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.
What actually happens when the sun sets?
- Thread starter User1
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
A
Apollonius
Guest
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
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.
Last edited:
I find this whole flat earth/globe debate quite tedious but it's seemingly unavoidable.
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.
Peace
This.
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 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.
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
This.
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.
Whateverittakes
Member
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2022
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 14
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
View: https://youtu.be/z4UM-D7CNhg
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2020
- Messages
- 41
- Reaction score
- 102
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.
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.
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.
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:
---
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2022
- Messages
- 87
- Reaction score
- 110
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
Member
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!!!
KindnessOfStrangers
Contributor
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2023
- Messages
- 42
- Reaction score
- 51
Has anyone come across this video shot outside Adelaide, Australia of the sun appearing to rise in between trees?
Trees in the background are illuminated, while trees in the foreground are silhouetted.
Trees in the background are illuminated, while trees in the foreground are silhouetted.
Similar threads
