The sun and moon are 'apparently'/observed near the horizon, the sun being at the horizon by observation, thus by your words, both the sun and moon are in reality below the observer, thus below the horizon.
OK, so what part of that do you not understand?
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
No you're not. You might be trying to, but I don't know what you mean by "actuality above the observers point of view" nor why you think the moon should be in shadow, nor why refraction should bathe 80% of the earth in sunlight. These things do not follow from what I said.
Jerome continues to corrupt what others have posted in order to perpetuate his fiction.
Jerome is a liar and a fraud, and I can't wait to see what he comes up with next, he is just about as entertaining as Peacegirl, lets see if he can last as long.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
You might be trying to, but I don't know what you mean by "actuality above the observers point of view"
Your words: "It only looks wrong to you because the apparent positions of the sun and moon are higher than they actually are, due to refraction."
What do you think you mean?
The sun and moon are 'apparently'/observed near the horizon, the sun being at the horizon by observation, thus by your words, both the sun and moon are in reality below the observer, thus below the horizon.
Your terminology is confused, but it might just be that you get it. Now, why do you think the moon should be in shadow and the earth in 80% sunlight?
Meanwhile, we still do not know what causes the phases of the moon. Is the moon a sphere or a disc? How about the sun? And what causes that crescent-shaped light area, and the dark parts which you can sometimes still see?
What causes lunar eclipses?
How can you have buoyancy without gravity? What force keeps me from stepping on to a vat of air without going down? The only force at work is this "buoyancy" of the air, apparently... so what causes me to fall down into the vat?
Of course we are ignoring the world-wide conspiracy to pretend we have satellites, space programs and to keep folks from realizing the Antarctic is a strip that is at least 120.000 KM wide, and that flights from Chile to Australia are in fact about 40.000 KM long and happen at about mach 3.3!
But hey - at least there is no pesky scientism, which basically means stuff Jerome has a hard time figuring out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome
Why do you globe believers keep running away from this observational evidence your model is false?
You mean the heat effect on the road? Nowhere near the horizon? And then the way that bike completely fails to dip under the horizon?
This video didn't demonstrate anything, there are hills in the distance that obscure the horizon, and it's very easy to find a section of Highway with a slight vertical curvature, and then set the camera to take advantage of this geometry. There is a section of Rt. 30 in Pa. just east of Bedford Pa. that is called "Mile Level". it is certainly one mile of straight road but it is not level, even though those who grew up there will claim that it is actually level for the whole mile. I have driven that section and it clearly raises up at the one end, for about half the distance. You can discount any video that is set on land, as the surface of the Earth is not level and true by any measure.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Your model predicts the opposite of the observation.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
In your model the moon should not be illuminated from the view point of the observer.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Jerome demonstrates his misunderstanding of perspective by taking the term "Vanishing Point" literally. Actually nothing vanishes there, it's just a geometric function to aid in making a drawing. Objects don't reach the vanishing point and disappear objects don't reach the vanishing point at all. It is true that sometimes an object gets too far away to be seen with the naked eye, but the proper telescope will cure that. The "Vanishing point" is not a point where objects disappear, it is a geometric construct and not real. BTW, all the geometric lines stop at the vanishing point, nothing projects beyond the vanishing point.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
So the flat-Earthers are making more false claims, showing one thing and claiming it is something else. As usual they reject a reasonable and sound explanation and make some outrageous claim instead.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Meanwhile, we still do not know what causes the phases of the moon. Is the moon a sphere or a disc? How about the sun? And what causes that crescent-shaped light area, and the dark parts which you can sometimes still see?
What causes lunar eclipses?
How can you have buoyancy without gravity? What force keeps me from stepping on to a vat of air without going down? The only force at work is this "buoyancy" of the air, apparently... so what causes me to fall down into the vat?
Of course we are ignoring the world-wide conspiracy to pretend we have satellites, space programs and to keep folks from realizing the Antarctic is a strip that is at least 120.000 KM wide, and that flights from Chile to Australia are in fact about 40.000 KM long and happen at about mach 3.3!
But hey - at least there is no pesky scientism, which basically means stuff Jerome has a hard time figuring out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerome
Why do you globe believers keep running away from this observational evidence your model is false?
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Across portions of the Upper Midwest, the Nation's Heartland, down into the central parts of Oklahoma and Texas, about half of the setting moon will be immersed in the umbra. The shadow will appear to be creeping almost straight down across the moon's face from its upper limb.
The shadow will appear to be creeping almost straight down across the moon's face from its upper limb.
That is the opposite of the observation presented.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Can you reading comprehend? The shadow starts covering the moon on the upper limb and then spreads down. The upper portion is dark, the lower portion is not.
Try looking at the very next sentence:
Quote:
Across the Central and Southern Plains only the lowermost portion of the moon will remain in view as it moves down below the west-southwest horizon.