- Nov 28, 2003
- 23,919
- 14,399
- 60
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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
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.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.
That is not what we saw with the telescopic lens. Rather the whole Sun goes beneath the horizon. No "shrinking" no "vanishing point".A telescopic lens may enable you to view the shrinking sun a bit longer but eventually, it will shrink into its vanishing point.
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 EarthThat 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 - Storyblockswww.storyblocks.com
See Why Do the Sun and Moon Get Bigger Near the Horizon - Flat EarthThe sunset time-lapse posted by @Akita Suggagaki in this post has already demonstrated the falsehood of your claims, yet you persist in the lie.
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
Indeed. You persist in a delusion.Case closed.
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.
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!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.
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.Indeed. You persist in a delusion.
Tell us what you see in this picture.
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.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.
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.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.
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.
Because it is far easier to thoughtlessly spread misinformation.Why do flat earth believers never come up with 'real' scientific facts and only youtube videos?
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!
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.
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.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
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?