cause the underside of a cloud to be lit up when the light source is above as per FE  model?

Forgive my crude sketch, but hopefully it can shed some light on what I'm struggling with as it doesn't seem to be an eye/perception issue:





If we are to explain the sunset as an illusion due to the vanishing point (your attachment), then how do we explain the underside of the clouds being lit up in the manner it is when the light source is above?  How do the eyes create that effect?

This is the issue I'm grappling with and you if could explain it it would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 9, 2022)

You conflate models and reality easy done I did it for years and years.
How do you explain the change in lighting angle?

For me the answer you are seeking is beyond my knowing. I have no idea what the sun is nor if it is a directional light or an omnidirectional light or a combination of the two.
Crepuscular rays and shadows on the ground when a cloud or something flying suggests it is a focused directional light but the way it enters a room even when the sun is totally obscured by clouds suggests omnidirectional.

You have to understand clouds are 3d objects so if the light source moves far enough away from the cloud the angle from it to the cloud changes as in it gets shallower. The closer it gets the steeper it gets. Sun angles are calculated on this basis and well designed houses allow the sun to warm the slab floor in winter and keep the sun off it in summer which is not dissimilar to your cloud conundrum.

I think you really should engage with sandokhan as he has years of theorising under his belt and other than your own senses he is the most likely to have the answers to your dilemma.

Edit to add.
Consider the beam from a lighthouse or torch. Our eyes only perceive a level light when the bean coincides with the level in our eyes. Ergo the light is at ninety degrees to our viewing position. When it moves away from us we see it shrink then disappear as the reflector moves between our ryes and the light source then as it carries on we begin to see it faint until it once again gets on the level at ninety degrees to our eyes then finally it moves towards us getting brighter and brighter then blinding us as it shines directly in our eyes.

The light beam does not extend outwards indefinitely. It is in reality limited.. There is nothing to say the sun isn't similarly limited in how far it can travel. We can replicate this with a torch quite easily. It will only light a specific area quite brightly, then a larger area more dimly before it disappears completely. If the torch has a movable lens we can fiddle with the lighting to our hearts content but the distance it travels from source to illuminated object is always limited. Were the sun to be so limited would make a lot of sense to me as I know of no other unlimited light source in existence anywhere.


----------



## Apollonius (Feb 9, 2022)

The sunlight bends up, that's how it illuminates under the clouds.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 9, 2022)

Here is a sunset with clouds 'above the sun' and clouds 'below the sun' to our eyes at least.
Reality is all the clouds in this image are beneath the sun. Which is why I posted the pdf. We have to understand and accept the way our eyes work.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 9, 2022)

Perhaps Goethes theory of light/colours may help you here. It might be worth a look.

Maybe it is better to think of light in terms of polarity, like a light field, rather than light rays.

I do understand that sometimes light can shine through breaks in a cloud, like in the Crepuscular rays topic.... and the visual 'looks like' rays. In this instance, perhaps the clouds are providing a kind of dampening effect.

Curious to hear other thoughts on this idea.


----------



## User1 (Feb 10, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> View attachment 19576
> 
> The sunlight bends up, that's how it illuminates under the clouds.


How has this been established?


kd-755 said:


> For me the answer you are seeking is beyond my knowing.



Fair enough. The truth is we are trying to force reality into our understanding of how it works. Perhaps it is better to accept that we won't and cannot understand certain phenomena. 


Seeker said:


> Perhaps Goethes theory of light/colours may help you here. It might be worth a look.
> 
> Maybe it is better to think of light in terms of polarity, like a light field, rather than light rays.
> 
> ...



I tried to find out about Goethe's theory on colour, and while interesting, I don't think it explains the lighting.  The reason I say this is because even if we accept that the clouds are lit up due to our perception (the eyes), it does not explain the existence of the light on photo.  You cold use software and edit the image and I'm sure the software will pick up the differences in contrast, so it can't be perception (the eyes). It's a measurable reality. 



kd-755 said:


> Reality is all the clouds in this image are beneath the sun.


I'd have to say this is an assumption.  For all we know, light could be waveform so the sun is fixed at a height but the light oscillates downwards at a certain distance and upwards again (wavelength). @Apollonius - Perhaps this is what you mean? 

This may explain sunrise and sunset and why clouds can be lit from above and below while the sun's altitude is fixed. It could also be that the sun just disappears into a portal and your zooming into it literally sends your vision into that same portal with the sun.  This is why I'm curious to see a livestream of a sunset coinciding with a sunrise on opposite sides of the planet.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 10, 2022)

User1 said:


> I'd have to say this is an assumption. For all we know, light could be waveform so the sun is fixed at a height but the light oscillates downwards at a certain distance and upwards again (wavelength). @Apollonius - Perhaps this is what you mean?


No not st all.

You seem to be fighting shy of accepting how your eyes work.

When you stand on the shore looking out over a contained body of water be it a pond, a lake or the ocean the water between you and the furthest point you see appears to rise up towards the level plane line we call horizon as in a line dead level across our eyes field of vision.
The reality is contained waster is always dead level across its surface.
So what your eyes and your brain, are doing is making the water appears to rise.

When you accept that truth then it becomes obvious that an optical device tuned to the level which makes level water appear to rise will make the upper hemisphere above the level plane appear to descend.

Ergo the eyes makes the clouds appear to descend to meet the rising water at the level plane. To discover this is not the case all you have to do is move your body to the point on the level plane where they appear to meet from the position where you viewed this from. There you will find they don't meet at all and if you look back to where you were stood previously you will see the same optical effect.

I know the sun is a three dimensional ball. Reason being a ball is the only shape that presents as a perfect circle in my vision no matter where my eyes are in relation to it.
I think the light that emanates from the sun emanates in a beam like all other light sources and that beam gets wider and less intense the further it gets from the source, as in the sun.
If you turn a dinner plate upside down then the shape it forms is how I think the shape of the light cone, if you will, from the sun is shaped.

The angle at the edge of the cone of light is very shallow and  the light is very weak in comparison to the light directly under the mid point of the cone. It is this weak fading edge which briefly lights clouds in the  manner we see at what we are told from childhood is sunset.

As the sun moves a bit further away from our viewing position the illumination of the clouds goes away and twilight ensues where there is no direct illumination from the sun visible.

The suns cone of light is shining directly into the cloud and thus the cloud appears to illuminate on its underside for no other reason than our eyes in our head are underneath the bottom of the cloud. If the cloud is too dense there is no illumination. We see it clearly when the clouds in a broken sky nearest us on the ground remain grey but thinner clouds higher up turn pink..

No live stream is needed you simply need to accept the way your eyes view the tangible reality we wander around in.

Edit to fix typo


----------



## User1 (Feb 10, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> When you stand on the shore looking out over a contained body of water be it a pond, a lake or the ocean the water between you and the furthest point you see appears to rise up towards the level plane line we call horizon as in a line dead level across our eyes field of vision.
> The reality is contained waster is always dead level across its surface.
> So what your eyes and your brain, are doing is making the water appeasr to rise.



Perhaps I'm not articulating the issue clearly enough. I am conversant with this optical illusion.  This is not what I'm questioning.  To make the sea raise to eye-level and cause the clouds to descend to eye-level is all good and well, but this would result in everything converging into the vanishing point, in an orderly fashion.  To use the example in the pdf you shared:




The angle of the shadows do not change (up is down and down is up).  The lights above still casts shadows onto the ground, up until the vanishing point.  We do not suddenly have shadows being cast on the ceiling because the light source is always on top.



kd-755 said:


> I know the sun is a three dimensdional ball. Reason being a ball is the only shape that presents as a perfect circle in my vision no matter where my eyes are in relation to it.


Trying to understand your view of the cosmos here, so is the moon a 3-d ball, or only when it's a full-moon? I haven't seen anything to suggest the sun is a 3d-ball.


kd-755 said:


> I think the light that emanates from the sun emanates in a beam like all other light sources and that beam gets wider and less intense the further it gets from the source, as in the sun.


I'll have to disagree with you here.  Do you suggest lightning is a beam of light? As I've not seen it described that way.


kd-755 said:


> If you turn a dinner plate upside down then the shape it forms is how I think the shape of the light cone, if you will, from the sun is shaped.


I'm not following your logic here.  If you're saying the sun is a 3-d ball then your light source is a 3-d ball, meaning the light is omni-directional, yes?  What is the mechanism to focus the light from this 3-d ball into a cone?



kd-755 said:


> No live stream is needed you simply need to accept the way your eyes view the tangible reality we wander around in.


Reality is more than what is tangible though.  The sunset of New York corresponds roughly with the sunrise of Bangkok and the distance between the 2 as per google is 13 922km.
What you're telling me is that at the time the sunsets in New York, we can observe the fading power of the sun over a few km in the sky yet at the same time, almost 14 000km away, the sun is lighting up the entire night sky with dawn light?

I'm just trying to make sense of this, thanks for engaging and trying to answer the questions.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 10, 2022)

User1 said:


> To make the sea raise to eye-level and cause the clouds to descend to eye-level is all good and well, but this would result in everything converging into the vanishing point, in an orderly fashion.


The vanishing point is in itself simply the limit at which our eyes can see detail it is not reality.



User1 said:


> Trying to understand your view of the cosmos here, so is the moon a 3-d ball, or only when it's a full-moon? I haven't seen anything to suggest the sun is a 3d-ball.


Perhaps you missed what I said about the only three dimensional shape that presents itself as a perfect circle in my vision. Its a ball. Try it for yourself. Get a ball and move around it or move it around you and it will always without fail appear as a perfect circle in your vision.
Why you then make the leap to the moon I can only guess at .
Yet again you clearly do not want to accept the way your eyes work. I really do suggest you take the time to try the ball experiment for yourself and you will know the truth in what I am stating.
The sun always presents in our vision as a perfect circle no matter where we are stood or sat ergo it can only be a three dimensional ball.
Do not drop in moons and cosmos as distractions we are talking about the specific here the sun.



User1 said:


> I'll have to disagree with you here. Do you suggest lightning is a beam of light? As I've not seen it described that way.


I have no idea what lightening is. To compare lightning which exists for a split second with a sun that persists is fallacious.



User1 said:


> If you're saying the sun is a 3-d ball then your light source is a 3-d ball, meaning the light is omni-directional, yes?


No. What I am saying is the sun is a 3D ball. The light appears to do two apparently different things.



User1 said:


> What is the mechanism to focus the light from this 3-d ball into a cone?


How could I know that?

The suns light appears to us on the ground to be perfectly tuned if you will or perhaps focussed is a better word to shine down in the right intensity onto the ground and water ergo where the edge of two different mediums water vapour called air and liquid water/solid ground meet. This is the living zone where the overwhelming majority of life lives. True some lives in the deep water near volcanic vents and some lives in caves beyond the reach of the sun but that said they are in the minority.

At 'midday' as we are taught to call it the suns intensity as in brightness is greatest wherever midday occurs. This means that it has to be a focussed cone of light which shines on the ground. Were it unfocussed then we would not experience the change in intensity throughout the day. We discern the time of day from the changing intensity of the light which is another reason why it is focussed.
What seems to me to be also going on is it appears omnidirectional but that is just as likely to be just an appearance of reality.
The cone of light coming from the sun is wide and shallow.
The ball is a focussed lens for want of better words in the same way a twistable lens on a maglite produces a wide angle beam and a narrow beam within the same optics.
The difference is I feel but do not know for the obvious reason I never get near the sun itself is the suns lens or optics are set and do not move.

A maglite on wide angle or flood illuminates a vastly wider area than a focussed narrow beam but with an overall low intensity.

The entire ball of the sun appears to be the light source in and of itself therefore if that is the case then the entire ball must be a focussed lens directing its light down onto the 'living layer' as I call this edge. As we look up and we see the appearance of a blue colour over our heads and around the light what I think we are actually looking at is a depth of light so too speak that stretches up from ground level where our eyes are to the height whatever it is that the top of the sun ball is and it is too far away for us to see the upper edge of the cone until the sun sets and as it moves away from our position its top edge of the cone gets nearer and nearer to is and we experience the magic of orange clouds seeming to be lit from underneath but in reality the cloud is much higher up therefore nearer this receding edge of the cone of light than we are and it is lit up in its entirety but we only experience it from our position.
Were we sat in line like the photographer in the plane was we see it very differently.  The top edge of the cone is illuminating the upper clouds as it is almost on a level with them as its source the sun moves away and the bottom of the cone lights up the tops of the clouds underneath the planes wing.

We can experience it very easily for ourselves. On the next night stand right under a streetlight and look straight up. If the light is bright enough we do not see anything other than the light if we focus on the light. We cannot see the dark sky surrounding the light due to the brightness of the light. Staying looking up take one step back or to the side and we see the darks sky begin to appear as the intensity we are looking through in that part of the cone diminishes as it is having to travel further.
If we then step outside of the cone of light altogether we get to see the dark sky as it is. We also get to see the shape of the cone of focussed light which shines down onto the ground from its source the bulb in the streetlight.

This is what I am saying is going on with the sun. It is high enough above ground level for us not to be able to step out of its cone of light until it itself moves away from our position. It is its physical movement which we can only replicate by walking under a run of streetlights in the dark.



User1 said:


> Reality is more than what is tangible though. The sunset of New York corresponds roughly with the sunrise of Bangkok and the distance between the 2 as per google is 13 922km


Now you are invoking digital gods. No one knows the distance any two places are apart once one gets into miles. I stick with direct experience.



User1 said:


> What you're telling me is that at the time the sunsets in New York, we can observe the fading power of the sun over a few km in the sky yet at the same time, almost 14 000km away, the sun is lighting up the entire night sky with dawn light?


No again you try and put words in my mouth.

I am no artist but this image is the best I could find on duckduckgo which puts what I am saying into an image.
We look through a cone whose physical limits deliver reality as we see it. (Worth noting that is not strictly true as our brains create a single cone shaped image from a pair of offset cone shaped images but near enough for this discussion I think.)

The scale is completely wrong as our cone of vision is miniscule in comparison to the suns cone of illumination and we are only ever at the bottom of the suns cone of light but hopefully it makes some sort of sense to you in regards all I have been saying on here.
We look through the suns cone of light and the only time we get to see the edge furthest away from the source, the sun, is at sun set when it comes down low enough to our position to perceive it as the brief underlighting of the cloud base. Once it goes beyond that point it is underneath the cloudbase and we cannot perceive it.




​Enough from me now how about you posting your answer or best guess.. I did ask you back up the page but what do you think is going on?

Edit to add a missing 'where'


----------



## User1 (Feb 10, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> Enough from me now how about you posting your answer or best guess.. I did ask you back up the page but what do you think is going on?



Thanks for taking the time to explain your position.  It is appreciated even though I don't share the position.  As stated in the intro post, I don't know what is going on. There are elements that suggest to me the sun descends below the clouds and there are elements that suggest the sun remains at a fixed height.  Perhaps light travels in waveform which is why we have sunset and sunrise, kind of like a long wave.  It's contrary to the established narrative on how light works but this site isn't about the established narrative.

My best guess is that the sun sets, as in descends below the clouds.  Is the sun setting or is the sunlight simply oscillating to light up the clouds from below.  I don't know.  Does it mean the earth is round, I don't think so. Is the light bending or does reality bend? I don't know.  What I do know is that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete and ability to experience reality is limited to our senses. It is for this reason that I'm reluctant to speak of science in absolute terms as I don't think we are able to comprehend the machinations of the universe. 

Peace.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 10, 2022)

User1 said:


> Thanks for taking the time to explain your position.  It is appreciated even though I don't share the position.  As stated in the intro post, I don't know what is going on. There are elements that suggest to me the sun descends below the clouds and there are elements that suggest the sun remains at a fixed height.  Perhaps light travels in waveform which is why we have sunset and sunrise, kind of like a long wave.  It's contrary to the established narrative on how light works but this site isn't about the established narrative.
> 
> My best guess is that the sun sets, as in descends below the clouds.  Is the sun setting or is the sunlight simply oscillating to light up the clouds from below.  I don't know.  Does it mean the earth is round, I don't think so. Is the light bending or does reality bend? I don't know.  What I do know is that our knowledge of the universe is incomplete and ability to experience reality is limited to our senses. It is for this reason that I'm reluctant to speak of science in absolute terms as I don't think we are able to comprehend the machinations of the universe.
> 
> Peace.


Thank you. It is appreciated.
Not seeking agreement just hoping to get folks to trust themselves and their senses.
This will automerge but hey ho.

Just been playing with this site and managed to get a better example of what I am on about.

intersection de deux cônes


----------



## veeall (Feb 10, 2022)

I think it is a valid question. How come sun lights up clouds from underneath if it's altitude doesn't change?

From my obervations at sunsets at the beach, there's not only perspective at play when the sun sets, but also light refractions and  distortions of the air. Often actual horizon is higher than what is visible to an eye, lower parts of objects (ships, islands) get mirrored and extended downwards by this mirroring effect. Surface of the water near the horizon acts as perfect mirror reflecting most of the light at these minor angles. Maybe the light lighting up the clouds is the reflected light coming from the sun and hitting earths surface at very minor angles of 5 or less degrees.

Also, at sunsets, at least here in the north the setting sun loses its form becomes more and more oblate while going down. It could look as if looking at an object which is half hidden behind a mirror. I don't know if anybody have been able to see sunspots mirrored, or any other effects, at the completion of the sunset, that could tell if the suns lower half is a mirror image of the top part at that time.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 10, 2022)

Could you please explain more about these elements you mention which make it appear the sun descends below the cloud base, presumably as viewed from our position relative to the suns?
Reason for asking is I have no idea what they are.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

An aspect of the heliocentric psyop that all too often is overlooked, is what it does to our understanding of perspective. As long as you can understand that ALL parallel lines converge at a single point, the sun "setting" is easily understood:

View attachment EqW39W.gif


----------



## User1 (Feb 11, 2022)

veeall said:


> From my obervations at sunsets at the beach, there's not only perspective at play when the sun sets, but also light refractions and distortions of the air. Often actual horizon is higher than what is visible to an eye, lower parts of objects (ships, islands) get mirrored and extended downwards by this mirroring effect. Surface of the water near the horizon acts as perfect mirror reflecting most of the light at these minor angles. Maybe the light lighting up the clouds is the reflected light coming from the sun and hitting earths surface at very minor angles of 5 or less degrees.





kd-755 said:


> Could you please explain more about these elements you mention which make it appear the sun descends below the cloud base, presumably as viewed from our position relative to the suns?
> Reason for asking is I have no idea what they are.



So I live fairly close to the coast and so there's a massive body of water whereupon sunlight could theoretically reflect upwards onto the underside of clouds.  If we go with the assumption that the underside is being lit is due to light reflecting of the water's surface, I imagine that the underside lighting effect would stretch for hundreds if not thousands of km along the sky, as the ocean where it sets is quite vast.  Presumably the sun is thousands of km away when setting so there should be a significant range of km across the sky where we can observe this effect and the intensity of the effect would be gradual.  Instead we see it over a few km, maybe the low 10s of km but that's about it.  It's almost as if there is a localized lighting element, even though the sun is apparently 1 000 km away and moving further still.

Secondly, if memory servers me correctly, I've not only observed this close to the coast but inland as well.  So to  my mind this means either:

1) the sun is not reflecting off a surface to light up the underside of clouds, so is not above the clouds when this is happening or,
2) it is reflecting off a surface (ocean) and this reflection does travel hundreds of km (which we don't see due to the difference in sunset times over relatively small distances) or, 
3) the sun is above the clouds but the light bends, like a wave, to create this effect

Just throwing it out there.

If we mapped the sunset times of all major cities with the sunrise times of all major cities, would they correspond with existing maps, or any maps for that matter? Would the distances as stated on maps add up?  I suppose this would probably be a simple proof of the sun orbiting above us.  Or maybe just a pointless exercise


----------



## Seeker (Feb 11, 2022)

I'm a little bit confused by the insistence of people to talk about convergence and vanishing points etc.

Whilst I dont disagree with these points - they are entirely correct - respectfully, they have absolutely nothing to do with the statement/question in the OP.

The OP is saying - if the the flat earth model is correct, which generally claims the sun maintains a fixed height above the Earth, and does not set, then why does it sometimes appear that it is illuminating the underside of clouds.

There is no need to talk about convergence or vanishing points. This point is being readily accepted in line with flat earth model. The OP is stating that lighting the underside of clouds would appear to be anomalous with this model.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

Seeker said:


> I'm a little bit confused by the insistence of people to talk about convergence and vanishing points etc.
> 
> Whilst I dont disagree with these points - they are entirely correct - respectfully, they have absolutely nothing to do with the statement/question in the OP.
> 
> ...


Click the link I made a gif to above. And add to it the idea that light reflects from our surface:


----------



## Seeker (Feb 11, 2022)

Following on from my last comment about Goethes theory.... I wanted to elaborate a little.

If we consider that light is a result of a polarised field which is generated by certain sources, rather than 'rays', and that polarity is strongest at its source, and weakens at a distance.... the pictures below (taken from previous page) may help to illustrate the idea



 


You cannot see the sun in the first image, but I would assume it to be towards the end of the picture. You can see there that the clouds in that area are mostly yellow. As you move away from that area, the clouds turn to orange, then to red, and then to a greyish black colour.

A similar thing is happening in the second picture. If you look at the clouds directly below the sun, there is bright yellow patch, this tends to an orange circular area around, and then to red. As you move away, the clouds again turn to a greyish black. In this picture, you are seeing more of a halo effect.

It is also interesting, that in each case you are seeing a shift backwards through the colours of the rainbow. Yellow, to Orange to Red. Then the colour fades completely.

Is this the correct solution? Honestly, I don't know, but I do feel it is a more relevant and potential explanation than a question of perspective or vanishing points.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 11, 2022)

I wasn't aware that FE model states that the sun is a fixed height above the plane - it's small and close but not at a fixed altitude. How do you triangulate to a moving object?

Another point -lighting of the underside of clouds could be reflection from the distant ( setting ) sun from the seas, land or atmosphere depending on conditions. It is not such a big mystery . I would imagine that reflective indices and critical angles of different wavelengths associated with sunlight could be a reasonable explanation for those lovely sunsets.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

Seeker said:


> ...I do feel it is a more relevant and potential explanation than a question of perspective or vanishing points.


Nothing is more relevant imo than how we see the world. You even admit above:


Seeker said:


> Whilst I dont disagree with these points - they are entirely correct - respectfully, they have absolutely nothing to do with the statement/question in the OP.


And as shown, it has everything to do it.

In any model where a light source (the sun here) moves parallel to and above a plane, the appearance the sun rising and setting as we see it is exactly what should be expected and clearly explains, along with reflection why clouds can appear to be lit that way.


----------



## User1 (Feb 11, 2022)

Seeker said:


> Following on from my last comment about Goethes theory.... I wanted to elaborate a little.
> 
> If we consider that light is a result of a polarised field which is generated by certain sources, rather than 'rays', and that polarity is strongest at its source, and weakens at a distance.... the pictures below (taken from previous page) may help to illustrate the idea
> 
> ...


Thanks.  Agreed that it does make sense though as per my earlier post, the range for me is a bit, how do I say, unexpected.  If a light source thousands of km away is powerful enough to create this through the polarity effect as described, why doesn't the effect seem to carry for thousands of km?  Unless we saying it does in fact carry for thousands of km, it's just quite homogenous close to the light source (daylight) and far way (night time).  It only produces an effect in this few km during sunset/sunrise which we can observe as being different from daytime/night-time?

Also, if say light is a polarized field, does it "generate" light in a toroidal sort of form?  Would the sun then really be where we think we are seeing it? I would say yes because we "feel" the sun but then again, I don't have the answer.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> How do you triangulate to a moving object?


You look at it from a fixed point in time. 

For example, we know the sun is overhead or at 90 degrees at noon. An interesting experiment was done where this point at noon was assumed in the middle of the ocean on the equator and two observers, one in South America and one in Africa positioned themselves so at exactly the same time (allowing for time zones) they both saw the sun at exactly 60 degrees.

What this gives us is an equilateral triangle where all three angles are 60 degrees and since we have the baseline (between observers) we can know with relative certainty the distance to the sun.

Hope that made sense. I should probably do a pic.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 11, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> I wasn't aware that FE model states that the sun is a fixed height above the plane - it's small and close but not at a fixed altitude. How do you triangulate to a moving object?
> 
> Another point -lighting of the underside of clouds could be reflection from the distant ( setting ) sun from the seas, land or atmosphere depending on conditions. It is not such a big mystery . I would imagine that reflective indices and critical angles of different wavelengths associated with sunlight could be a reasonable explanation for those lovely sunsets.



Okay, perhaps I wasnt precise enough in my post. I meant only to state that the flat earth model does not suggest that the Earth is 'setting'. I get that it may still differ somewhat in its altitude relative to the Earth surface - however, I dont think anyone is suggesting that the sun is rising and descending above and below clouds. I simply meant to imply that the sun remains above the clouds, and doesnt drift below them as it sinks over the horizon in the heliocentric view. This should be given or accepted from the statement in the OP.
I hope that makes sense.


otl2021 said:


> Click the link I made a gif to above. And add to it the idea that light reflects from our surface:
> View attachment 19596





otl2021 said:


> Nothing is more relevant imo than how we see the world. You even admit above:
> 
> And as shown, it has everything to do it.
> 
> In any model where a light source (the sun here) moves parallel to and above a plane, the appearance the sun rising and setting as we see it is exactly what should be expected and clearly explains, along with reflection why clouds can appear to be lit that way.



Look, I get what you are saying.... this diagram is blatantly obvious. Im not exactly new to flat earth theory, or angles of incidence, and perspectives etc.
Has it occurred to anyone that the clouds are always 'lit' during daytime. You can see them. If they weren't 'lit' they would be a dark space indiscernible to the human eye.

The issue isnt that they are there, or disappearing, turning invisible or switching to an alternate plane of existence.

_They are changing colour._
Again, respectfully, I think we are talking about very different things.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 11, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> You look at it from a fixed point in time.
> 
> For example, we know the sun is overhead or at 90 degrees at noon. An interesting experiment was done where this point at noon was assumed in the middle of the ocean on the equator and two observers, one in South America and one in Africa positioned themselves so at exactly the same time (allowing for time zones) they both saw the sun at exactly 60 degrees.
> 
> ...


But then you would only have that the distance to the sun for that instant . With moving objects your observations would have to be extremely exact in time but would still only give the position of the object for that instant of observation. You could take a series of observations to track the path maybe .

You could triangulate to an immovable object such as the pole star


----------



## User1 (Feb 11, 2022)

Seeker said:


> _They are changing colour._
> Again, respectfully, I think we are talking about very different things.



I think you're right in a sense, though it does seem it's not just colour but they are being lit up and not simply a colour-change.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 11, 2022)

User1 said:


> I think you're right in a sense, though it does seem it's not just colour but they are being lit up and not simply a colour-change.



It is a very tricky situation.
I think firstly, you need to draw a distinction between colour as a result of lighting, and the colour that every object inherently has due to pigmentation.

I found it hard to get my head around Goethes theory of colour (honestly, I'm still working on it), because Newtons optics are so ingrained on us from school.

Its not dissimilar to the feeling you get when you first start getting into flat earth theory. It turns your world upside down.

I see it this way.
Clouds are generally white in colour. When they are perfectly lit by the sun, we see them as they are due to their pigmentation. Perfectly white. When the lighting weakens, that is when the polarity difference between dark and light comes into effect, _and causes a colouration on their surface._
Which is why they change from white, to yellow, to orange, to red, and then darken completely.

Remember the Tesla quote - everything is energy, frequency and vibration. I think that is relevant here.


User1 said:


> I think you're right in a sense, though it does seem it's not just colour but they are being lit up and not simply a colour-change.



I think you are believing them to be 'lit up' because of the yellow colour, and you associate that colour with the sun.

In actual fact, I believe what has happened, is they have actually _darkened_ from white, to yellow.

And again, respectfully, this is why I felt that perspectives were not the issue here. It just took some time to explain.

Half the problem with these things is plausibility, and how easily we latch on to such things.

Both Flat Earth and Heliocentrism are both very plausible models with plausible explanations. The same is true with Newton and Goethes theories.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 11, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> But then you would only have that the distance to the sun for that instant . With moving objects your observations would have to be extremely exact in time but would still only give the position of the object for that instant of observation. You could take a series of observations to track the path maybe .
> 
> You could triangulate to an immovable object such as the pole star


You only need the distance to the sun for that instant. Or the instant that the sun is directly overhead at noon in between the two observers.

Let me explain. If any two people on Earth can be facing each other and simultaneously see the Sun 60 degrees above the horizon, then the sun is far closer to 93 miles away than 93 million.

Moreover, in the experiment I described, the observers were on the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 11, 2022)

Figuring out how the tool functions is the only way to use it effectively which is why we need to figure out how our eyes actually work and what the brain does with the two images to deliver one we use to live life.

The illusion of the sun appearing to fall below the cloud base is what fuels the idea we are stood on a balll and prompts the question of how the bottom of clouds are illuminated various colours in the yellow to red portion of the visible light spectrum.

These three colours red orange yellow sit alongside each other. Perhaps its better written yellow fading to orange fading to red then visible light disappears.
So when the suns directional cone of light focussed downwards from it to  the living edge where vapor mets liquid moves far enough away from my viewing position I get to see it move through yellow, to orange to red as it hits the cloud.

What we see is a lighting effect caused by the focussed light source aka the sun. We do not see any of the otherr colours in the clouds because our eyes can only see these when whatever the light lands on absorbs all of them save the one colour which is reflected off and our eyes see it.
So a purple petal is only purple to our eyes as all the other cvolours within visible lighht have been absorbed by the petal.

Our brains associate certain colours with certain things. Yellow orange and red are associated with warmth for example so perhaps this seemingly innate knowing is used by the brain to recognise daylight coming and daylight leaving.
What the eyes are doing when they recognise the yellow red orange colouring of the sky is delivering information to the brain it needs to start and stop bodily processes in the correct order for functionality purposes.

May be a bit off topic there but I need to get beyond the frankly infantile flat versus globe bullshit. It is no different that the left and right political bullshit which is designed to hold us in chains we never see but always feel.
Truth is no-one knows the earth shape, no-one.

It is worth pointing out that what we call air is in reality water vapour and inside our eye is liquid water the refractive properties of these two forms of water hasve a fundamental role in how and what we see courtesy of our brains but I am buggered if I have ever considered that aspect to the vision ithat I rely on for life itself.

Anyway I got me crayons out and did a drawing of what I said about the way the sun turns clouds yellow orange and red.





Edit to add.
Basically we do not see the yellow orange red colours in the sunlight until they strike something be it a mountain top or a cloud or a plane for example.


----------



## User1 (Feb 11, 2022)

Seeker said:


> I think you are believing them to be 'lit up' because of the yellow colour, and you associate that colour with the sun.
> 
> In actual fact, I believe what has happened, is they have actually _darkened_ from white, to yellow.
> 
> ...


You may be right. As you say, it's plausible and the problem is most theories are plausible, which is why they are entertained.  It's getting from scientific theory to scientific fact that is where I think we are being misdirected by those nefarious folks in their secret clubs.



kd-755 said:


> Anyway I got me crayons out and did a drawing of what I said about the way the sun turns clouds yellow orange and red.



@kd-755 - I don't think I would have ever gone so much effort to explain what I meant    I do finally get what you're saying and yes, it is plausible.  A bit more understanding of what you were describing previously.

I cannot help by think we're missing a trick with this sun business.  If we look at history, then we find that older, seemingly more advanced civilizations were pre-occupied with the sun. Not just in terms of time-keeping but for worship.  Now this is something that has never made sense to me.  Why would people worship the sun.  The sun doesn't give life anymore than the rain gives life.  We are no more dependent on the sun then we are on food, water, air, etc.  Yet, this sun deity concept permeates cultures across the world and those who seem to know more about the reality of our world seem to be intent on either worshipping it or having us believe they worship/worshipped it.  To be clear, I* strongly reject *any notion involving the worship of any creation.  What I'm saying is there's more to this than just physics and time-keeping.

In Egypt, we have these type of depictions:



 

 




In Islamic tradition, we are informed that the sun rises and sets between the horns of a devil,(link) which seems to be what is depicted by these Egyptian drawings/carvings (not these specifically but I've seen others which better depict it).  And this has been going on for a long time.

Sunrise in Cape Town is 06h19.  For the sun to travel half-way through its orbit is 12 hours, so a 12-hour time difference into sunset gives us Hawaii, with a sunset time of  18h28, close enough. 
Does anyone have a map, which show Hawaii being 180 degrees away from Cape Town? Or with the sun having to move 180 degrees to get from one to the other?  Any sort of 180 degree match would work actually.

Just feels like I'm missing something here.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 11, 2022)

Getting a bit off topic, but is there any chance you can name each of those Egyptian figures? Or link me to where the images came from?
I'd like to look further into this.


----------



## User1 (Feb 11, 2022)

Seeker said:


> Getting a bit off topic, but is there any chance you can name each of those Egyptian figures? Or link me to where the images came from?
> I'd like to look further into this.



You can check out Egyptian Deities.  The ones I can identify are:



User1 said:


>


*
Left to right*:
Thoth
Hathor
Amun
Ra



User1 said:


>



Ra
Ptah



User1 said:


>



Ptah


----------



## Daniel (Feb 11, 2022)

User1 said:


> Sunrise in Cape Town is 06h19.  For the sun to travel half-way through its orbit is 12 hours, so a 12-hour time difference into sunset gives us Hawaii, with a sunset time of  18h28, close enough.
> Does anyone have a map, which show Hawaii being 180 degrees away from Cape Town? Or with the sun having to move 180 degrees to get from one to the other?  Any sort of 180 degree match would work actually.
> 
> Just feels like I'm missing something here.


You mean like:

​


----------



## ryanzehm (Feb 12, 2022)

Here's a few things to add to the equation which can be proven by empirical observation.

Light waves from the sun do not follow straight line as they travel through the atmosphere (or atmo'half'sphere if you prefer the dome). We assume that lightwaves are traveling in straight lines, but this is not true. The atmosphere if dense near the surface of earth an rare towards the top, which means there is a density gradient in the atmosphere and there is also a temperature gradient.



Temperature and density greatly affect a light wave's path and cause it to follow a curve.
-* Light waves propagate in straight-line paths as they travel in a homogeneous medium. *The only homogenous media is "outer space".
*- Light waves follow curved paths in a medium in which the refractive index changes.* The atmosphere, due to it's ever changing temperature and density is never a homogeneous media.

Light *ALWAYS* follows a curved path through our non-homogeneous atmosphere. The reason specifically that waves follow curved paths in non-homogeneous media is because the left and the right side of the wave enter the media at different times.  It's the same concept if you have a front wheel drive car, left and right wheel pulling the car forward. But if you increase the speed of the front left wheel, the car will start turning left. A light wave does the same thing when it enters a dense media. The Left side of the wave enters first, and starts to slow down- but the right side is still going fast. So the wave turns slightly.

It's a proven and measurable fact that all light waves follow curved paths, and there is no exception except for in a vacuum chamber or outer space (existence of the latter being debatable).

Just because light waves reach the bottom of clouds, have you traced back the path the light wave followed to ensure it didn't get there by following a curved path?

This curving of light waves causes many optical illusions such as Atmospheric Refraction which causes someone to think the sun hasn't set when it actually already has: (Assumed sun is still over the horizon, in reality it has already set)




*Atmospheric Refraction* can be broken down into 3 parts:

_Astronomical Refraction:_ Light from a distant astronomical object (sun, moon, star) has followed a curved path through a potential 6,200 miles of atmosphere (Exosphere merges with solar winds ~6,200 miles). This causes an optical illusion that makes celestial objects appear higher in the sky than they physically are.

_Terrestrial Refraction: _Light from a distant mountain peak, ocean on the horizon, and all terrestrial objects appear elevated. Light waves traveling parallel to earth's surface also follow a curved path.

_Horizonal Refraction (not accounted for by the scientific community):_ For the viewer who is outside (at high up in) the atmosphere, who is looking back to earth. How does the optical illusion caused by the curving of light waves affect the visible "earth from space"?


Here is a diagram I made to explain exactly how Astronomical Refraction works (viewer on surface of earth, looking at a celestial object):




And here is a diagram I made to explain how Horizonal Refraction works. Notice the obvious similarities. (viewer is outside/high up in the atmosphere and looking back at earth's surface):




That's correct, earth's 'curved surface' is optical illusion caused by atmospheric refraction.




But hang on, we're supposed to be talking about sun on the bottom of the clouds.

Here are the mathematical formulae for astronomical and terrestrial refraction, which I've calculated by hand, on paper. Please check my work any possible errors and realize that these are the accepted scientific formulae which any physicist can review for accuracy and it, of course, is assuming a sphere earth.

Astronomical Refraction: AtmosphericRefraction.pdf
Terrestrial Refraction: TerrestrialRefraction.pdf

Now you can see what happens on a sphere earth is that light waves, parallel to earth's surface, bend downwards. But this is only because of the geometric curvature of earth- a light wave "parallel" to earth's surface already has a radius of curvature of 3959 miles. But on a FLAT EARTH, a light wave parallel to earth's surface has no curvature, and is flat.

So then, does light travel slower or faster in dense media? Light slows down in dense media. And is the atmosphere more dense or more rare at the surface? It's more dense towards the surface.

A light wave, travelling parallel to earth's flat surface, constantly encountering "dense" media (think about the air as 1000 panes of glass all lined up) will constantly be slowed down. The speed of light, is *only *in vacuum, and slows down when it enters a dense media such as air, water, or glass.

Light traveling through 1000 panes of glass will BEND when entering each sheet of glass, and it will also slow down each time. This is provable with empirical experimentation, so go try it before debating. It happens. And air is no different. For example: 1 meter of air, you could break it down into 1000 'microscopic' sheets of air. And when light enters each one, it will slightly slow down.

Light does not travel at "light speed", except in a vacuum. Light waves can and have been "stopped" by passing them through enough dense media.

So, do light waves following parallel to a flat earth bend up or down? They don't go straight, that's a fact.

-Ryan Zehm 55°N


----------



## Seeker (Feb 12, 2022)

Honestly, all of this just throws up more and more questions for me, and the more I see, the less I feel as though light can be described as 'rays' or 'beams'.

The same goes for things like 'the speed of light'.

The only thing I really felt as though I could agree with is that light is affected by different mediums and densities. This much is generally observable anyway, in every day life. I didn't really get anything from your post that explains why a cloud would change colour - and I believe that is really what is being observed. I really think that people are getting mixed up between issues of 'illumination' and 'colour'.

I might just be the crazy person in the room, but for me, my posts referring to Goethes theory of colour make the most practical sense in explaining what the OP has described.

It seems more to me that light sources are simply generating a toroidal field around them, which we are somehow able to perceive.

First questions for you, unrelated to my above statements - do you believe the Earth is flat, do you believe there is a firmament, and if so, do you believe the sun is inside or outside the firmament.

Next question, or illustration.
Lets suppose you live on a busy street. It's night time. There is no lighting anywhere, except for one home a little way down the road, say 50 or 60 feet or so. From your position you can see through one of their lit windows.
You can see the illuminated contents of the room.
Supposedly the light source is illuminating its immediate vicinity of 5-10 feet, and then the light is bouncing off of those objects a further 50-60 feet to your eyes, which is why you can see them.

So why then cant the light travel the 50-60ft to your immediate vicinity, light up the area where you are, and then reflect the remaining few feet to your eyes.
Why is the light source lighting up that area for you to see at a distance, but not lighting up where you are? Presumably the same distance overall would be traveled by the 'light beams'?
If they have enough power to light up something locally and still transmit that information to you at a greater distance, why cant they also light up something local to you, when the same distance is being traveled overall, through the same mediums? How does that make any sense?

It seems to me that the light source provides a toroidal illumination field and the strength of the source relates to the area it can illuminate.

Question is, how/why do our eyes actually perceive it?

Here is another random oddity to do with our eyes.
You are at home, minding your own business. You happen to look out the window and see a group of people standing 50feet down the road. Out of idle curiosity you observe them. Immediately one of them turns around and looks directly at you.
What the heck is that?

I've heard suggestions that there is some basic instinct in us that lets us know when a predator is around or some kind of thing. Maybe, who knows? But I don't think that explains this, especially if you are just casually glancing at somebody with no particular malice or intention. There is some literal physical interaction/phenomena taking place.

Of course, the above example does not work 100% of the time with every person you see. I think it depends on the state of mind of the individual you are observing - how intently focused they are on something..... but it absolutely does happen, and I am sure this must have happened to other people here, too.

Sorry for this last bit which is kind of off-topic. It may deserve its own topic.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Feb 12, 2022)

I saw a video by Ewaranon which had the sun reappearing via telescope.  The sunset is observed via a camera on a tripod, and after the sun has gone down over the horizon, the operator zooms in and the sun reappears.  To me this seemed to contravene the accepted laws of physics, so it appears to prove the Earth is not a globe with the Sun a very long way away.  However I don't see any reason this proves the Earth is flat.  It just proves that there is something going on we don't understand.

Crepuscular sunlight is often said to be proof that the Earth is flat and the Sun is only about 3km up in the air.  However there is a problem with this idea.  We've all seen examples of crepuscular sunlight where rays of light come through clouds at widely different angels, thus giving the impression that the Sun is only a few km in the air; however you can also see crepuscular sunlight in forests, which would indicate that the Sun was just above the tops of the trees.


----------



## space966 (Feb 12, 2022)

For me in OP 2nd big photo looks, like clouds are lighten up from above.


----------



## NotFE (Feb 13, 2022)

Ok this is so easy that I had to create an account to answer it. Think of atmospheric refraction like this





the light is stopped by the atmosphere creating an "angle".
in turn, that same light is scattered everywhere to a MUCH lesser extent than at its "focus" point. in the following way




OK.
Until now we have 2 simple points: 1- the atmosphere "stops" the light creating an angle and 2: the light is scattered everywhere by the same atmosphere and even a good part is reflected by the ground and the objects that the light hits. (obviously the focus point is always stronger than the spread)
if the focus of the light is refracted downwards due to the effect of the atmosphere (remember that the further away it is LOGICALLY, the more atmospheric refraction you will have, therefore the focus will "descend") as the focus gets closer to your vanishing point Depending on your position in the atmosphere with respect to the sun, that scattered and reflected light will become stronger than what you can get from "above" because your focus is no longer above the clouds, it is below because of the "braking angle". And that is shown like this:



If glorious atmospheric refraction did not exist, you would have an even sun all the time
and you would always see it above the clouds (not the case)

PD: sorry bout
my paint Its not scaled properly but as I said, I'm not going to spend 4 hours doing a painting for a forum (thanks me that I made the account hehe)


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 13, 2022)

So the vanishing point which is always at eye level isn't really at eye level its below my feet somewhere!
Must remember to point my head at the sky so I can see where I am going then.

Been looking again at photographs of clouds at sunset and mountain tops at sunset and I have to say in all of them it looks to me that the suns light is definitely being split by something that is focussed so a lens of some kind so too speak and much as a prism splits sun light into the rainbow whatever the suns lens is it does the same  thing so it is the red end of visible light which illuminates whatever it falls on in the fire colours we enjoy. 

I have experienced a stunning sunset last October where I stood and watched the clodbase go from grey to yellow to orange to red to grey again. The suns cone of light is definitely focussed on the living edge I mentioned and there are just two choices for the colour changes. Either the sun is moving away from my position or I am moving away from its.

Seeker does your reply at the top of this page point at my podt with the drawing specifically?


----------



## Seeker (Feb 13, 2022)

My message at the top of this page was mainly following on from the last guy... Ryan Zehm I think, but it does apply generally to most of the other arguments.
To be honest, I'm kinda done with this topic. I'm not sure anyone actually grasps what I am saying. All anyone wants to do is draw pictures of the sun with lines bouncing around. As far as I'm concerned, it doesnt in any way relate to the observation of the OP.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 13, 2022)

Okay. Seems we are both on the same page although your description is more eloquent than mine. Where we differ is you see a toroid when I see a focussed cone of light. But the effect is the same in respect to the red end spectrum doing the sunset cloud lighting.
I see the sun, the source of the light, moving away from my position and in doing so the red spectrum which sits at the outer edge of the cone moves through the cloud.
From my position and this is where the eyes workings come into the equation so too speak, it appears the cloudbase is being lit by a sun that appears to be falling away to the vanishing point which makes the sun appear to be below the cloud base.

The truth is it doesn' t drop and it stays at whatever altitude its at during the passage of the day. As it moves its cone of focussed light moves with it just as I can move a cone of torch light across the floor.
The llit cloud is an optical effect which can be created with eitherr a prism or a magnifying glass.

I do not see the toroidal field in use to explain the lighting. I have never read any theory of colour but have looked a long way into toroid's and their role in the patterning of the physical world around me so I would guess Goethe suggests the red is at the outer edge of the toroidal shape which if I am correct is the same edge where I put the red in my cone suggestion.

There seems to me to be nothing gained by the ball shaped sun from sending lvisible light out in a 360 degree ball when all the life it fosters is underneath it on the living edge where liquid and vapour meet.


----------



## dreamtime (Feb 14, 2022)

Let me clean up this thread before I open it again.

***​
I had to delete dozens of messages. Please try to stay on topic, and keep the discussion civil. It's possible to disagree, and respectfully exchange arguments, ideas and concepts.

@NotFE please do not insult others and resort to sarcasm.


----------



## User1 (Feb 14, 2022)

Thanks @dreamtime



Daniel said:


> You mean like:



Thanks.  Not that great using the inter-webs so could only get low quality maps.  This will work for what I'm trying to demonstrate.  So this may seem a bit off-topic but in my view it is directly related to why this question of sunset is so difficult to answer.  Using the FE map provided, it follows that the earth runs it's course in 24 hours and when we observe a sunset in one place there is a corresponding sunrise in another.  I would think these locations would have to be 12 hours apart because if they are not, then we would have to assume that the speed at which the sun travels (or earth rotates, whatever floats your boat) is not constant and it speeds up  or slows down.  So:





*A)* Sunset - Cape Town South Africa - 19h40
*B)* Corresponding Sunrise - Hawaii USA - 07h02

and

*C) *Sunset Darwin Australia - 19h16
*D)* Corresponding Sunrise - Salvador Brazil - 05h32

So I don't know if I picked out Hawaii on the map but that's where I estimate it should be to correspond with the location for a sunrise as per map.  There time difference between these locations is about 12 hours so it should be a 180 degree move across the map.  The times correspond roughly and assuming Hawaii is in the highlighted area B then it is as per model.

 For C & D, I just did a 180 degree move across the map and then checked the sunrise/sunset times, which didn't correspond.  Which is where things get interesting.  Either the map is wrong, the times are wrong or I did something wrong (I'm new to this so very possible).




ryanzehm said:


> A light wave, travelling parallel to earth's flat surface, constantly encountering "dense" media (think about the air as 1000 panes of glass all lined up) will constantly be slowed down. The speed of light, is *only *in vacuum, and slows down when it enters a dense media such as air, water, or glass.
> 
> Light traveling through 1000 panes of glass will BEND when entering each sheet of glass, and it will also slow down each time. This is provable with empirical experimentation, so go try it before debating. It happens. And air is no different. For example: 1 meter of air, you could break it down into 1000 'microscopic' sheets of air. And when light enters each one, it will slightly slow down.



Thanks for the detailed explanation.  I find it curious that for a forum which is firmly rooted in the distrust of official narratives about history, there is a general acceptance of official science.  I mean they literally say it is scientific theory and not scientific fact so not at all convinced that this is actually how it works.  It a plausible explanation offered by them then they offer the disclaimer that it's only a theory and giggle their arses off because most people accept the theory as fact.  Not a slight on you @ryanzehm , I just think we're all deceived in almost every conceivable way.



Seeker said:


> Lets suppose you live on a busy street. It's night time. There is no lighting anywhere, except for one home a little way down the road, say 50 or 60 feet or so. From your position you can see through one of their lit windows.
> You can see the illuminated contents of the room.
> Supposedly the light source is illuminating its immediate vicinity of 5-10 feet, and then the light is bouncing off of those objects a further 50-60 feet to your eyes, which is why you can see them.
> 
> ...



100%.  This is my point exactly.  There's something here that just doesn't add up, regardless of whether we are talking about illumination, colour or vanishing points.  Whatever scientific theory is being touted, it just doesn't add up, which is why I don't think anyone is going to even offer an answer to these questions because we don't actually have answers for them.  The "science" fails to explain this.



space966 said:


> For me in OP 2nd big photo looks, like clouds are lighten up from above.



Yes it does, though you would notice that the top part of the cloud is oddly not changing colour like the middle section.  This is where the comment by @kd-755 about it there seeming to be some kind of lens effect makes a lot of sense to me.



Seeker said:


> It isn't suddenly being 'lit up from below' as if it wasnt already 'lit up'.
> 
> It has changed colour. It is darkening from white to yellow. Your picture of the sun and bouncing lines is meaningless. It was always 'lit up'.
> 
> ...



When I started the thread I didn't even consider it but I agree with your observation.  The cloud was always illuminated.  We have a colour effect, which may be due to a prism, lens or some concentration of charge on the peripheries of of the clouds, or whatever.  It looks lit.



kd-755 said:


> Irrespective of it being either a toroid or a cone the red light band is furthest awasy from the source hence we see its effect when the source is furthest away from our viewing position. Ergo either it is moving or we are.


This explains why there is no effect when the light is concentrated above the clouds.....makes sense.  So combing the 2, we have a concentrated lens effect, which is what gives the warmth and whatnot, then the toroidal effect brings about the colour change as the clouds exit the field of polarity.  Feels like we're getting somewhere.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 14, 2022)

It was probably for the best to clean up the thread a bit, no problem.

I did see at least one message after my final one, which I was hoping to answer, I'm not sure if there were any more after that.

Anyway... I also had other questions about the colour scattering solution.

For one thing, the spectrum of colours contains all the different colours of the rainbow. So why we do we generally only see red, yellow and orange effects on clouds? Why never green clouds, or blue clouds? Unless someone has pictures of this? If we are observing a prismatic effect, surely at some point conditions would allow for these colours too?

Also, whilst Ryan Zehms illustrations appear wildly over-complicated, it is also too simplistic to simply draw a yellow circle with a diagonal line towards the ground, have it bounce back into the cloud and declare this 'proof of yellow'.

In reality, if we assume the effects of the sun to be omni-directional, the rays would be bouncing around all over the place. The ground, nearby houses, a forest adjacent to the town, a mountain range on the horizon. You would have diagonal lines of all varying lengths, and multiple bouncing points all eventually hitting the cloud before allegedly bouncing into your eyes.

Surely this would then result in a vast kaleidoscope of rainbows and assorted jumbled colours all over the place at all times?

I'm sorry, but that explanation still doesnt add up for me.

I've not yet had a chance to reconsider how the Goethe theory of colour may or may not work in other situations.


User1 said:


> *A)* Sunset - Cape Town South Africa - 19h40
> *B)* Corresponding Sunrise - Hawaii USA - 07h02
> 
> and
> ...


Hi User1,

With regards to these, I think you need to bear in mind that the length of the _daytime_ is not always fixed, due to the seasons. You also need to consider that they are different depending on north/south hemisphere.

I would also agree/hope that the speed of the sun is fixed, but the course it travels is not.
Which is interesting..... in the flat Earth model, the length of the suns orbit during summer in the North Hemisphere would be much much smaller than the length of the suns orbit during summer in the South Hemisphere.
Thats a pretty big anomaly in my opinion, one that I hadnt considered before. Does Sandokhan or advanced flat earth theory have anything to say about this one? 

To clarify - if the length of the suns orbit is so much longer (tracing a much bigger sized circle), either the length of the _overall day_ would change, or the speed of the sun would need to change.

A possible answer to this.... one which I dont necessarily support because at first glance it sounds a bit bonkers.... perhaps the Earth is disk shaped, the sun also travels a fixed path around the Equator, but the disc shape is constantly flexing between convex and concave over the course of a year. IE - during summer in the north hemisphere, the centre of the disc is raised, and outer edges lowered - and then the centre gradually depresses, and the outer rim raises up, as summer approaches the southern hemisphere.
Not sure how I feel about that. But a different sized orbit depending on the seasons is a big anomaly. Also, this doesnt really have anything to do with the OP, so sorry for the off-topic. Your investigation prompted me in this direction!

Edit - to make a distinction between daytime and overall day


----------



## User1 (Feb 14, 2022)

Seeker said:


> In reality, if we assume the effects of the sun to be omni-directional, the rays would be bouncing around all over the place. The ground, nearby houses, a forest adjacent to the town, a mountain range on the horizon. You would have diagonal lines of all varying lengths, and multiple bouncing points all eventually hitting the cloud before allegedly bouncing into your eyes.



This is what I initially questioned KD on, to which his response was that the sunlight was not omni-directional but rather a focused light (light cone), which is what we observe.  The sun is hottest when directly above us.  Above the clouds there we can observe a heatspot directly below the sun and if we look into the heavens, there appears to be no light shining in an upward direction.  What's odd is that would seem the sky is blue so the the sun lights up the heavens but the higher up a hot-air balloon goes, the darker it gets, even though we are closer the sun.  I'm again wondering whether this can't be explained in toroidal terms.  As in the closer we are to the sun, the weaker the toroidal field (or whatever it is) and once a certain distance from the sun, there is field concentration, which is what makes the colour spectrum visible.  Not just the reds but blues as well.

So, to bring this back to the question of sunset:

1) Does any scientific theory adequately explain the way light behaves? - I would say no.  Firstly because the "scientists"  call it a theory and discuss it as such.  Secondly, there were numerous aspects of the theories presented which could not address the difference between illumination and colouration as well as the ability to perceive light without the light influencing the environment surrounding the eyes at all (as though you were seeing through your mind's eye  )
2) Does the sun actually set? - Intuitively my heart/head says yes.  Noting the discussion about vanishing points (I'm really not interested in any FE-type debate), the limitation of that experiment is that we cannot zoom in until the sun starts to curve away as it orbits as per the FE model.  Also, the glow of the clouds is akin to the glow when standing near a fire or open flame, so this is why even though I agree that there is definitely an element of colour-change that is being observed and not just illumination, it does seem to actually be illuminated from below.

I'm starting to think that a Stolen Science site may be in order as I think scientific theory is by and large BS.  We struggle to understand the technologies of previous civilizations because we've been fed these plausible scientific theories which are inadequate when diving down into the detail. All we get are impossibly complex equations, and little in the way of answers, just more theories.

I'm not sure if I'm getting closer to understanding what actually happens when the sun sets but I am moving further away from the official narrative and as KD says, it's really just a false dichotomy that's being constructed so people can choose FE or globe, left or right.  We can just say the explanations are unsatisfactory and we reserve judgement on the matter.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 14, 2022)

The answers in climatic variation from North to South. Antarctica is at least twenty degrees cooler than the arctic . 

The Northern tropic is where all the hot dry deserts are found  - cools towards the equator still warm and wet and the southern tropic are found the cool dry deserts. 

Look also at the difference in flora and fauna between the arctic and antarctic circles . 

All perfectly in line with the idea that the sun has to spread its energy further as it retreats south  , an all against the predictions of the globe earth.


----------



## User1 (Feb 14, 2022)

Seeker said:


> With regards to these, I think you need to bear in mind that the length of the day is not always fixed, due to the seasons. You also need to consider that they are different depending on north/south hemisphere.


That's what I thought but I reasoned that a sunset here equals a sunrise there so either there needs to be 180 degree (or whatever angle it will be on your earth shape model) relationship between locations and sunsets/sunrises or a time relationship i.e. 12 hours.  Which is why used the 2 examples as I don't know which.



Seeker said:


> Not sure how I feel about that. But a different sized orbit depending on the seasons is a big anomaly. Also, this doesnt really have anything to do with the OP, so sorry for the off-topic. Your investigation prompted me in this direction!



I don't think this is off-topic at all.  It's like trying to explain how to bake a cake without explaining how to operate an oven.  I think they need to feed into each other.  We cannot explain a sunset without explaining where the sun is when it's "setting"(whatever that means).  I'm not great with maps but that's why I wanted the map to just plot the events.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 14, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> The answers in climatic variation from North to South. Antarctica is at least twenty degrees cooler than the arctic .
> 
> The Northern tropic is where all the hot dry deserts are found  - cools towards the equator still warm and wet and the southern tropic are found the cool dry deserts.
> 
> ...


Thanks Angelina, that much is at least a little reassuring - but have they considered the length/size/circumference of the orbit?

Any orbit in the southern hemisphere would be much, much larger than an orbit in the northern hemisphere - is there any way to explain this, as far as you know? If the sun traveled at a uniform speed, it would take much longer to complete a one-day cycle.


User1 said:


> That's what I thought but I reasoned that a sunset here equals a sunrise there so either there needs to be 180 degree (or whatever angle it will be on your earth shape model) relationship between locations and sunsets/sunrises or a time relationship i.e. 12 hours.  Which is why used the 2 examples as I don't know which.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think this is off-topic at all.  It's like trying to explain how to bake a cake without explaining how to operate an oven.  I think they need to feed into each other.  We cannot explain a sunset without explaining where the sun is when it's "setting"(whatever that means).  I'm not great with maps but that's why I wanted the map to just plot the events.



Well, not exactly.... Lets suppose in winter you are only getting 8 hours of sunlight. Thats one third of the day, rather than one half. So therefore sunrise in one place would correspond to sunset either 120 or 240 degrees away (depending on which direction you go) - hopefully this makes sense.


----------



## User1 (Feb 14, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> All perfectly in line with the idea that the sun has to spread its energy further as it retreats south , an all against the predictions of the globe earth.



So is the sun moving slower when it's further north and orbits faster as it retreats south?



Seeker said:


> Any orbit in the southern hemisphere would be much, much larger than an orbit in the northern hemisphere - is there any way to explain this, as far as you know? If the sun traveled at a uniform speed, it would take much longer to complete a one-day cycle.



Was literally just wondering that.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 14, 2022)

The sun moves faster on her journey towards our winter solstice which is why we observe 15 degrees of her arc per hour.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 14, 2022)

For me the key thing is the medium in which light works so to speak. We guess at what light is and science is something that is enraptured with theory for theory's sake because as long as the scientist can avoid saying "I don't know." The longer their credibilty endures.

As I mentioned may have been in the now deleted posts, light in the water vapour behaves differently to light in the liquid waterr. Using a candle as the light source it illuminates in a 360 degree omnidirectional field if you will which extends outwards for a limited distance except for down towards the wick obviously.
If we squint we can make out the red colour light at the extremity of the distance the light is from the source the burning wick.
We can also see all the other colours of the visible spectrum with a bit more effort then once we leave the eyes to do their job the full spectrum light returns.

The candle light is of course unfocussed by any lens but the sun light is focussed as evidenced by where the majority of the life lives at the edge between liquid and vapour. Our eyes can see in water but not as well as they do in vapour therefore they are meant to be used in the vapour not the liquid.
The water vapour over my head is an almost unknown entity as we do not see it only the effects it has and these effects show it to be in motion. How far above my head it goes I have no idea maybe it is all underneath the sun or just as likely it extends beyond the sun.
However the suns light only reveals its colour composition at the the begining and end of what to me is the suns transit across the living edge. This suggests the light coming from the sun is not omnidirectional as the candle light is but it passes through a lens of some kind and it is this lens which creates the same redenning effect we create when we squint when looking at a candle light.

Our eyes and brain are not tuned to see any of the colour spectrum. Individually as even the red light has to illuminate something be it cloud or hill for our eyes to register the effect. The vapour between cloud and us remains as colourless as it always is. Easily tested with fairly lights switched on in daylight. They are normally red green blue and yellow and they all look very dull in daylight and its hard to realise they are in fact on but dim the room light or close the curtains and we see them quite clearly.
As the morning suns light moves in the lens effect puts red light at the head of the march so too speak so we see pinks in the clouds on the hills for a short time then as the following colours come on we get daylight where we see no colours in the light. Then as night draws in the 'back side' of suns light once again comes to prominence and clouds and hills turn red again.
Red is the extreme point at which our eyes range of visible light sits.

Because we assume the sun to be a ball and as I have said its appearance in my vision as a perfect circle is only explicable with a three dimensional ball shape, we do not consider the possibility that then lens or indeed the ball is itself tilting from side to side on its travels..


----------



## Akanah (Feb 14, 2022)

I just remembered that before I found this forum here, I once came across a Nasa video from orbit around the earth that showed the sun's path in time lapse and the sun making a strange looping motion. To me it looked like the earth was not orbiting the sun, but like the earth was just tumbling back and forth like the moon. When I later got the idea of an embryonic earth, I incorporated this looping motion as a tumbling motion.
Unfortunately I don't know where this Nasa video disappeared to.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 14, 2022)

User1 said:


> Peace
> 
> Firstly, thanks to all the who post such interesting content, I find many fascinating ideas at SH and that's a credit to the members who contribute to this site.
> 
> ...


I guess I'm confused. I thought the question had to do with why clouds can appear lit from underneath and I think that anyone who understands that all parallel lines will converge at a single point can explain this.

But now its about the different colors we see on the clouds? If this is about debunking flat earth claims like the op suggests, can someone explain the relevance of the colors (as I'm obviously missing something)?





Akanah said:


> I just remembered that before I found this forum here, I once came across a Nasa video from orbit around the earth that showed the sun's path in time lapse and the sun making a strange looping motion. To me it looked like the earth was not orbiting the sun, but like the earth was just tumbling back and forth like the moon. When I later got the idea of an embryonic earth, I incorporated this looping motion as a tumbling motion.
> Unfortunately I don't know where this Nasa video disappeared to.


Everything from nasa is fake, nothing orbits anything, and Earth does not move.

That is all.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 14, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> I guess I'm confused. I thought the question had to do with why clouds can appear lit from underneath and I think that anyone who understands that all parallel lines will converge at a single point can explain this.
> 
> But now its about the different colors we see on the clouds? If this is about debunking flat earth claims like the op suggests, can someone explain the relevance of the colors (as I'm obviously missing something)?


I think half of the problem is correctly determining the observable phenomena.

The point is, just because the cloud appears to be yellow on the underside, does not suddenly mean it is being illuminated from below. It was always illuminated. If it wasn't illuminated, it would be engulfed in darkness. That is not the case, so it cannot be correct. Bananas are yellow. It doesn't mean they are being illuminated from a particular direction.

The issue is not that the cloud is 'now being lit from below'. It is a faulty observation. We are witnessing a change in colour, or a darkening.

Maybe angles and distance and refractions or some prismatic effect have something to do with it - but as the situation stands, I don't see any conclusive evidence that parallel lines or diagonal lines or any similar diagrams are proof of something turning yellow.

If it was prismatic, then why do we never see green or blue?

If we do not correct assess what is actually happening, then we would be working towards a solution to a problem that doesnt even exist.

I dont think anyone is trying to debunk flat earth. I certainly am not. We would just like to understand what is actually happening and how it works. If it does somehow debunk flat earth, I will be surprised and disappointed at that. But I will also be happy about being one step closer to understanding the truth.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 14, 2022)

This is what I observe. And I have spent a bit of time taking pictures and video of our sun disappearing.

The problem is that most folks have locked in their brains that when the sun sets, they see something like this:



In reality, the above is just a distorted and quite magnified mess that actually hides the sun "setting" or actually receding behind it, until ultimately it is gone.

The brightest yellow circle in the center can be seen here, still behind what's left of the distorted, refracted light, still receding, and still above the horizon:


In real time it looks like this:


As far the op's suggestion that the sunset somehow debunks fe, please consider from a video I shot myself, that even when the crazy, distorted image from the sun begins to look like it is setting, a simple zoom can easily show that this is not the case. 

Because the camera is able to resolve images at far greater distances, we are able to see how high in the sky the sun still actually is:

The above could never happen on a ball.

ALL parallel lines will converge at the same exact vanishing point because that is how our world works:



Hope that made sense.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 14, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> This is what I observe. And I have spent a bit of time taking pictures and video of our sun disappearing.
> 
> The problem is that most folks have locked in their brains that when the sun sets, they see something like this:
> View attachment 19725
> ...


Im really confused at why we once again have these images.

The OP clearly said, he doesnt believe the globe earth model. He accepts that you can zoom in on a 'setting sun', and 'hey presto!' you can see the sun once again.

Vanishing points and convergence are all accepted explanations for this phenomena. There is no need for everyone to keep restating these points. They are accepted.

Seriously.... can we move on from optics with regards to vanishing points, please?


----------



## User1 (Feb 14, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> As far the op's suggestion that the sunset somehow debunks fe, please consider from a video I shot myself, tha


I've never suggested that fe is being debunked nor was it the purpose of the post. I'm closer to fe than any other model I've seen thus far but I honestly don't care what shape the earth. What is of interest to me is that the history of the world is largely a lie. That's how I found my way here. It follows that those who control history control academia so then science I'm similarly questioning.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 14, 2022)

The way our eyes and brain deliver the world they/we see means that in the imagery we see and capture in our devices makes it appears that the sun is dropping below the cloud base.
That has nothing to do with the cloud base appearing orange to our eyesd at sunset. The colouration of the clouds has everthing to do with the spectrum of light or waveband or frequency or whatever term fits with ones believes that strikes the cloud

In short it is a lighhting effect and instead of twineing on about earth shape can we instead trty and figure what  causes the suns light to change the way it does from morning till night. There appears to be something staring us in the face but we cannot see it.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 14, 2022)

User1 said:


> On to the matter of science and specifically, the sunset. Many may have seen the videos of flat-earthers stating the sun doesn't actually set but it just disappears behind the vanishing point and if you zoom in, you'll see the sun hasn't set at all. And they then proceed to show the footage of a sun that is setting, but is not actually setting, just moving away. It all seems very convincing. Until you look at images of clouds when the sun sets...


FTR, that is where, in the OP, my confusion stemmed from.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 14, 2022)

I know this is the moon and not the sun but it serves to illustrate what I am banging on about and this was taken half an hour ago on a compact camera  with me bracing myself against a wall pointing the camera directly at the moon and barring cropping there is no software fiddling done to it.

You can just about make out the red tinge on the extreme right (the moons right the viewers left) the furthest part away from the source. It is an optical effect that only appears when there is the cloud between the moon and me that is thin enough to allow the moons light through.
It appears to me that the moons light is not focussed as the suns is hence it needs the cloud to reveal the presence of the red light at the edge of the visible light. The cloud in effect provides the lens if you will even though it is much closer to me than it is to the moon unlike the suns 'lens' or focussing apparatus/device whatever which is either very close to the source or is part and parcel of it. 

The cloud is water droplets within the water vapour or so we are told. I have never been comfortable with this explanation quite honestly but that aside the droplets are acting as the lens mechanism because the light beyond the red ring becomes much lower and though the cloud remains lit it is now a murky whitey sort of grey as the moons light is nowhere near as bright as the suns is, if bright is the right word.

I feel it is the presence of the combination of lens on the sun and the light passing through water vapour which causes the red light to appear in our vision when it strikes the cloud or the hill or indeed the surface of water. 

It is not a prism which splits all light like the rain bow does which may simply be a feature of the size of the liquid water droplets moving through the water vapour that surrounds them but it is seems incontrovertible to me that the sun is focussed by something or in and of itself.




Please do not expect me to provide science whatever the hell that it is or go along with all that scientists have said over my lifetime. I am simply looking at what I see with these mince pies that is a combined output with my brain to render the physical world around me and trying to make sense of what it is I am seeing occur that is all. It is not a theory its ideas being written down here and shared in the hopes of the decent discussion being allowed to carry on so we might collectively get some sort of handle on the sun.


----------



## User1 (Feb 14, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> I know this is the moon and not the sun but it serves to illustrate what I am banging on about and this was taken half an hour ago on a compact camera  with me bracing myself against a wall pointing the camera directly at the moon and barring cropping there is no software fiddling done to it.
> 
> You can just about make out the red tinge on the extreme right (the moons right the viewers left) the furthest part away from the source. It is an optical effect that only appears when there is the cloud between the moon and me that is thin enough to allow the moons light through.
> It appears to me that the moons light is not focussed as the suns is hence it needs the cloud to reveal the presence of the red light at the edge of the visible light. The cloud in effect provides the lens if you will even though it is much closer to me than it is to the moon unlike the suns 'lens' or focussing apparatus/device whatever which is either very close to the source or is part and parcel of it.
> ...


Thanks for the share. So looking at this image and your explanation, I have a few more questions but I think my view of what we are observing is starting to crystallize. Firstly, my takeaway from this and the other posts shared:

1) I think all the explanations around refraction, angles of light and the light splitting through the prism are definitely not what is being observed
2) Perhaps due to the "water vapor" or altitude  or some other reason, the red wavelength seems to concentrate on the side of the clouds as observed most commonly, sometimes on hills but it's not something we observe anywhere and everywhere
3) if this is the case (big if), then light is either not what we have been told it is OR it does not behave the way we have been told it behaves. The example that springs to mind is we can observe the inside of lit room while in darkness yet the light traveling to our eyes in no way lights up our surroundings.  Again, it seems as though it concentrates in our eyes due to some property of the eye or light, not simply the eye receiving the light beam/ray/wave otherwise I'd expect the surroundings to also receive it.

On to the questions:
4) Is your view that the moon gives off light or reflects it?
5) If it gives off light,  is the light of the moon is different to that of the sun? The same effect is observed. Why?
6) If reflected, then we are saying the sun or some other distant light source is again responsible. How when the light source is not even visible?

Thanks for the input.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 14, 2022)

I have no idea what the moon is other than it definitely is not a three dimensional ball due to its changing shape and whatever it is that seems to cover it to create a crescent shape which itself is see through in daylight so the ring of light is still visible. Timeshifter has some superb picture of that on here somewhere.
That said it is either a light in and of itself or it is a window of some sort to a light behind it in a hole in wall with a light behind it so too speak. But that is all my speculation. It produces an unfocussed light which whilst it lands on the same living level as the suns light it does not have its intensity nor its spread. An enigma wrapped up in a conundrum is what I know it is!

The only differences I discern is the brightness or intensity is different and the suns light is focussed with a lens close to it it and the moons is not. The lighting effect of the red edge so do speak is not limited to the sun and moon it can be seen in torch light ans especially those night sun lights they hang off of helicopters so I reckon it has as much to do with the medium as in the water vapour as anything else.

I am with you completely in not trusting science to tell us anything of consequence about light. Every single time I have dived into sources of science or indeed historical academia it is a paper referencing a paper referencing a paper and then an opinion appears under the pile of papers if I get lucky. Most times its just papers about papers disappearing into time before computers existed.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

I have been looking for toroidal light in so much as light in a toroidal shape and I cannot find any. Light always comes with a source. I say with quite deliberately as everything I come with light emanates from a source. With seemingly the luminaries and stars as possible exceptions but as they are all literally beyond reach I hope to use the sources within reach to come to some idea of how the beyond reach light sources work.

All I have been able to find is ball shaped light. It is not quite 360 as it does not illuminate its source. 
A toroid shape is simply a ball shape squeezed about its middle so it is entirely possible that the ball light I am seeing is in reality a toroid not a ball but my eyes and brain cannot see it so present light as a ball.

Thing is I cannot figure out a way to determine the existence of the toroid. Light illuminates an area of water vapour that forms a lit three dimensional ball. We can easily ascertain this by walking round a candle on a pole in the dark.
The light is brightest nearest the source and fades into nothing furthest from the source no matter what direction we view it from.
If it were actually toroidal why do our eyes not show us the toroid?

I have been taught that light moves from point A its source to point B and illuminate anything at point B. Once it has illuminated point B it then scatters off from whatever point B is in a straight line relative the the angle the light first struck point B and then fades to nothing.
I have also been taught light has a wave length and it bounces in a wave form down a straight line so the straight part is merely a descriptor of travel not an actual thing.

Certainly a laser is the best example I could find of a light seeming to travel in straight lines but it is false as the laser is focussed light not a light and source. In short it is no different to a torch where a bulb creates a ball shape light and the lens construction delivers a beam of light.

Every time it takes a lens to turn the ball or toroid into a beam.

So on the back of that it follows that a light source without a lens is ball shaped around its source. Or am I barking?
The reality could be toroidal but I cannot fathom how light from a single source can be made to reveal its toroidal reality. 
So in a ball of light from a source what is the light actually doing?
Does it actually go anywhere at all?
Is it in fact omnidirectional only limited by the source in the same way a dimmer is used to control the light from a bulb between a minimum and a maximum amount?
We never see a firefly whose back end is noticeably brighter than the others around it for example and all the matches in a box burn with the same amount of light present.
Is what we perceive as light simply a reaction of the water vapour or in the case of deep sea creatures liquid water?


----------



## Seeker (Feb 15, 2022)

I actually had a ball/sphere shape in mind the whole time. Toroid was a bad use of terminology on my part. I've been watching too much Ewaranon and the like. 

If light behaves in that manner, I would expect its area of influence to be spherical.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

Aah. Would explain why the toroid is not manifesting!
I wonder. A torch bulb lit but without its lens in the dark in line with  my eyes would reveal a fading circle of light from centre to edge.
Putting the lens on reveals a brighter circle of light so it must be that the lens is somehow able to take the ball and shine it back into itself and at the same time increase both distance it illuminates and brightness?
Or am I 'off beam ' there?

Edit to add
In the lensless torch example we could walk to either side of the torch and see a circle of light, it doesn'distort at all but with the lens on walking to to side would reveal a triangle shape or beam of light wider at its extremity than it is at its source.

Lift the torch above my head and thus we create the same light pattern/shape the suns light has?


----------



## User1 (Feb 15, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> what is the light actually doing?
> Does it actually go anywhere at all?


This is where I'm at.  I've been looking at shadows, hoping that this would provide clarity and perhaps there is a simple explanation for what I'm about to share but it seemed odd.  So, in the  lounge area I have a tv and wall-mounted light behind it to its right.  Then on the opposite wall there are wall-mounted lights close to each corner of the wall.  As I was sitting last night I noticed a shadow cast by the tv from the light to my left and I thought," Ok, I suppose the light on the tv's side probably
can't  illuminate that wall so there is a difference in luminosity or light intensity, thus the shadow."  Then I realized, there are 2 lights facing the tv, and they are the same lights, same height, same bulbs, same everything.  Yet a shadow is cast by the one light and the other light, which is shining directly on the shadow area, doesn't light it up, the shadow remains seemingly unaffected.  That's when I thought I might not actually understand what shadows are either because I just figured shadows happen when the path of light is blocked, i.e. no/low light.  How then is there a shadow when a light source identical to the light source casting the shadow is shining directly on the shadow area?

Coming back to the clouds at sunset. Clouds are illuminated from above and below, we've established this.  Clouds also cast a shadow, this is known.  Increased air density (i.e. high levels of humidity or water vapor in the air) should result in increased light refraction/bend according to the numerous drawings that have been shared (  ) which, I would expect, result in some discernible difference between what is observed in coastal regions and what is observed inland.  I've lived by the coast and inland and I've never noticed a difference but this could just be because I wasn't paying attention to these things back then.

Now as for the sunset.....I don't think light moving in straight lines explains the underside lighting effect.  If we assume this is simply a colour effect, caused by red spectrum light being observed, which it could be then it partially explains it but I feel it's more than colour.  There's a luminosity which is akin to focusing light on an object. So what I'm thinking is what if light moves in some weird form, and perhaps toroidal is the wrong word but the shape is important.  So what I imagine is something like this:





As this field of light interacts with the atmosphere, the outer edges of the field concentrates energy/polarity/something and this causes the red spectrum to be observed in the clouds and sky.  This is probably the explanation that makes the most sense to me even though it opens up a lot of other questions and cannot explain the mechanism of how this works. Pure speculation basically.

Edit: Also, just thinking about shadows again, perhaps this is why when the sun is directly above us, our shadow is at it's smallest, as we are least affected by the field.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 15, 2022)

@User1
The picture you have supplied is more what I had in mind when I initially said toroid, as this one is roughly spherical. But, many other images describe it as a donut.

I feel though the effects are simply to those of gravity, magnetism etc. Each has a sphere of influence. I'm not convinced about light rays and beams etc.

It feels more as though light has a sphere of influence which causes a reaction in nearby objects, which then vibrate on a frequency or in a way that our eyes can perceive. 

I'm wondering if its better to classify this as a quality or even a dimension. But then what else can be classified in this way? Density? Colour? Sound? Flavour? Texture?

One thing I still dont understand though - how do you explain the phenomena that sometimes a person can immediately tell when you are looking at them? So much so that they immediately turn and look you right in the eye, without hesitation. It's almost as if eyes are a transmitter as well as a receiver. Some connection is being formed.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

I've said frequently on here the eyes are both camera and projector that is why working out their geometry and the way it distorts reality is important to figuring things out.

Apologies user I have just noticed your post above.
I have never noticed your TV example before so will see if I can replicate it this evening. 

As for the toroid picture and vibrations frequencies beams and the myriad of words we are given to try and explain things.
Toroid's do not manifest in my vision only drawings of toroid's. Magnets with iron filings on a piece of paper reveal the existence of a toroidal shape but that shape is not stable as the filings will all be pushed towards the ends of the magnet with ease.
That light does not move in the way we are told it does seems beyond doubt. In truth I doubt it moves anywhere. I am coming to the probability light source does something to the water vapour, as you may be able to tell from these comments. 

Are there any examples of a movement or vbibration of something that can give off a light?
I know that on some level a candle or match burning is a movement in the reduction of the source material but that material is not vibrating as it will sit happily for years and years without burning or giving off light.


----------



## Seeker (Feb 15, 2022)

It's actually pretty interesting that the image of a toroid supplied there, actually contains the spectrum of light..... No idea if thats meant to be just artistic license, but it's very much a coincidence for this conversation.


----------



## User1 (Feb 15, 2022)

Seeker said:


> I'm wondering if its better to classify this as a quality or even a dimension.



This is what I suggested  early on in the thread.  It appears as though the sun is setting to the naked eye.  If you zoom in, it appears as though the sun is just moving away.  I don't think it's either.  To link in with your question


Seeker said:


> how do you explain the phenomena that sometimes a person can immediately tell when you are looking at them?



And what KD is saying


kd-755 said:


> the eyes are both camera and projector



I'm inclined to think the sun sets but not in the way we imagine.  It doesn't go down below the earth, nor does it move away.  These observations are us interacting with the quality/dimension/trait of light.  The moment we look or observe it, we influence it (not in the sense that we can change our destiny kind of influence).  We are basically doing a kind of sonar with our eyes and the light bounces back after we "ping" the environment.

So what does this mean? The sun and possibly light may exist outside our dimension but interact with it and moves in manner outside our understanding of physics.  It also ties in with what KD speculates about the moon. It may be a window for some other light source.  A window into another place, which is here but not here, strange as that sounds.  In the Islamic tradition it is taught angels are made of light and jinn are made of smokeless fire - some think this may refer to energy. These beings observe us from a place wherefrom we can't observe them and they do directly interact with our world.  

I'm not sure how much further we can go with this but just want to express thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion. In the absence of anything which refutes what has been said, I feel I'm a bit closer to understanding what is happening, if only by understanding what is not happening.  Still lots up for debate so hoping there's more we can get out of this.

Peace


Seeker said:


> It's actually pretty interesting that the image of a toroid supplied there, actually contains the spectrum of light..... No idea if thats meant to be just artistic license, but it's very much a coincidence for this conversation.


 As though it was sent.....


kd-755 said:


> Are there any examples of a movement or vbibration of something that can give off a light?


Example that comes to mind is a glow-stick.  If memory serves correctly, you just shake it then the chemicals activate.  Not sure if this i the kind of vibration you have in mind but it's all I can think of right now.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

Here is an image of a cone jelly and its lights. Seemed perfect to add it in here.



I feel the sun is part and parcel of what we call reality. I base this on how it appears as a perfect circle within my field of vision wherever I am in relation to it. It is a three dimensional ball which may have an integral light source and equally may have a tether or pipe or some such, wick even that we cannot see as it s connection is always facing away from us. It is physical thing unlike the moon whose shape changes and rarely does it present a perfect circle in my vision.

That I do not experience the thing I am standing on moving then the only other possibility is the sun is doing the moving. It appears to move between two limits which it never contravenes it never slows nor speeds up it seems it just alters its position relative to mine every day. Sundials do not move yet once aligned correctly they work perfectly day in day out by interrupting the light from the sun throughout the day throughout the year.

The sundial is prime evidence to me that the earth plane is not moving it is static. It is also prime evidence the light from the sun is focused down to the living layer so whatever the source of the suns light is there is defintely a lens between it and my eyes.
The sun is constantly in motion. The appearance of it setting as defined as falling below the horizon which is nothing more than the inbuilt vanishing point of our eyes his a nonsense that is a faculty of the limitations of our viewing and projecting apparatus without whichbwe could not move around as we do.

All light sources were limited without exception. They all illuminate a limited area in a ball shape that fades from source to edge. This does not correllate at all with straight line light nor does it correlate with the toroidal shape hypothesis. True some of those limited areas of illumination are vast  on a human scale but the fact they are all limited is proven by daylight itself..

One thing I ponder about from time to time is that there are in fact 360 suns on parallel journeys but in their own tracks so to speak. So we believe we see the same one disappear and reappear every successive day in reality they are in fact different.
Would that mean this plane is beyond comprehension in terms of scale?
I would argue it must and it would also give rise to the idea of multiple dimensions, realities, lost lands, lost flora and fauna especially as this part of the plain has everything a human sized human needs to live then it is not beyond comprehension other parts are scaled differently and what we perceive of as tales of giants and dragons and dwarfs etc are nothing more than travellers tales. The travellers between different parts of the plane. Us to theirs and them to ours.

Fanciful it is and I have no way to prove any of it but to me the existence of land and water outside of the land and water we are told exists is much more likely that dimensions.

Apologies if that is wanderring too far user1!


----------



## User1 (Feb 15, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> One thing I ponder about from time to time is that there are in fact 360 suns on parallel journeys


 
I've never come across this theory.  Please share a link so I can explore.


kd-755 said:


> Would that mean this plane is beyond comprehension in terms of scale?


Yes.  I'm of the opinion that we are told to look into space (whatever that is) for new horizons because the rulers don't want us to know just how big this world is, and I believe this world is incomprehensibly big.  We can't go that high up, we can't dig that low down.  There is a literal limit to how deep we can descend into the ocean.  There are very real limits to our experience of this reality.


kd-755 said:


> the existence of land and water outside of the land and water we are told exists is much more likely that dimensions.


I'm of the view that both are probable.  Not extra dimensions of the marvel universe variety where there are multiple KDs, just dimensions in which life exists in a form that we can't really understand, comprehend or appreciate at this stage.



kd-755 said:


> Apologies if that is wanderring too far user1!


Sometimes in order to solve a problem we need to create the framework within which to solve the problem and that of itself may be a journey and part of the problem-solving journey.

Crazy that something which seemed as though it should be fairly straightforward to explain is anything but.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 15, 2022)

Its not a theory its an idea that sometimes makes a lot of sense to me other times I dismiss it as madness!


----------



## veeall (Feb 17, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> The brightest yellow circle in the center can be seen here, still behind what's left of the distorted, refracted light, still receding, and still above the horizon:
> 
> 
> In real time it looks like this:


This is what hints to me towards the sunlit undersides of a clouds being due to reflection:





I think the area below this line (the true vanishing point) is the reflection of the sky along with the disappearing sun. In minor angles (of the receiving light (excuse my English)) any surface increases in its reflectance, so maybe that is the source for the illumination of the clouds from below, tinting the undersides into whatever colors.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 17, 2022)

veeall said:


> I think the area below this line (the true vanishing point)...


The vanishing point will be eye-level, regardless of altitude... always.


And sorry, because I am more interested in objective, demonstrable reality, regardless of the speculation about color and how light behaves, one truth holds...


User1 said:


> I'm inclined to think the sun sets but not in the way we imagine. It doesn't go down below the earth, *nor does it move away.*


But then we have objective reality and on our clearest days...
we see this clearly:


----------



## User1 (Feb 17, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> But then we have objective reality and on our clearest days...
> we see this clearly:


I definitely concede that is what we observe.  It may very well be the reality.  In terns of the gifs shared, I've tried to do a few stills but I couldn't capture it what well:
















This is where the discussion on how light behaves is quite relevant, in terms of objective, demonstrable reality.  It would appear that the receding light is receding in a spherical/ball-like shape.  If this is the case, as it appears, it leads to all the other questions and so talk of vanishing points is of little value. It doesn't explain how clouds seem lit up from underneath.


----------



## veeall (Feb 18, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> The vanishing point will be eye-level, regardless of altitude... always.





> veeall said:
> I think the area below this line (the true vanishing point)..


Sorry, i meant, the line IS the actual vanishing point, below it is a mirror image of the sky.
Here are few my own takes on sunsets, though not featuring the reflection nor any unusual effects on these, just distortions. Sunsets vary. The pink clouds seems to be lit from underneath.

Edit: Though by my judgement, here is the reflective effect of the surface visible on one. For a viewer in the clouds the same 100% reflectance area should appear somewhere, just physically much farther away than to the viewer on the beach. But i don't know and before this thread i have never thought about how can sunlight reach the underneath of the clouds on a flat earth with the sun fixed somewhere high above the clouds.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 18, 2022)

The light at sun rise does the same thing as the light at sun set. It turns things yellow orange and red as the edge of the cone of light furthest away from the source of the light is the red spectrum. Beyond red there is no visible light. It does not extinguish but continues to fade.
So our objective experience to quote a phrase, is we see  yellow orange and red lighht illuminating clouds in the exact same way morning and evening. On both occasions it is a brief illumination.




Source https://images.fineartamerica.com/i.../sunrise-above-the-clouds-johan-swanepoel.jpg
As the source of the light move closer  relative to our position the red band gets underlaid by the green then blue which do not illuminate the clouds in the same manner and turns them murky grey.same goes for the hills. The morning murk is as common as evening murk.
It seems the colour of the suns light has a direct effect on an object it strikes. So a cloud of water droplets becomes visible to our eyes in sunlight but the water vapour remains invisible. Water vapour never changes colour in our vision. Steam of course does but steam is liquid water turning into droplets which then become vapour.

As the sun gets even closer to our position we get daylight. White light is a misnomer in my book put there to confuse things.
Thanks to this thread creastion by user1 and the contributors I now find it beyond comprehension how anyone came to fall for a spinning earth and a static sun relative to the spinning earth idea.

The arc of the sun is simply played out in our vision and minds conditioned from as soon as we can talk to understand rise and set. Quite devious really.

Edit to correct some appalling wordage.


----------



## User1 (Feb 18, 2022)

Was thinking of an earlier comment made by @kd-755 when I came across this:





Sunlight mechanism - Timestamped.  He has some interesting ideas.


----------



## Jd755 (Feb 18, 2022)

Just been searching for infrared images of sunrise in an effort to further unravel what is going on and this one shows perfectly what I am on about with the light. The rising sun lights the top edge and bottom edge of the line of cloud as seen from the cameras position. As it doesn't light the entire cloud facing the camera the thickness or depth of the cloud has a key part to play in what we actually see.

We are actually presented or project a curving image which puts the sun under the cloud but the reality is the sun is above the cloud illuminating the entire face of the cloud immediately facing it, the face we cannot see, but it is only the fringes of the lit cloud that are visible.
At such a distance our perception of depth, which is the reason why we have two images, two eyes, masde into one image by mind and brain, is non existent. The detail disappers the further it gets from our eye.

Source  Infrared Sunrise.

​Our vision takes two images and bends them into acone shape single image which gives us a perspective depth is as good as I can get it at the moment. It is an image of reality we find vital for life but it is not the reality of what's there.

Edit for typo fix.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 25, 2022)

Daniel said:


> You mean like:
> 
> View attachment 19614​


That's interesting; However... In Reality...


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 25, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> That's interesting; However... In Reality...


Surely you are aware that the Earth is officially pear shaped with a fat Southern arse . That means the tropics cannot be of equal length and the equator length is anybody's guess since none of these have been surveyed. Your meme is out of date. 

Personally I'd say there is not a continent reaching to 90 degrees South. Magnetic S pole is given to be at 64 S latitude - anything below that is given imaginary values for long/lat , can't have been mapped.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 25, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Surely you are aware that the Earth is officially pear shaped with a fat Southern arse . That means the tropics cannot be of equal length and the equator length is anybody's guess since none of these have been surveyed. Your meme is out of date.
> 
> Personally I'd say there is not a continent reaching to 90 degrees South. Magnetic S pole is given to be at 64 S latitude - anything below that is given imaginary values for long/lat , can't have been mapped.


2018 Katharsis II circumnavigation of Antarctica, Guinness world record set in 72 days. 

The simplest, most amusing, most ironic, and most entertaining solution to the heliocentric lie....  is that they merely just turned reality itself inside out.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 25, 2022)

And


FarewellAngelina said:


> Personally I'd say there is not a continent reaching to 90 degrees South. Magnetic S pole is given to be at 64 S latitude - anything below that is given imaginary values for long/lat , can't have been mapped.


What makes this even more remarkable, is that in 1892 when Gleason's masterpiece was first patented, one will notice that the map only goes to 65 south!


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 25, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> And
> 
> What makes this even more remarkable, is that in 1892 when Gleason's masterpiece was first patented, one will notice that the map only goes to 65 south!
> 
> View attachment 20075


Sadly, what's not remarkable about it, is that the tropics are the same size in reality, where as on every single "flat" earth projection they are grossly disproportionate.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Feb 25, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> And
> 
> What makes this even more remarkable, is that in 1892 when Gleason's masterpiece was first patented, one will notice that the map only goes to 65 south!
> 
> View attachment 20075


I never noticed that. Nice one.


----------



## otl2021 (Feb 25, 2022)

FarewellAngelina said:


> Magnetic S pole is given to be at 64 S latitude - anything below that is given imaginary values for long/lat , can't have been mapped.


Sorry, but just had to add that in 2003, the USGS' official marker for the "south pole" was this:




The truth in plain/plane site cracks me up now.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Feb 25, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Sorry, but just had to add that in 2003, the USGS' official marker for the "south pole" was this:
> View attachment 20092
> 
> View attachment 20093
> ...


I agree with a small and local luminary system, however nothing in reality demonstrates the tropics are 2 different sizes, or that the Sun, or  Moon, speed up, or slow down as the year goes by.

Also, Celestial POLE(S)  Are a thing.  2 poles.  North, AND south.   Unless you can demonstrate a magnet with only one pole?


----------



## User1 (Feb 28, 2022)

Well off-topic at this point but since we're here, has it occurred to anyone that the architects of this worldwide deception are just taking the piss?  The FE/Heliocentric dichotomy is there specifically to feed the confusion, with both containing elements of the truth without either actually being true.  It's like the plethora of 4k photos from the 1800s that just magically appeared in the web at a time when there happens to be a "truth movement", yet quite a few of them seem to have been doctored to block out the sky as some have pointed out.  I think It's to feed confusion and uncertainty about the true nature of the world and make the truth seem unattainable. 

Not having a go at anyone. I just think it would be naïve to believe that these criminals who seem to be pathologically evil would not try to co-opt the movement by sowing dissent.  This is the modus operandi for millennia.

We were all raised in a system designed to enslave us and we're trying to figure our way out.  Peace


----------



## John Galt (Feb 28, 2022)

GandalfTheGreen said:


> 2018 Katharsis II circumnavigation of Antarctica, Guinness world record set in 72 days.
> 
> The simplest, most amusing, most ironic, and most entertaining solution to the heliocentric lie....  is that they merely just turned reality itself inside out.


Would you please post the full size version of that last "what I really am" map? That's the first time I've seen this picture used for concave earth. What's the explanation for it?


----------



## slate (May 18, 2022)

User1 said:


> Peace
> 
> Firstly, thanks to all the who post such interesting content, I find many fascinating ideas at SH and that's a credit to the members who contribute to this site.
> 
> ...


Yes i have witnessed sun rises and sun sets several times in my life. I live on the east coast of florida and have seen sun sets in Key West Florida.


----------



## Seeker (May 18, 2022)

I was just looking at this image posted a little while ago by otl2021 (5 posts above this one):




Whilst this is an interesting image for beginners or newcomers to 'Flat Earth' ideas - it is also inaccurate.
Sometimes the moon appears in the night sky, and sometimes it appears in the day sky - therefore the Sun and moon cannot be moving at the same speed in this model.
I am not sure which moves faster/slower as I have not looked into it that deeply - but I would be interested to know.

Since the globe Earth, heliocentric model says that the moons orbit is roughly 28 days or so - I can make a rough guess/calculation that 360/28 being roughly 13 degrees, that the moon is either faster/slower than the sun by 13 degrees on a day-to-day basis.

Edit - I have no idea what I'm doing wrong but I can't get the gif to spin like in Otl's post. Bizarrely it will spin when I paste it into my message before posting it. But when I post, it no longer spins. 

2nd Edit - I also noticed a potential synchronicity - as posted by 'The Grey Ghost' in this thread:
SH Archive - World population: where are the missing trillions of people?

It states the Sun has a 28 day solar cycle. Perhaps this is therefore linked to the Moons orbit and/or the Lunar phases. If so, I would very much like to understand this connection, or hear theories on what it might be.


----------



## User1 (May 18, 2022)

otl2021 said:


> Sorry, but just had to add that in 2003, the USGS' official marker for the "south pole" was this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If we go ahead and assume this is the truth in plain sight, are we not being showed what the nature of light is? The sun "carries" light.  The sun basically ploughs through the sky and activates/energises the atmosphere, which creates the light where the sun is, thus we get this image of the light tailing off as the sun moves away:



Seeker said:


>





slate said:


> Yes i have witnessed sun rises and sun sets several times in my life. I live on the east coast of florida and have seen sun sets in Key West Florida.


As in you've watched a sunrise while also watching a live stream of a sunset from another location and this corresponds to a map claiming sunrise here means sunset there?

EDIT: Just thinking about this yin-yang image.  It feels as though we're being shown a sun moving through some sort of body of water and I'm thinking maybe this movement through the body of water/liquid is how the sun generates light.  Kinetic energy or something of the sort.  Still not sure how this could explain the sunset but I'm increasingly getting the feeling that light does not move in straight lines.  Perhaps this is why models struggle with this movement because the assumption of the nature of light is incorrect.

Partial truth in plain sight.


----------



## Seeker (May 18, 2022)

Personally, I don't think the sun leaves a 'light trail' in its wake. I think it's sphere of influence is instant, but it's just my opinion. As for the interaction between our eye and our environment - IE, are some kind of vibrations sent from the object to our eye, or is this effect also instant? I couldn't say for sure, it's debatable.

On the topic of tails - here is another anomaly. When you see a 'comet' it is always depicted/seen with a tail. If you strike a match and hold it in front of you, and move it from left to right, it leaves a tail. The sun is supposedly an enormous ball of constant nuclear explosions travelling at extreme high velocity - but no tail.

Your musing over the sun possibly passing through a body of water and interacting with it to produce light is interesting.

I'm part way through watching a 'Brian Austin Lambert' video in another thread, here. Can't say I agree with everything I've seen so far, but he does make some very interesting suggestions.


----------



## User1 (May 18, 2022)

Seeker said:


> On the topic of tails - here is another anomaly. When you see a 'comet' it is always depicted/seen with a tail. If you strike a match and hold it in front of you, and move it from left to right, it leaves a tail. The sun is supposedly an enormous ball of constant nuclear explosions travelling at extreme high velocity - but no tail.



Would we see the tail if we are in the tail? I'm inclined to think no.  If we humour the yin-yang FE map, this may be what we are being shown.  The sun activates light in the environment through the sunrise/dawn and what we experience  as daylight is us being in the "tail" of light.  If we take this back to sunset, what we then see as sunset is the concentration of the remaining light in the "tail", the last "vibrational" energy or whatever, which we then see as the sun setting. I'm still not even sure if what we see as the sun setting is the actual position of the sun in that moment.


----------



## ThomasVonDerBosch (May 20, 2022)

I agree w veeall,

The farther away the sun gets the lower the angle to the observer and the more likely the light will be reflected from the ground or water to the undersides of the clouds. The top and middle of the clouds are not lit up because the rays are now to weak to penetrate miles of vapour (clouds).

The sun does not change height, or at least not much or quickly. Thankfully, because that would be a problem. 

However our atmosphere does change density as you go up. Ground level having the highest density and the most particulate which is filtering out the blue spectrum leaving the red. Assuming the Sun is approx. 3000 miles up and it is dawn or dusk the rays are penetrating a great deal of atmosphere at a very low angle to the observer. Therefore having to travel through quite a bit of the particulate, water vapour, smog, silver iodide etc. The underside of clouds being lit up at sunset can only happen when the clouds are local to the observer and the Sun is in a relatively cloud free area at the time. 

I posted a video on the Black Sun thread  33rd on the Cosmos that shows IMHO the best explanation of how our system works. The only thing I disagree with is his explanation of how the moon is lit by the Black Sun. I disagree. I believe the Moon is lit by the Sun as at high altitudes the air is so thin and clean that the rays can reach the moon and light it up. This explains why the lit side of the moon is always facing the Sun. At least those are my observances.

I disagree that we should hold anything as the unknowable and mysterious workings of God. These are things to be observed and figured out. If I am an image of God then I am fully capable of comprehending the work.


----------



## Apollonius (May 21, 2022)

This video can help you understand what happens at sunset. I also highly recommend you to check out the other videos of the channel.


_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWVj3qDcCA4&list=PL6NZVizM65rtkI2sKcLsxZjhstYYaeJgp&index=3_


----------



## veeall (May 23, 2022)

Apollonius said:


> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWVj3qDcCA4&list=PL6NZVizM65rtkI2sKcLsxZjhstYYaeJgp&index=3_



Everybody doing a little bit of photography knows about dynamic range issues arising when capturing the sun or even the moon, diminishing of the sun cannot be reliably debunked by analyzing just the clips.

Here in the north the sun goes mostly around us, so size differences should be less visible than near equator. I think.

Also, i doubt the atmospheric lens effect is coined by 'flatearthers'. Both or any parties are at occasion been explaining the size differences with the lens effect of an atmosphere.

I hate the tagging - flatearthers, globetards - i wish this culture to perish, but it just goes on.

Have anybody payed attention to shadows of chemtrails painted on a hazy sky, on totally impossible positions related to sun? If the sun being infinitely far, both the chemtrail and the viewer should receive the sunlight at the same angle, but it doesn't always seem so with chemtrails.


----------



## User1 (May 23, 2022)

I find this whole flat earth/globe debate quite tedious but it's seemingly unavoidable.



Apollonius said:


> This video can help you understand what happens at sunset. I also highly recommend you to check out the other videos of the channel.
> 
> 
> _View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWVj3qDcCA4&list=PL6NZVizM65rtkI2sKcLsxZjhstYYaeJgp&index=3_




I don't think this guy's argument is convincing at all.  I don't have a horse in this race but of the little science I do know his application of scientific principles is decidedly selective. He talks about the appearance of different sizes of the sun, then he switches focus to different sizes of the sun at sunset/sunrise.  Which is it?  Either we are explaining why the sun (and moon) looks bigger in some parts of the world or we're talking about sunset and vanishing points et al.  He seems to be conflating issues.  

Also, he asks why the atmospheric lensing only seems to apply to the sun and not anything else. Well, if the sun is the only thing that is apparently 15 million degrees Celsius around these parts , we can safely assume it would uniquely influence everything in close proximity. It's like asking, "_Why does a fireplace in my lounge heat up my home but a video of a fire across the road does nothing? Odd that."  _I don't think his arguments are intelligent at all.

Moving on to the math.  The problem with maths is maths. It's a tool to help describe our understanding of reality but that's all it is, a tool.  Walking from my desk to the door I have to walk past a halfway point, and at that point there is another halfway point, and so on.  There are an infinite number of halfway points between my desk and the door so I would, theoretically, never make it to the door because I need to cross an infinite number of halfway points to get there or to state it dramatically, _*I have to walk across infinity*_.  This is garbage.  There is a limitation to math and it's application to the lived experience and I think a lot of people don't realize this.



ThomasVonDerBosch said:


> I disagree that we should hold anything as the unknowable and mysterious workings of God. These are things to be observed and figured out. If I am an image of God then I am fully capable of comprehending the work.


I understand your position though I don't share it.  We are unable to figure out our history, much less comprehend the technologies of the past.  Perhaps we are meant to comprehend God's work but not in this life, if we did then what could be revealed in the hereafter if we figured it out now?  I think we are meant to ponder God's creation and acknowledge His magnificence, noting how relatively insignificant and simple we are in comparison to the universe.  

Peace


veeall said:


> I hate the tagging - flatearthers, globetards - i wish this culture to perish, but it just goes on.



This.



veeall said:


> Have anybody payed attention to shadows of chemtrails painted on a hazy sky, on totally impossible positions related to sun? It is obvious if the sun being infinitely far, both the chemtrail and the viewer should receive the sunlight at the same angle, but doesn't always seem so with chemtrails.



I can' t really visualize what you're describing and what it means.  Could you post a pic or drawing? Hard time imagining impossible positions related to the sun.


----------



## veeall (May 23, 2022)

User1 said:


> I can' t really visualize what you're describing and what it means.  Could you post a pic or drawing? Hard time imagining impossible positions related to the sun.


I hope you stumble on one, could be puzzling to interpret. It is somewhat rare, but happens. There are pictures of it on the net too, i'll try to do a search later. Though, i doubt the picture will show the placement problem intricacy i mentioned.

Quick search here.


----------



## Whateverittakes (May 24, 2022)

Something I found that I think you will all find interesting; a video showing day and night simultaneously out on the ocean


_View: https://youtu.be/z4UM-D7CNhg_


----------



## Curved Pluto (Jun 9, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> I saw a video by Ewaranon which had the sun reappearing via telescope.  The sunset is observed via a camera on a tripod, and after the sun has gone down over the horizon, the operator zooms in and the sun reappears.  To me this seemed to contravene the accepted laws of physics, so it appears to prove the Earth is not a globe with the Sun a very long way away.  However I don't see any reason this proves the Earth is flat.  It just proves that there is something going on we don't understand.
> 
> Crepuscular sunlight is often said to be proof that the Earth is flat and the Sun is only about 3km up in the air.  However there is a problem with this idea.  We've all seen examples of crepuscular sunlight where rays of light come through clouds at widely different angels, thus giving the impression that the Sun is only a few km in the air; however you can also see crepuscular sunlight in forests, which would indicate that the Sun was just above the tops of the trees.


Often I see crepuscular sunlight coming over my closed window curtain. The angles of the sunlight would suggest that the sun is a mere 10-50 ft above my house, which obviously isn’t the case. Even if the sun is only 3000 miles away the angles wouldn’t match up. I used to think that the crepuscular rays of sunlight were proof of a closer sun until I saw what I just stated.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 10, 2022)

Crepuscular rays are often seen but in order to use these to triangulate to the sun you'd have to measure how far apart the shadows are on the ground, their length, and also the size and distance of the object form the point of observation. Never seen it done - clouds constantly change shape but maybe a couple of tall trees or buildings could provide a starting point.


----------



## veeall (Jun 10, 2022)

One of these days i'm planning to shoot a photo of a ping-pong ball next to the half-moon when visible at daytime while the sun is up. I expect the angles of the sunlight falling to the moon to be different to that of falling to the ball. I'd be surprised if the casted shadows were identical (as they should be with current model, if the moon is illuminated by the sun and there's no significant atmospheric lensing/refraction).

On another note, crepuscular rays are skewed towards the viewer too, not only sideways, except if the sun is directly over the viewers head. I doubt triangulation is possible with them.

There would be a right angle triangle at the north pole *if the earth is flat*, with the North star at the top, enabling to deduct roughly the hight of the north star with the help of latitudes, if their distances were known and correct, like this:




You can draw a triangle with the sun on the top too, have to measure a distance from the latitude where the sun is at 45° to where the sun is at 90°. First have to prove that the earth is flat, though.

---
 I realized that every sunset with the sun at its lowest at the horizon with clouds NOT being lit from under kind of speaks against globe model. But, again, it's open to interpretation.


----------



## Quiahuitl (Jun 11, 2022)

veeall said:


> One of these days i'm planning to shoot a photo of a ping-pong ball next to the half-moon when visible at daytime while the sun is up. I expect the angles of the sunlight falling to the moon to be different to that of falling to the ball. I'd be surprised if the casted shadows were identical (as they should be with current model, if the moon is illuminated by the sun and there's no significant atmospheric lensing/refraction).



This is an interesting experiment.  I've noticed that at half moon, the angle of the moon's day/night terminator is nowhere near right angles to the sun, which tends to disprove the entire current model.  However it's very hard to get astrophysics experts to agree that this disproves the model.

Regarding the measurement of the elevation of Polaris from different angles at the same time, you would need to get a lot of measurements taken at the same time from many different locations to really prove anything.  The same would apply to the Sun.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 11, 2022)

Quiahuitl said:


> This is an interesting experiment.  I've noticed that at half moon, the angle of the moon's day/night terminator is nowhere near right angles to the sun, which tends to disprove the entire current model.  However it's very hard to get astrophysics experts to agree that this disproves the model.
> 
> Regarding the measurement of the elevation of Polaris from different angles at the same time, you would need to get a lot of measurements taken at the same time from many different locations to really prove anything.  The same would apply to the Sun.


Was looking at the moon on Wodinsday night - 48.5 %  lit - hard to catch it at exactly 50% . The shadows of the craters at the terminator line were very revealing . They don't support a globe moon. Tried to capture it on camera but it was a pretty windy evening -couldn't stabilise the scope.
The shadows the crater walls cast just don't lengthen as they should towards the terminator line . Anyone else noticed this - is there an explanation?

Regarding Polaris and the Sun . Polaris is stationary so you can take your measurements at seperate times - they don't require same time measurements. 

There is supposed to be a very slight orbital movement of Polaris. Easy to check and if there is then just take a measurement from the centre of it's small orbit. 

The Sun is in constant motion so if triangulation observation must instantaneous - if not then they will be in error.


----------



## veeall (Jun 21, 2022)

My approach to the height of polaris was very simplistic trigonometry - with flatearth model the height from the north pole to polaris is equal to the distance from north pole to 45 latitude. I cannot see fault in it, that's my problem. 


The sunlit part of the moon, to my eyes, seems to indicate that the sun is actually higher above the horizon than it appears to a viewer on the ground, and this phenomenon could also contribute to the 'going behind the curve' effect.


FarewellAngelina said:


> The shadows the crater walls cast just don't lengthen as they should towards the terminator line . Anyone else noticed this - is there an explanation


That's interesting! I haven't payed attention, i've always looked at distortions of the circles of the craters as supporting the globular moon. But there should probably be loong shadows too.


----------



## FarewellAngelina (Jun 25, 2022)

I've been trying to study the craters at terminator line when we see a half moon .

The sun , according to scientific belief , is at right angles to the moon and  so we should see a gradual increase in shadow length away from the (absent) hotspot nearest the sun , ending up with extremely long shadows near the terminator line . That's my thinking . 

It's hard to capture a usable photograph , weather etc.

About the pole star. I have a1950's book on polar exploration . Peary claimed to have reached the N pole but according to the account given in the book he actually couldn't locate the thing , crossed the area 11 times trying to get under the pole star , true North . Very interesting I thought.

I can't fault your 45 degree triangulation to the pole star method but I would imagine there may be a bit of refraction of starlight involved due to the earths magnetic field.


----------



## veeall (Jul 28, 2022)

Reflectiveness limiting the sight at horizon.















The image seems reversed below the line, but already smudged above the line, so it doesn't seem to be just a surface of water but rather a layer of air responsible for the effect. But it could well reflect the sunlight into the clouds too, why not?.





The moon.
Here at the top, the shape of craters is as if on a ball





Few black craters below on this image. I would expect even more elongated and sharp shadows to appear on craters nearby too, it depends though, i guess.


----------



## User1 (Jul 29, 2022)

veeall said:


> The image seems reversed below the line, but already smudged above the line, so it doesn't seem to be just a surface of water but rather a layer of air responsible for the effect. But it could well reflect the sunlight into the clouds too, why not?.


Thanks.  Makes sense and seems like it could it be possible.  One question though.  Do we have the same atmospheric distortion/inversion when looking at the moon or is there some feature of photography that accounts for this?  The reason for the question is that the moon is  (I believe) further from us than we can see into the horizon so to my mind there would be an more pronounced atmospheric effect.  Even accounting for less dense atmosphere the higher up we go, the moon does also appear over the horizon.  And this is where the nature of light or how we see becomes significant in understanding this.  I've not seen distortion on the zoomed images of the moon though I've never looked at those from this perspective, though you still need to see (zoom) through the atmosphere?  Presumably further than you can see into the horizon?  The atmosphere does not disappear so why doesn't images of the moon start distorting at the same distance the horizon starts distorting?  Images of stars are distorted and you get that blurry effect so why not the moon as it surely is further from us then the horizon.

From the images it doesn't seem that way but I have zero knowledge of photography and so these lighting/photo effects are all new to me.

Thanks for sharing the images.


----------



## veeall (Jul 29, 2022)

This is how a far away object looks in Nicon P900 with maximum zoom-in, the moon shots doesn't seem to exhibit the same distortions. I should probably try to shoot the moon while it is very low at the horizon, preferably at daytime, to compare.





Sorry for one more offtopic moonshot from me. Shot with Nicon P1000 at the dark of the night, but notice how vertical is the shadow on the moon, nevertheless the sun was long set.


----------



## GandalfTheGreen (Jul 30, 2022)

veeall said:


> Reflectiveness limiting the sight at horizon.
> 
> View attachment 24329
> View attachment 24330
> ...


Thank you for this wonderful imagery!  I'd like to give you, a bit of "truth in plain sight" as they say; here is the opening scene from the movie "the quiet earth"  You'll find the same exact thing happening during this beautiful sunrise!


----------



## Petra (Sep 4, 2022)

kd-755 said:


> You conflate models and reality easy done I did it for years and years.
> How do you explain the change in lighting angle?
> 
> For me the answer you are seeking is beyond my knowing. I have no idea what the sun is nor if it is a directional light or an omnidirectional light or a combination of the two.
> ...


Thank you for that GREAT IDEA!!!!
LIMITED LIGHT is the Answer!!!

I was the whole time foolished by Einstein, he was in a side- way establishing another lie!!!!
I know about this one stupid idea of "time is relativly", during "traveling in space", earth is stationary and so you cant travel outside the firmament. 
NASA and Disney are absolut foolishing the people. 
But it is even more inside this complex of lies in many layers, one ontop of the others!
Einstein tells about LIGHT is traveling through absolut EMPTY space for EVER, without loosing any energie and brightness. 
-ALL is only in his mind
- its only theoretical THINKING, none is proof-able
-all his theories are 180° opposite of what your senses are telling you, what your daily experiences are about 
- all of his ideas are publicayed to make us fell stupid in front of this "GENIUS"
-once startet to look behind the veil, dont stop it, go deeper and deeper, especially if it seems to hurt you!!!!THEN you recognice the frog, how deep this control of your mind goes!!!


----------

