What actually happens when the sun sets?

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.

That was cool thank you for sharing. do you know of any further examples of this from other areas of the earth?
its always good to draw as many examples as possible together before making any concrete determinations.
Having said that, the trees either side seem significant, they are still as dark at their camera facing side at the end of the video as they are at the beginning of the footage. That the sun's illumination is effecting trees lower than those periphery trees which are visably higher up, suggests the sun is effecting from above and in an encroaching manner. Illuminating at a specific angle using angled rays, as opposed to rising over the horizon and lighting with straight rays which would be expected if one were on a ball earth. If that were the case all trees would be effected similarly along the horizon especially so those situated higher than the lower. That this is not what we are seeing suggests a plane earth with angled rays coming from a motive solar element. Pure conjecture on my part but if further examples were found indicating similar characteristics it would be highly suggestive of those determinations made.

That it visually appears to be rising between the trees however is simply due to the angle of the light coming in from the sun and in all likelyhood the viewpoint of the camera being within a valley which is below the horizon.
great find.
cheers.
 
That's an interesting video. This topic has become much more technical than I can keep up with but I'm finding it increasingly hard to trust video/photographic evidence of anything due to the mainstreaming of AI-produced content. A little off topic but if AI-produced content is mainstream now I would guess that the technology existed years if not decades ago, casting doubt on a lot of the photgraphic evidence pervasive on sites like these.

Witness testimony is key and specifically the testimony of trustworthy persons so details about who filmed that sunrise or some account from that person about the event would be great.

Peace.
 
The Green Flash paradox is the main argument which is essential in a FE vs RE sunrise/sunset debate.

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)

The Sun is absolutely rising and setting:

2003 Total Solar Eclipse - Antarctica - Fred Bruenjes (solar eclipse, passing in front of the Sun is the Black Sun, right behind the Sun is the Moon itself)

For anyone interested to perform calculations regarding how the size of the Sun fits in with the chronology of history, here is the data:

Sun - radius of 636 meters

Radius of the FE - 6363.63 meters

Angle of solar orbit (tropic to tropic/solstice to solstice) - 2 x 27.49° = 0.959582 rad radians

s = r x θ

6106.4248 = 6363.63 x 0.959582

6106.4248/6 = 1017.73747 km, the distance alloted for each gate

The arclength for each gate (space alloted for the each of the six periods running from the winter solstice to the summer solstice, and from the summer solstice to the winter solstice) is 1017.737 km.

Sun westward precessional shift - 1.5 km / year

If anyone desires a longer period of time for the history of the world, one needs to increase the radius of the Earth (upper limit, 10,000 km).
 
That's an interesting video. This topic has become much more technical than I can keep up with but I'm finding it increasingly hard to trust video/photographic evidence of anything due to the mainstreaming of AI-produced content. A little off topic but if AI-produced content is mainstream now I would guess that the technology existed years if not decades ago, casting doubt on a lot of the photgraphic evidence pervasive on sites like these.

Witness testimony is key and specifically the testimony of trustworthy persons so details about who filmed that sunrise or some account from that person about the event would be great.

Peace.

That's a valid statement.
if we can put multiple sources together and perhaps also include testimony and extra context we greatly enhance the prospect of discerning truth from lie, and reality from unreality.

Its quite sensible to be cautious, but the wise man knows not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Essentially ai produced content is an obvious problem for anyone looking to determine truth in any multimedia formats. But the possibility remains that factual documentation can and still exists within these multimedia mediums. we just need to be more cautious when using them as the basis of a point made or the crux of an argument formed.
cheers.
 
That was cool thank you for sharing. do you know of any further examples of this from other areas of the earth?
its always good to draw as many examples as possible together before making any concrete determinations.
Having said that, the trees either side seem significant, they are still as dark at their camera facing side at the end of the video as they are at the beginning of the footage. That the sun's illumination is effecting trees lower than those periphery trees which are visably higher up, suggests the sun is effecting from above and in an encroaching manner. Illuminating at a specific angle using angled rays, as opposed to rising over the horizon and lighting with straight rays which would be expected if one were on a ball earth. If that were the case all trees would be effected similarly along the horizon especially so those situated higher than the lower. That this is not what we are seeing suggests a plane earth with angled rays coming from a motive solar element. Pure conjecture on my part but if further examples were found indicating similar characteristics it would be highly suggestive of those determinations made.

That it visually appears to be rising between the trees however is simply due to the angle of the light coming in from the sun and in all likelyhood the viewpoint of the camera being within a valley which is below the horizon.
great find.
cheers.
Yeah it's a great vid. I agree with your conclusions in the first paragraph.
I also agree that one video does not not equal a smoking gun, rather just an addition to the stockpile forming the weight of evidence.

From my perspective, that it appears to be rising between the trees can support the VR theory that the sun rises from and sets into the earth - that it is equidistant from each individual's view at all times. Though I am aware of how insane that sounds.

I've linked the channel below it came from, specifically, the same footage but with negate and edge detection filters applied. Many other sunrise and sunset vids on that channel too, as well as clouds behind sun / moon, which I find equally as fascinating.

I note that the common debunk of this occurrence is that it is the brightness of the sun obscuring the transparent clouds, however, I can't see how this explanation is applicable to the moon, as it is 400,000 times less bright.
We can see with the naked eye, that clouds appear to be behind the moon.

I attached a great video example of this, where we see a moon enveloped by clouds, until the camera switches focus to the moon's face to reveal no clouds.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3okMau88vE

That's an interesting video. This topic has become much more technical than I can keep up with but I'm finding it increasingly hard to trust video/photographic evidence of anything due to the mainstreaming of AI-produced content. A little off topic but if AI-produced content is mainstream now I would guess that the technology existed years if not decades ago, casting doubt on a lot of the photgraphic evidence pervasive on sites like these.

Witness testimony is key and specifically the testimony of trustworthy persons so details about who filmed that sunrise or some account from that person about the event would be great.

Peace.


I agree. Discernment must play a huge factor in accepting photos and videos as evidence.
Sometimes you can just tell. 😉
The Green Flash paradox is the main argument which is essential in a FE vs RE sunrise/sunset debate.

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)

The Sun is absolutely rising and setting:

2003 Total Solar Eclipse - Antarctica - Fred Bruenjes (solar eclipse, passing in front of the Sun is the Black Sun, right behind the Sun is the Moon itself)

For anyone interested to perform calculations regarding how the size of the Sun fits in with the chronology of history, here is the data:

Sun - radius of 636 meters

Radius of the FE - 6363.63 meters

Angle of solar orbit (tropic to tropic/solstice to solstice) - 2 x 27.49° = 0.959582 rad radians

s = r x θ

6106.4248 = 6363.63 x 0.959582

6106.4248/6 = 1017.73747 km, the distance alloted for each gate

The arclength for each gate (space alloted for the each of the six periods running from the winter solstice to the summer solstice, and from the summer solstice to the winter solstice) is 1017.737 km.

Sun westward precessional shift - 1.5 km / year

If anyone desires a longer period of time for the history of the world, one needs to increase the radius of the Earth (upper limit, 10,000 km).
That thread you linked is a treasure trove of info.
You're on another level!
I'll have to get back to that soon...

Re: the calculations, I'm assuming that since you list FE as having a radius, it can only be circular from your perspective?

Thanks

Download Video
 

Attachments

  • Moon clouds.mp4
    1.7 MB
From my perspective, that it appears to be rising between the trees can support the VR theory that the sun rises from and sets into the earth - that it is equidistant from each individual's view at all times. Though I am aware of how insane that sounds
As insane as it sounds it seems closer to the truth. It was suggested much earlier in this thread that perhaps light just does not work the way we think it does. Reflecting on this, perhaps the science is correct but we are only seeing a sandbox application of these scientific principles, which is why there are these anomalies because we cannot apply the principles to their natural conclusion due to environmental limitations. This world is in fact not the real world, which speaks to the teachings of many major religions.

And I know many on here are not religiously-inclined but I wonder if God told someone on this forum to inform people about inter-dimensional travel and incomprehensible planes of existence and the associated details, what a strange story they would tell!

I believe this is what has happened with teachings of the past and through our limited understanding of the world we live in and how it works we misunderstand the message, mistranslate the text or dismiss very accurate explanations of what is really going on around us because we, with our limited senses and limited ability to perceive, believe ourselves the custodian and judge of the truth.

A bit of a digression but the VR comment reminded me that of that earlier comment. A big thanks to everyone trying to get to the truth.

Peace.
 
Re: the calculations, I'm assuming that since you list FE as having a radius, it can only be circular from your perspective?

Piri Reis map (with and without latitudes/longitudes):

piri.JPG
450px-Sandokhan_map.png

Rotate the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn by 23.5 degrees, and we get the upper and lower bounds for the orbit of the Sun on a flat earth.

It rises from beyond Japan and illuminates at least half of the entire surface (not a spotlight sun at all), and sets somewhere beyond Antarctica (just like in the Black Sun photographs taken by F. Bruenjes). The region beyond is called Okeanos, the sun dips below the horizon and it immediately rises, producing the green flash, which cannot be explained in heliocentrism.

Then, it rises again to complete its orbit over the other half of the semicircle (approximately).

Everyone wants to know when the reversal of the magnetic poles will take place (followed by the shift of the stellar dome), yet only FET can offer the correct data and explanations.
 
"From my perspective, that it appears to be rising between the trees can support the VR theory that the sun rises from and sets into the earth - that it is equidistant from each individual's view at all times. Though I am aware of how insane that sounds."

asking questions and attempting to determine truth can never be considered insane, read some of the stuff I have shared on here to most people that would be seen as quite insane and yet its showing up everywhere I look, like a key that fits all locks.

I respect your perspective, mine is that what you are showing me in this example.

light as if under ferrocell.png

is no different from the effects of magnetism being illustrated under Ferrocell by ken wheeler of theoria apophasis here.

magnet under ferrocell.png

the plane of inertia being shown here is of the end of a magnet, that is to say the magnet is being positioned under the Ferrocell as if we are looking down one of its poled ends. so not a cross section of both poles the positive and the negative, but only one of those two ends is being shown.
As you can see this looks exactly the same as the sun does in your example. note how the lines of convergence and divergence in both examples are closer together and more visually intense the near they are to the central, the nearer the plane of inertia they are. note how that plane of inertia itself is black under Ferrocell just as the suns displays in your given example. Note how as the lines move out from the centre they fan out, see the same effect in the lines coming from the sun in your example. This is why I determine the sun to be the end of a rod or pillar, one that extends across the mirrored planes.

this is what a cross section of our mirrored plane looks like.

magnet under ferrocell 02.png

the only difference is the examples magnet is a stream, an off shoot of the larger river. which is headed to the sun. the sun is a motive and moving end point which is torquing around at its end. like a writhing snake but the writing is in a circular motion and it produces the day night cycle. the magnet is immobile it is just like sticking a tap onto a barrel it comes out the same way... as magnetism. in the suns example it also comes out in its own specific way, as lights attributions. crucially the magnet is a fixed tap into that flow so its equalised and stable poles reflective of that. the sun as a pole is motive and moving and also crucially skewed as such it produces a stronger and weaker effect depending on its positioning relative to its counterpart sun and also to its source at the centre of the planes.
as you can see this for me explains what you are showing in your example, that it is in Australia also indicates to me that it is situated at a point in our plane which is farthest from its mirrored planes relative point therefore the angle at which this process producing the sun occurs across the planes is far more acute than is seen in more centralised locations of even in the locations relatively central to both planes internal areas. This is likely why the sun is seen in a larger way at such locations as Australia or south America or south Africa.
see below a rough diagram illustrating the point I made regarding that distance as the curvilinear rod between sun central point and sun increasing and decreasing with locality. also see in the right hand side example how the area of effect the suns produce is motive around the greater plane of earth. a relative mirrored area being present on the other side to this example. any questions let me know.
to come full circle that visually you are seeing light "manifest" between tree lines is not actually occurring in the same way we see the black spot of the plane of inertia in the magnetism examples yet its not actually physically occurring. it is because magnetism and light are all the same thing they are outputs from this flow occurring from the plane of inertia occurring at the centre of our plane and ascending and descending to output as attribution from the sun and its twin.

today with dielectric and magnetic fields.png


Thank you for linking the video and the channel I will go check them out. You are right just from a visual perspective I also find it fascinating. equally so given what I consider the sun and the moon to be. that the moon was revered in ancient times makes so much more sense to me now that I appreciate it as an image in our sky of the sun in the heavenly hemisphere. It is literally there to guide our sun back to the centre of our realm and stop it from wandering off again. it has been doing this job for thousand of years. Isis longing to be reunited with Osiris.

sorry this was such a long comment and thanks again for your post its been really helpful seeing the sun in this way especially seeing the converging and diverging lines of light shown in the breakdown video. the sun and the moon really are amazing.
have a great day.
cheers.
I believe this is what has happened with teachings of the past and through our limited understanding of the world we live in and how it works we misunderstand the message, mistranslate the text or dismiss very accurate explanations of what is really going on around us because we, with our limited senses and limited ability to perceive, believe ourselves the custodian and judge of the truth.

Limited understanding is an understatement, and its all designed in this way. we are being bred under ignorance, everything necessary is being kept from us. we are being taught nonsense as if truth. Lies are being fed to kids in order to disorientate them and placate their baser tendencies. it is all by design.

I have been reading through the Zohar (Jewish mysticism commentary of the torah.) the commentary on tefillin so clearly represents the centre of the plane and the Osirian alignment which I speak of in my own research. to put the name of god on your head, is the sun at rest central of the plane above the plane of inertia and in counterspace to the secondary sun in the opposing plane. this is the name of god on your head as in above you at rest. yet we see these poor Jewish people ignorantly strapping boxes with gods name inside onto their foreheads thinking it to be gods will.
we see in other cultures and religions similar things too, this misinterpretation of the books they follow taking things which speak of those on a grander scale, but applying them physically in the lesser to themselves or to elements of their lives generally in mass ignorance. even pagans suffer in this regard. some of us put the tree up at Christmas but its got absolutely nothing to do with Christ. Why did the pagans give a crap about this period of the year? well if you think about it from the perspective that the seasonal change in temp and weather might indicate the sun leaving the area of the plane that they lived in, and those people who reside in that area might be killed or frozen in stasis by such an occurring event. then imagine how scary winter might have been as a period for people who had no weather app on their phone or weather forecaster to predict the weather everyday. Imagine how exciting and joyous the conclusion of that seasonal period must have been. To see the sun moving back towards your location of the plane after anxiously fearing this might have been your last winter for the last few months. merry Christmas indeed.

The one I really get messed up about and even now cant stop myself doing is my work has suggested that "up" isn't even up. we are on a downward facing plane the lower of the two which I have given in other examples on here. Yet we are all thoroughly indoctrinated to believe the sky is above us right now. its actually from the grander perspective lower than us. such a mind twister. but we are told in school through many different means that up is the sky. that heaven is the sky but this is the total opposite to the reality of the truth and yet we have no understanding of it. if we haven't even got the correct grasp of what up really is how are we supposed to determine anything else.
one step at a time I guess.
cheers.
 
Last edited:
Just for perspective, I included a few GIF's of clouds passing under the moon showing the way the light looks as the clouds move.
 

Attachments

  • 20230403_214555_3.gif
    20230403_214555_3.gif
    1.7 MB · Views: 148
  • 20230403_214555_2.gif
    20230403_214555_2.gif
    1.5 MB · Views: 157
  • 20230403_214555_1.gif
    20230403_214555_1.gif
    1.2 MB · Views: 156
The Green Flash paradox is the main argument which is essential in a FE vs RE sunrise/sunset debate.

Advanced Flat Earth Theory (two consecutive messages)

The Sun is absolutely rising and setting:

2003 Total Solar Eclipse - Antarctica - Fred Bruenjes (solar eclipse, passing in front of the Sun is the Black Sun, right behind the Sun is the Moon itself)

For anyone interested to perform calculations regarding how the size of the Sun fits in with the chronology of history, here is the data:

Sun - radius of 636 meters

Radius of the FE - 6363.63 meters

Angle of solar orbit (tropic to tropic/solstice to solstice) - 2 x 27.49° = 0.959582 rad radians

s = r x θ

6106.4248 = 6363.63 x 0.959582

6106.4248/6 = 1017.73747 km, the distance alloted for each gate

The arclength for each gate (space alloted for the each of the six periods running from the winter solstice to the summer solstice, and from the summer solstice to the winter solstice) is 1017.737 km.

Sun westward precessional shift - 1.5 km / year

If anyone desires a longer period of time for the history of the world, one needs to increase the radius of the Earth (upper limit, 10,000 km).
Has this cosmology/theory been written about elsewhere? And thnx for your post..

By gate...any relation to the Summer Gate?
 
Last edited:
Has this cosmology/theory been written about elsewhere?
It is the cosmology of the Book of Luminaries:

Book of Enoch

What I have done, for the first time, is to translate the description of the six gates theory into actual numbers/figures.

Even more details here:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory

There are plenty of researchers out there, they are trying to figure out the date of the reversal of the magnetic poles, CME, but they are using the wrong context (heliocentrism).
 
The eyes reveal two objective things. Level and perpendicular to level. Everything else is subjective.
 
The sun cannot be seen during the day as a circle. Its just too bright. Unless we put on some device to dim the brightness or look at its reflection on a surface which dims the brightness.

We do not seem to accept this very easily. The brightness surrounds the source and its the brightness that is limited. We perceive the brightness at great distance as a light. If it moves directly towards us or us towards it everything, brightness, in density, source appears in our vision to increase.

Reality is simply that us, or us and it are moving, or most likely it is moving. Nothing changes other than that.
So the sun that appears in the morning with its brightness and intensity is the same sun that disappears in the evening.
We do not see a tiny pin prick of light in the night sky that gets ever closer until its brightness clears the dark from our vision.
We see the brightness of the source make the darkness disappear long before the source appears.
We do not see the source shrink into the pin prick of light sitting in the darkness as evening comes on.

Dawn and dusk the sun is way behind the brightness it produces in terms of distance from us.
At dawn its light moves ahead or in front of it and at evening it moves ahead or in front of its brightness. I appreciate that sounds a little barking mad but there it is.
As we look at the brightness in the morning we see reddish pinkish light and this is the very edge of the limit to the pool of brightness our eyes perceive. It is quickly replaced as the brightness increases as the sun moves nearer to us.
In the evening we get to see the sun as the focussed brightness is now facing away from us and we once again get to see the red light at the edge of its pool of brightness. The sun appears bigger in the evening because the red light reveals the circle of the source.

In short in the morning we are looking into the focussed pool of light so struggle to see the source because of its brightness.
In the evening we are looking at the source from the 'other side' or edge of the focussed pool and this is why the sun appears bigger in the evening.
The focus is not a circular pool as you get with a single lightbulb on the ceiling in an otherwise dark room, but it is if we could view it in profile its a scalene triangle.

The leading edge is what we look into in the morning and the trailing edge is what we look into in the evening. The source aka sun is closer to and more visible at the trailing edge in the evening which is why it appears to be bigger when it goes beyond our visions limit.
Morning on the left with us looking >>>>
Evening on the right with us looking <<<<
Its why days comes on slowly and night quickly.

proxy-image.png
 
Last edited:
The sun cannot be seen during the day as a circle. Its just too bright. Unless we put on some device to dim the brightness or look at its reflection on a surface which dims the brightness.

We do not seem to accept this very easily. The brightness surrounds the source and its the brightness that is limited. We perceive the brightness at great distance as a light. If it moves directly towards us or us towards it everything, brightness, in density, source appears in our vision to increase.

Reality is simply that us, or us and it are moving, or most likely it is moving. Nothing changes other than that.
So the sun that appears in the morning with its brightness and intensity is the same sun that disappears in the evening.
We do not see a tiny pin prick of light in the night sky that gets ever closer until its brightness clears the dark from our vision.
We see the brightness of the source make the darkness disappear long before the source appears.
We do not see the source shrink into the pin prick of light sitting in the darkness as evening comes on.

Dawn and dusk the sun is way behind the brightness it produces in terms of distance from us.
At dawn its light moves ahead or in front of it and at evening it moves ahead or in front of its brightness. I appreciate that sounds a little barking mad but there it is.
As we look at the brightness in the morning we see reddish pinkish light and this is the very edge of the limit to the pool of brightness our eyes perceive. It is quickly replaced as the brightness increases as the sun moves nearer to us.
In the evening we get to see the sun as the focussed brightness is now facing away from us and we once again get to see the red light at the edge of its pool of brightness. The sun appears bigger in the evening because the red light reveals the circle of the source.

In short in the morning we are looking into the focussed pool of light so struggle to see the source because of its brightness.
In the evening we are looking at the source from the 'other side' or edge of the focussed pool and this is why the sun appears bigger in the evening.
The focus is not a circular pool as you get with a single lightbulb on the ceiling in an otherwise dark room, but it is if we could view it in profile its a scalene triangle.

The leading edge is what we look into in the morning and the trailing edge is what we look into in the evening. The source aka sun is closer to and more visible at the trailing edge in the evening which is why it appears to be bigger when it goes beyond our visions limit.
Morning on the left with us looking >>>>
Evening on the right with us looking <<<<
Its why days comes on slowly and night quickly.

It’s absolutely amazing how something that so aptly and simply explains what we observe with our own eyes… sounds so absolutely ludicrous when viewed through the lens of our current “understanding” of our world.

I have done my very best to shed the “scientific” dogma of our time and formulate hypotheses (or at least conjecture) based on my interpretation of what I see. This is a shining (pun intended) example of that.
 
Last edited:
This is I feel the shape of the brightness. The outer edge is red. Thus we see it only at morning and evening.
Once the brightness is over us so too speak all we see is the blue band which is why we see a blue 'sky'.
A is us looking >>>> into the morning sun coming towards our position.
B is us looking <<<< into the evening sun departing our position

IMG_20230621_121054.JPG
 
If that’s true, then it completely conflicts with Rayleigh scattering, not that I gave it much credence in the first place, post-awakening
 
When light is present we see.
When light is absent we cannot see.
Pretty simple really no need for theorising what light might or might not be nor pretending to know what 'the ancients', whenever they were alive, knew or didn't know.

What actually happens when the sun sets is the question we are investigating.

For myself going off my visual experience the sun at sunset is moving away from my point of view and its focussed pool of light is going with it.
 
Last edited:
It is the cosmology of the Book of Luminaries:

Book of Enoch

What I have done, for the first time, is to translate the description of the six gates theory into actual numbers/figures.

Even more details here:

Advanced Flat Earth Theory

There are plenty of researchers out there, they are trying to figure out the date of the reversal of the magnetic poles, CME, but they are using the wrong context (heliocentrism).
Very interesting reading on Goethe and his work in optics in the AFET link. Thanks for that. So much of interest in that page . The pyramid clock too. Why is all this ignored? Can't work scientists out these days .
When light is present we see.
When light is absent we cannot see.
Pretty simple really no need for theorising what light might or might not be nor pretending to know what 'the ancients', whenever they were alive, knew or didn't know.

What actually happens when the sun sets is the question we are investigating.

For myself going off my visual experience the sun at sunset is moving away from my point of view and its focussed pool of light is going with it.
I'm of the opinion that the sun casts it light in a way symbolised by the yin yang . Shame we can't get high enough to get good view .
 
Last edited:
This is neither here nor there, but here’s a local (greater Seattle) shot of the sun midday and just about out of sight.

considering that there’s no discernible change in size from (nearly) directly overhead to (nearly) setting… I would have to surmise that either the sun is indeed very very far away, or that what it is and how it works is entirely beyond our comprehension.

IMG_4922.jpeg
IMG_4929.jpeg

EDIT:
Here’s a 9am shot… and it does look smaller 🤔
IMG_4930.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Shame we can't get high enough to get good view .
What could we hope to see?
The shape of the pool of light like being above a streetlight sort of thing?
From where I sit most days the sun moves around me in what appears to me to be a curve as though it was tethered somehow and it is moving around an axis point.
I cannot tell if it is moving parralel to the plane I am sat on or waving in the vertical, if its spiralling, if its on an incline etc.
Its light comes into my vision before it itself does. It leaves my vision before its light does. Dawn comes in slowly night comes in quickly.
It itself could be spinning, static, turning slowly or doing anything we simply cannot see what it is or isn't doing.
No matter how high we go the horizon line always sits in the same place in our vision. The horizon is a visual effect within our vision.
It is the vanishing point which is the point at which all detail vanishes.
We see clouds beyond the horizon. We see land beyond the horizon. We see clouds beyond the land beyond the horizon up until we move away so our visual limit is reached and no detail is discernible.

Anything no matter how bright how big beyond our visual limit is literally invisible to us. All light sources including the sun illuminate a limited distance from source to edge.
I reckon the suns light is egg shaped going purely from the way dawn and night appear and red light illumination is only present during dawn and night entering and leaving.
I don't know it just feels good enough to me.

The impact of sunset on life creates a shift change in life. Diurnal life rests, nocturnal life wakes up. Seems obvious however I feel its important to figuring out what happens at sunset. What its purpose is is the reason, I feel, why it is.
Its one massive beyond comprehension metronome if nothing else. A wave regulator that drives an unimaginable diversity is another way of putting it.
The sunrise moving slowly is the sign nocturnasl life needs to go to rest. The sunset moving quickly is the sign diurnal life needs to go to rest. Were the sunrise and sunset the same there is no difference between light coming on and dark coming on.
I know that sounds mad but there it is.

The only way I can see a light bring about the slow sunrise and quick sunset is for the focus to produce the scalene triangle or the half egg shape to the pool of light.
 
Last edited:
Tips
Tips
Please respect our Posting Rules.
Back
Top