What actually happens when the sun sets?

[otl2021]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[Seeker]

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]

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]

...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:

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]

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

View attachment 19595​

View attachment 19597​

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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:

Left to right:
Thoth
Hathor
Amun
Ra

Ra
Ptah

Ptah

 

[Daniel]

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]

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