What actually happens when the sun sets?

[otl2021]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Sunlight mechanism - Timestamped. He has some interesting ideas.

 

[Jd755]

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]

You mean like:

View attachment 19614​

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

 

[FarewellAngelina]

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]

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]

And

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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:

View attachment 19567​

Or something like this:

View attachment 19566​

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

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]

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]

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.

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:

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]

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.