FLAT EARTH

How does flath earth people know about a 200 ft high wall of ice? Where is the sources?

What would the climatic consequences be if everything was surrounded by so much ice?

How can there on the face of the earth be so big areas which is tropical, subtropical and areas with a relatively mild arctic climate if the oceans are under the influence of all that ice?

How is the flat earth sun constructed when it’s, according to flat earth theory, is warming up the earth, while it simultaneously is not melting the ice?

If you open your eyes and watch the real-world sunset, . . .

Yawn. Hundreds of miles then.

In your schema the sun would appear to set above the horizon, not at the horizon.

That said, your question strikes me as bait for an argument.

You think that the Flat Earth model would have the sun disappear from view at a certain height above the horizon without ever touching the horizon.

That is because you do not acknowledge or properly understand the 'perspective' aspect of it.

I'm sorry -- I didn't say this quite properly; however, the point is that a thin layer of atmosphere (visually) right above the surface can be dense enough to block the light from the sun - causing the sun to "disappear" before reaching the actual horizon (visually).

You simply don't accept it as a reality.

If you open your eyes and watch the real-world sunset, you will understand that your visualization is a waste of time.

Exactly!

If you open your eyes and watch the real-world sunset - and - you are keenly aware of what you are looking at - you will notice that the sun is "followed" by a pattern of light that does not match what you would expect to see in a Ball Earth scenario.

According to the Ball Earth model, the transition from [direct] sunlight to [complete] dark should occur very rapidly (about 2 minutes or so) and equally along the entire horizon (because light from the sun is considered to be parallel to all [direct] points of the earth) - and would be the same for each and every place on earth, from pole to pole - as the terminator line "passed over/through" that place.

However, that is not what we see.

Moreover, the time factors are different in the North from the South. The light-to-dark times vary from place to place and season to season. This is not what the Ball Earth model suggests.

Also - the North region within the Arctic Circle should experience the identical same characteristics - six months removed - as the South region within the Antarctic Circle.

However, that is not what we see.

What we see is a pattern of light that "follows" the sun beyond/over the horizon in a way that is "wrapped around" the sun and "shrinks" with the sun as it moves beyond sight. (Which is not as it would appear if a terminator line were passing by/over/through.)

And, the time it takes to do so varies from place to place and season to season - and, in most cases/places/seasons, takes significantly more time than the Ball Earth model allows for.

Yet, the Ball Earth model suggests that sunlight is only seen ~37 miles beyond the terminator line?

(In front of the terminator line, it is direct sunlight.)

Please explain how "hundreds of miles" fits into an "almost lateral" angle through an area 12-19 miles tall and 37 miles in length...?

I'm sorry -- I didn't say this quite properly; however, the point is that a thin layer of atmosphere (visually) right above the surface can be dense enough to block the light from the sun - causing the sun to "disappear" before reaching the actual horizon (visually).

You simply don't accept it as a reality.

Says he who has never noted a sunset where the sun sets above the horizon. Look more carefully, or more often, or both.

I resent your closing comment. I asked M-Y to explain his statement. Since his explanation, I have not responded to it. Now you jump in with a smart-donkey quip. Save it next time.

My "closing comment" was directed at PostHuman. It was not intended as a "smart-donkey quip" - nor was it intended to insult anyone - not even PostHuman. It was simply a reminder to him concerning conversations of the past - no more and no less.

PostHuman is determined to only see 'sunrise' and 'sunset' in a very particularly-exactingly-specific way.

I regret that you resent me making such a comment to PostHuman - who, I am pretty sure, realizes what the comment means and is not actually offended by it.

So --- why are you offended???

~

It is never my intent to be personally "harsh" to anyone on CC.

You should know that by now.

I have nothing against you -- or anyone else on CC, for that matter.

I may "speak my mind" in a "confidently-direct" manner sometimes concerning things I believe; however, I have a very kind regard for [a number of] people on CC with whom I sometimes disagree and have difference-of-opinion.

I also like them - for the people/personalities that they are.

And, they never offend me simply because they see something differently than I do.

Because, I do not find it offensive if someone simply does not agree with me.

Because, I believe everyone has the right to believe what they will.

Are you sure you are not allowing your "irritation" of the subject matter to make you think that I am somehow "targeting" you?

My comment to PostHuman had nothing whatsoever to do with you or your exchange with Moses_Young.

Part of military training is to resist brainwashing if you’re captured by the enemy.

Your "pattern of light" needs supporting evidence, . . .

The "pattern of light" IS the evidence -- that your eyeballs witness -- as your mind acknowledges what you are seeing.