Is the Earth Flat?

[prodromos]

I notice you didn't comment on the video I provided so here it is again ... shrinking sun ... Sunset On Beach Time Lapse Sea Sunset Stock Footage SBV-305115740 - Storyblocks

 

[prodromos]

A telescopic lens may enable you to view the shrinking sun a bit longer but eventually, it will shrink into its vanishing point. It's called perspective. I do prefer using telescopic lenses, but eventually, perspective and atmospheric obfuscation predominate. In other words, at some point in the sun's transit, there is simply insufficient direct light at such an obtuse angle to penetrate the atmosphere. I trust that this clarifies the matter.

The sunset time-lapse posted by @Akita Suggagaki in this post has already demonstrated the falsehood of your claims, yet you persist in the lie.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

A telescopic lens may enable you to view the shrinking sun a bit longer but eventually, it will shrink into its vanishing point.

That is not what we saw with the telescopic lens. Rather the whole Sun goes beneath the horizon. No "shrinking" no "vanishing point".

Ocean Horizon Sunset Clear Sky Time Lapse Stock Footage SBV-327603549 - Storyblocks

Ocean Horizon Sunset Clear Sky Time Lapse Stock Footage SBV-327603549 - Storyblocks

www.storyblocks.com

 

[Edwin Wright]

That is not what we saw with the telescopic lens. Rather the whole Sun goes beneath the horizon. No "shrinking" no "vanishing point".

Ocean Horizon Sunset Clear Sky Time Lapse Stock Footage SBV-327603549 - Storyblocks

Ocean Horizon Sunset Clear Sky Time Lapse Stock Footage SBV-327603549 - Storyblocks

www.storyblocks.com

As explained in the following video, there is actually a confluence of factors working to shrink or even enlarge the sun or moon as they approach the horizon. In some cases (mainly in arid atmospheric conditions), the shrinking prevails; whereas under other (primarily moist) atmospheric conditions, the enlarging prevails, most sunsets probably being somewhere in between. The narrator of the video does an excellent job of explaining the factors involved. The bottom line is that both circumstances are fully plausible on a flat earth, whereas only the latter circumstance is plausible on a spinning ball earth. Case closed. Here is the video: Why Do the Sun and Moon Get Bigger Near the Horizon - Flat Earth

 

[Edwin Wright]

The sunset time-lapse posted by @Akita Suggagaki in this post has already demonstrated the falsehood of your claims, yet you persist in the lie.

See Why Do the Sun and Moon Get Bigger Near the Horizon - Flat Earth

 

[prodromos]

See Why Do the Sun and Moon Get Bigger Near the Horizon - Flat Earth

They don't. Our brain is tricked into thinking they get larger near the horizon but photos with multiple exposures show they actually remain exactly the same size

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Case closed.

Indeed. You persist in a delusion.

Tell us what you see in this picture.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

 

[The Liturgist]

A telescopic lens may enable you to view the shrinking sun a bit longer but eventually, it will shrink into its vanishing point. It's called perspective. I do prefer using telescopic lenses, but eventually, perspective and atmospheric obfuscation predominate. In other words, at some point in the sun's transit, there is simply insufficient direct light at such an obtuse angle to penetrate the atmosphere. I trust that this clarifies the matter.

No, because an object as bright as the sun does not have a vanishing point until one is a vast distance away, so that telescopes cannot pick it up even as microwave radiation.

If the sun acted as you described, over a flat Earth, it would be continually illuminated.

 

[The Liturgist]

Respectfully @Edwin Wright if you have an argument to present, since @prodromoe , myself and most other members have neither the time nor the inclination to view unscientific YouTube videos (also it would clog up our reccommendations), perhaps write it yourself and use screenshots, and cite the video that inspired you.

Because otherwise we could just post responses from various critics of the Flat Earth concept including aviators, astronauts, astronomers, astrophysicists, Christian theologians, and the general public, which I would note we are not doing.

Although I may post a link to Kelsey Hughes’ suggestion to charter a 747 from the airline where he is employed as a pilot, and fly from Buenos Aires to Melbourne, which is a routing that could cause you to fly right over the heart of Antarctica, passing very close to the South Pole.

 

[prodromos]

Respectfully @Edwin Wright if you have an argument to present, since @prodromoe , myself and most other members have neither the time nor the inclination to view unscientific YouTube videos (also it would clog up our reccommendations), perhaps write it yourself and use screenshots, and cite the video that inspired you.

Seriously, if I have to look at the awful curtains that guy in Phuket has in his living room again, I'm going to throw up!

 

[Edwin Wright]

Indeed. You persist in a delusion.

Tell us what you see in this picture.

It's all explained in that last video. If you had watched and understood it, you would have realized that it can go either way depending upon atmospheric conditions. My point is that only the flat earth model accounts for both extremes. Put some thought into this and watch Eric Dubay's video again. Case closed.

 

[Edwin Wright]

No, because an object as bright as the sun does not have a vanishing point until one is a vast distance away, so that telescopes cannot pick it up even as microwave radiation.

If the sun acted as you described, over a flat Earth, it would be continually illuminated.

Not so, and the reason the sun apparently shrinks to a vanishing point under dry atmospheric conditions is that it is not as far away as the ball earth model claims. Watch the video again.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

It's all explained in that last video. If you had watched and understood it, you would have realized that it can go either way depending upon atmospheric conditions. My point is that only the flat earth model accounts for both extremes. Put some thought into this and watch Eric Dubay's video again. Case closed.

You and your videos make no sense. In the photo I posted the earth is only half visible. Not because it has "shrunk" but because it has gone beneath the horizon.

In the flat earth model, on a clear day how far away does the Sun have to be to no longer give us the light of day?
How big is the Sun? What is the mean distance from the surface of the Earth?

I think you are just playing with us now.

 

[Lost4words]

Not so, and the reason the sun apparently shrinks to a vanishing point under dry atmospheric conditions is that it is not as far away as the ball earth model claims. Watch the video again.

Why do flat earth believers never come up with 'real' scientific facts and only youtube videos?

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Why do flat earth believers never come up with 'real' scientific facts and only youtube videos?

Because it is far easier to thoughtlessly spread misinformation.

 

[The Liturgist]

Seriously, if I have to look at the awful curtains that guy in Phuket has in his living room again, I'm going to throw up!

Indeed, its a case of bad set design, which only contributes to the argumentum infinitum, et cetera, ad nauseam which characterizes many youtube videos from the pro-flat Earth community. I know this because I have enjoyed watching rebuttals to these by SciManDan and the late Schrodinger’s Cat (memory eternal - the gentleman who posted under that name content debunking flat earth and sovereign citizen conspiracy theories died of cancer about two years ago).

I mean, really seriously, if one is to upload to youtube one should at least try to have a presentable backdrop, even if one lacks the space or funds to setup an elaborate set. A little bit of green screen goes a long way.

 

[DragonFox91]

The closest the Bible comes to describing a flat earth is the creation in Genesis when it describes the firmament. I’m sure most in this thread will be aware they understood that to mean hard dome. But I don’t think the passage contradicts today’s commonly accepted understandings of the world. The Bible’s other descriptions of the Earth are clearly poetic b/c they come in poetic sections & don't contradict today's understanding either.

I could be more open to the solar system model being incorrect (planets revolving around sun, earth 3rd from the sun, sun enormous, stars other suns & they all have their own planets billions of lightyears away, etc.), but won't deny it either. Just open to it.

 

[The Liturgist]

The closest the Bible comes to describing a flat earth is the creation in Genesis when it describes the firmament. I’m sure most in this thread will be aware they understood that to mean hard dome. But I don’t think the passage contradicts today’s commonly accepted understandings of the world. The Bible’s other descriptions of the Earth are clearly poetic b/c they come in poetic sections & don't contradict today's understanding either.

I could be more open to the solar system model being incorrect (planets revolving around sun, earth 3rd from the sun, sun enormous, stars other suns & they all have their own planets billions of lightyears away, etc.), but won't deny it either. Just open to it.

On the whole Genesis 1 can be read as an allegorical description of the process of the Big Bang, the formation of stars, galaxies and planets and the evolution of life on Earth, which sets it far apart from the false mythology of every other religion (including Mormonism, because of the way their apocryphal books distort the Genesis narrative).

I regard the accuracy of Genesis 1 as a holy miracle and wrote about it on my ChristianForums member blog Unceasing Worship: The Startling Accuracy Of Genesis

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The closest the Bible comes to describing a flat earth is the creation in Genesis when it describes the firmament. I’m sure most in this thread will be aware they understood that to mean hard dome. But I don’t think the passage contradicts today’s commonly accepted understandings of the world

Well it represents and entirely different understanding of the physical universe. That does not bother me in the least. I think we just have to accept that and look for theological truth rather than geological truth.