Flat earth debunked.

[Dino246]

That is not any kind of worthwhile answer to his question.

A worthwhile answer would be to explain how - during that "rare moment of correct positioning" (when it can be seen) - that Venus can be seen at night.

The answer you gave is 100% avoidance - more than anything else it seems to be saying:

"I really have no clue; but, I want you to believe it anyway..."

Wow Gary, your snark is showing. Mine was a simple and straightforward answer wherein I assume Zandar can think for himself and process the information I provided.

If Venus were only ever directly between Earth and the sun, it would not be visible to the naked eye because it would be hidden in the sun's glare all the time.

If it is not directly in line, the sun will illuminate it, making it readily visible at least part of the time, which is exactly what we observe.

 

[GaryA]

No snark - just calling it like I see it.

Hey @Zandar - how did you "process the information" he provided? Did he actually answer your question as to how it is that Venus may be seen at night - when it can be seen at night?

Dino - he wants to know how it may be seen in the dark-of-night (when the entire sky is dark) when you must look in the direction of the sun to have any possibility of seeing it.

 

[Zandar]

 

[Moses_Young]

View attachment 253907

Exactly. I don't recall many nights I haven't been able to see Venus if I've looked for it. Yet as your diagram shows, being able to see Venus would be a very rare exception, rather than the rule. That Dino246 just tried to fob off this legitimate query that challenges Heliocentrism provides yet another demonstration that this is more a religion for Heliocentrists than something most actually think through and assess.

 

[Dino246]

Exactly. I don't recall many nights I haven't been able to see Venus if I've looked for it. Yet as your diagram shows, being able to see Venus would be a very rare exception, rather than the rule. That Dino246 just tried to fob off this legitimate query that challenges Heliocentrism provides yet another demonstration that this is more a religion for Heliocentrists than something most actually think through and assess.

It’s quite interesting how you dismiss a perfectly legitimate explanation as an attempt to ‘fob off’.

When I have time I will provide a diagram.

 

[Dino246]

As promised...

View attachment 253939

 

[kinda]

As promised...

View attachment 253939

It seems the promise wasn't kept, since after clicking on link, it failed to connect.

I'm gonna have trust issues moving forward. lol

 

[Dino246]

It seems the promise wasn't kept, since after clicking on link, it failed to connect.

I'm gonna have trust issues moving forward. lol

Thanks... I could see it. Try #2...

 

[GaryA]

Here you go, Dino - a SCALE DRAWING you can use as a backdrop - with sun and Mercury/Venus/Earth rings.

Be sure to add 'inset' (close-up/greatly-magnified) images of each planet with the far-side-from-the-sun half of each planet black/dark at the appropriate angles that are parallel to the line-of-sight angles between Earth and Mercury/Venus - at whatever point on the ring they are indicated/located.

Enjoy!

 

[Moses_Young]

Thanks... I could see it. Try #2...

The below is a close-up image of Venus. If your diagram is true (inaccurate scale overlooked for the time being), how can we see the whole of Venus, when we should only be able to see part of it, due to the sun's light reflecting off of it?

 

[Dino246]

Without context provided, I can make up any number of explanations that you will dismiss.

 

[kinda]

Thanks... I could see it. Try #2...

View attachment 253941

I have to hand it to you Dino, you could probably keep a conversation going about underwater ballet. I have officially tapped out, I can no longer humor a flat earth conversation, but I do wonder if Heliocentric believers are better at pool.

 

[GaryA]

Without context provided, I can make up any number of explanations that you will dismiss.

Context? What more do you need? According to the Ball Earth model, we should never ever be able to see all of Venus - or Mercury. It is that simple. The 'planet' would have to be on the other side of the sun for the whole thing to be illuminated. Anywhere on the Earth side of the sun you will not be able to see anywhere close to all of it - certainly while not seeing the sun at all in a completely black/dark sky.

 

[Dino246]

Context? What more do you need? According to the Ball Earth model, we should never ever be able to see all of Venus - or Mercury. It is that simple. The 'planet' would have to be on the other side of the sun for the whole thing to be illuminated. Anywhere on the Earth side of the sun you will not be able to see anywhere close to all of it - certainly while not seeing the sun at all in a completely black/dark sky.

I agree: we should only ever be able to see half of Venus at one time… just as we can only ever see half the moon at a time.

The context I seek is the time of day at the point from which the ‘photo’ was taken, the date, and the angle from the horizon.

 

[Zandar]

 

[Zandar]

I dont think any of us will ever change our beliefs but its interesting hearing about them.

 

[Moses_Young]

I agree: we should only ever be able to see half of Venus at one time… just as we can only ever see half the moon at a time.

The context I seek is the time of day at the point from which the ‘photo’ was taken, the date, and the angle from the horizon.

He meant (or if not, I mean) that you should never even be able to see one complete side of Venus. The angles don't allow for it, as your diagram shows that the part of Venus in view from the night side of the Earth will be partly shielded from the sun's rays, and therefore invisible or dark to the observer from Earth. Unless you hold that Venus gives off its own light, like the sun (and actually the moon, but I don't think Heliocentrists generally believe that)?

 

[Dino246]

He meant (or if not, I mean) that you should never even be able to see one complete side of Venus. The angles don't allow for it, as your diagram shows that the part of Venus in view from the night side of the Earth will be partly shielded from the sun's rays, and therefore invisible or dark to the observer from Earth. Unless you hold that Venus gives off its own light, like the sun (and actually the moon, but I don't think Heliocentrists generally believe that)?

There is no reason why we should be unable to see a complete hemisphere of Venus. It just wouldn’t be visible all the time, the same way the moon is not fully visible at all times. It’s really not a problem… unless you have a theoretical resistance to the idea.

 

[GaryA]

According to the Ball Earth model, we should never ever be able to see all of Venus - or Mercury.

He meant (or if not, I mean) that you should never even be able to see one complete side of Venus.

Yeeeees - I was referring to seeing the "whole face of it" - on our side of it (naturally) - the most we could see at any particular moment in/of time. Common sense tells us we cannot see the other side...

 

[Moses_Young]

Yeeeees - I was referring to seeing the "whole face of it" - on our side of it (naturally) - the most we could see at any particular moment in/of time. Common sense tells us we cannot see the other side...

I'm not trying to be unkind, but I think Heliocentrists often believe what they do because they have no grasp of basic science, mathematics, trigonometry or geometry. Highschool stuff can dispel the hocus-pocus of Heliocentric theory, but the Heliocentrists can't see it because they don't know it.

The irony is they're often the ones calling the other side uneducated.

There is no reason why we should be unable to see a complete hemisphere of Venus. It just wouldn’t be visible all the time, the same way the moon is not fully visible at all times. It’s really not a problem… unless you have a theoretical resistance to the idea.

Go back to your diagram, and explain to me how what you just said measures up to geometry. Either your diagram is wrong, or your statement here is.