What actually happens when the sun sets?

[Seeker]

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]

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]

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

 

[NotFE]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Thanks @dreamtime

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.

It's natural colour is white. It is changing from white to yellow because it is darkening. It isn't suddenly being lit up from a new angle.

Does anyone get what I am saying? Am I literally crazy here?

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.

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]

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.

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).

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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?

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]

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

 

[Jd755]

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]

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]

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

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 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]

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.