Sunset Shadows
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 сер 2024
- How do shadows behave at sunset? This video compares two different sun paths over a 3D model to show how shadow observations could be made in real life to reveal the shape of our world.
The project was in part inspired by videos by p-brane and Taboo Conspiracy,
in particular those related to Mt. Rainier, upwardly cast shadows and earth curve shadows.
p-brane:
• The time lapse shadow ...
Taboo Conspiracy:
/ @tabooconspiracy
• Flat Earth Fact #16 - ...
I have been amazed by the number of subscribers so far - many thanks to all. I intend to do another video outlining how I believe good observations can be made. I hold down a full time job so unfortunately it may be a while. Similarly, responding to everyone in the comments may become impossible.
To everyone reading the comments - You will see that I have responded to Duncan McNeill as the first dissenting voice. I welcome anyone (globe or flat) who genuinely believes they can materialy contribute to this subject. I trust he falls into this category and will try to gather realworld evidence to prove his point.
If not, and for anyone else who simply wishes to endlessly debate, or worse, I will not participate. I do not believe that in the brief but vast history of 'UA-cam comments' any such debate has resulted in one side convincing the other. It is, in my opinion, a waste of time to engage in those pointless discourses.
Good solid verifiable, repeatable evidence, (or ideas as to how to obtain it) delivered in a courteous respectful manner, is what is required from both sides.
Anything otherwise will be greeted with a deafening silence from me as I walk away.
That was profound, I'm going to try to do the same thing I have found myself wasting time, lots of it .
I live 30 minutes from Mount bachelor in bend Oregon if you need mountain assistance I can be up there in a jiff and thanks again
@@toddpeachey6427 Thanks Todd. Being from the UK I'm not familiar with Mount Bachelor. Just had a look on G earth. Looks beautiful. Their graphics seem to think you can't see the ocean from the top, but it does appear to be in some of the pics I looked at. If you can see it, this would be a cracking spot to observe from. I am working on a follow-up video (sorry I'm very slow at it) in which I hope to suggest a simple device almost anyone could make to record how the shadows behave.
@@shadowreveal1476Your idea is awesome. I'm always looking for a solid proof that the globe supporters would have trouble spinning a lie about. From Mount bachelor which is in the center of Oregon we can see Mount Adams which is in Washington but the geography looking West doesn't let you see the ocean. That would be the ideal scenario a mountain by the ocean.
Who would have thought, all it takes to see the truth of this place is to stop being willfully blind.
Great work! Thank you.
I've been a TRUE EARTHER for 9 years now, Ben from Taboo Conspiracy is one of the BEST !!! I'm glad to see more intelligent people like you do Great videos like this. Hope to see a lot more from you.
STAY AWESOME 👊😎💯
It's so evident, such simplicity
Saved to my 'Sunsets' playlist! Thanks for sharing this comparison, it's time we all start thinking again.
Sent via Taboo Conspiracy. Nice work and observations here. As we awaken consciousness it becomes increasingly apparent and obvious that we are NOT all living on a gigantic hurtling ball-shaped rock in a vacuum of space.
Ben (Taboo Conspiracy) sent me your way. Subbed!!!
T C showed your video,,,, beautiful and well done sir 👍😂
Nice work!
Thank you! Cheers!
Also looking forward to seeing other videos. Being a Joiner I know that water always finds its level. I suspect you know this already 👍😄
Thanks Gary. Joinery is one of the nobles trades, a certain carpenter proved that a long time ago.😀
@@shadowreveal1476 yes absolutely true, beautiful and I know Him 😄
@@GaryThomsonJoinery 👍
Very good information ❤️
Thanks for liking 👍
Taboo sent me here! Well done...Look forward to more.
Beautiful animation and moody contemplative music to support a well thought out case. Videos like this are so important, and offer a genuine attempt to describe an alternative to the 'handed down' globe concept. One of the biggest intellectual shocks in my life was realizing that I had never even thought to question what I had been taught about our physical reality - whether a globe or flat earth. I was also shocked at my first response when asked by an intelligent gentleman to consider the possibility that the earth was not a globe; without any investigation of my own, and on the spot, i simply snorted with derision and quipped,"you are joking - don't be stupid!" Suddenly, i realized i was the ignorant one, reacting without thinking, like I had been programmed to act that way by the education system and teachers. I have a 1st class honours degree, and for all my study and education I couldn't even take a moment to form a response that was my own. Just that knee jerk response "you are joking". I feel ashamed actually, at my lack of critical thinking back then. Surely the pursuit of truth outweighs personal feelings?; I have never understood the aggression and anger that comes from many globe theorists. Asking the question is the most important thing, in my opinion. Hopefully, genuine and intelligent globe folks (who have every right to express their own theories and arguments too) will be courteous here on your site WJB. Discourse and observation are what makes this subject fascinating, not mockery. No one should fear the truth - unless, of course, they have a private agenda or personal axe to grind? So, keep up the good work and thank you for your observations my friend.😊
Pip. Apreciate your honesty. I think everyone who has passed through the education system was taught to equate 'flat earth' with stupidity. I had the same reaction as you when first confronted by the fact that some people in the modern age believed the earth to be flat. A good deal of research later, and with the help of videos from Taboo and Rob Skiba (amongst many others), I began to see that it is not idiotic to entertain the possibility. Using the Biblical principle of 'Test all things, prove all things, hold fast to that which is true.' I have attempted to test both the globe and flat earth for myself. I can see too far for the globe diameter to be what they claim, I am unwilling to trust those who claim to have been to space, and the photographic and video 'evidence' put forward for the globe is strongly suspect. What is needed is a verifiable, repeatable and easily reproduced test which can be carried out by anyone. I hope the shadow observations suggested may lead to such a thing. If the globe proponents provide a test that meets the standard and proves the globe, I will (admitedly unhappily) accept this and become a fool who used to believe the earth was flat. I strongly suspect however that such a proof will be forever elusive. 😀
I'm glad you enjoyed it and thanks for the compliment on the music. I don't believe anyone in the modern era started out as a flat earth beliver. The first reaction is always that it's stupid. I too hope that globe folks will rise to the challenge and make observations in the real world for themselves.
Thank you. Love and blessings.
Sent via *Taboo Conspiracy.*
Interesting _insights_ to consider! Thanks.
The most we know about the nature of our Sun, is that it's _apparent._
Very true 👍
instant classic
Kind of you to say so. 👍
From TC : Great work. Made my head spin a little trying to visualize the effects on a real world scale but you explained it succinctly and concisely. Thanks
Thanks William, That's Great! 😂 Sorry couldn't resist some 'Dad' humour.
I should do a timelapse sunset of the CN Tower in Toronto showing this.
Eccellent. Real world observations are what we need.
Well done, well done. I look forward to seeing some real world observations carried out to this level.
Next time when at the beach, instead of trying to take a pic of the "sunset", I will point my camera around to the high-rises behind me and watch what the shadows do.
This is a significant nail in the globe coffin. So simple yet so profound. Let’s see them refract their way around this! New subscriber, thank you for sharing. Pat 🏴
Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it!
This is excellent work! It is very well thought out and explained both with the text and the 3D model. I especially like the possible issues explained at the end. I certainly appreciate how much work went into this process after you get the initial idea. Thank you for doing this. Appreciated.
Thanks Ryan
Taboo sent me - enjoyed your vid
thanks!
Welcome! 👍
Thank you for your excellent work, I was referred here by taboo conspiracy just to let you know.
nicely done . the light and shadow do not go higher than what casts the shadow indicating a flat earth with a close sun
Interesting idea. You're about to be visited by dozens of the most vile trolls.
As an architect, have you ever thought about the fact that the globe model cannot support the perpendicular relationship between horizontal and vertical planes? It's impossible for their model to have vertical planes comprised of multiple vertical lines because they imagine that no two verticals can ever be parallel. Crazy stuff.
I did my training as an architectural technologist a very long time ago and although the training had an emphisis on the technology side, we were never asked to consider earth curvature or the divergence of verticals. Later in my career as a designer of buildings it never even enterd my head, even though at that time I believed we lived on a globe. Frankly though I don't think relying on 'experts' - engineers, architects, builders, pilots, astronots - should not be the way to approach this. 'Trust me I'm a......' whatever, is not proof. 'If you put a pot of water over a fire it will eventually boil' OK, let me try that and I'll prove it for myself. Observing carefully the real world with an open mind is what really reveals the truth.
After thinking about it for many hours over a few years time I realized what you are talking about (I think) because everything allegedly is plumbed to the center of the Earth the geography of the land would not matter at all, if there was a place to see far enough everything would lean away from you the further and further you went out. It would be like a flower opening up its pedals.
@@toddpeachey6427 which is madness and impossible, of course.
Thank you, keep it up 👍
Excellent!!
Im a bit late but here is my suggestion for an updated model/animation. Instead of posts make a single pyramid or simple triangle shape and make it represent 500 feet from base to tip top. Now remove the house and instead extend the model to represent about 5 miles. Place a layer of clouds just above the tip top of the pyramid run the program for globe earth going through sunset. From the ground you will see a shadow, an inverted mountain shape extending away from the tip if the pyramid and getting wider the further away you get from the pyramid. That shadow will be cast in the underside of that cloud layer and that cloud layer will also be illuminated. Rerun the same scenario using flat earth and you will get no shadow on top or underneath those clouds as the clouds are above the tip top. Now do the same thing again except move the cloud layer down around the upper mid portion of the pyramid with the base clear if clouds and the tip top extending above the cloud layer. When you rerun this experiment the globe and flat earth versions will look almost identical from above the cloud layer and they both will cast a shadow in top of the illuminated clouds of the pyramid peak laying in its side with the widest shadow near the pyramid and the skinniest point if the shadow furthest from the pyramid you can go. Now make the sunset on the globe model and from the ground looking up at that cloud layer the underside of the clouds will be illuminated and their will be the shadow of the pyramids bottom half inverted on the bottom side of the illuminated clouds, but when you run the flat earth sunset from the base looking up you will not see any clouds illuminated from underneath and no shadow at all on the bottom side of the cloud layer. What I described is exactly what you would see for yourself in the real world just like in the globe model, the flat earth model only works for a single scenario and does not show what we see in real world observations
Here's a link to PBrane, he did some mountain peak shadow vids a while back. Pretty interesting. ua-cam.com/video/OO2MJw004HY/v-deo.html
He shows a link to another vid explaining clouds lit from underneath also. (click more...)
hey you haven't scored the wikipedia flat Earth 'fact check' - YET :) Great work!
Yes 😂 I've been wondering when that will kick in.
I was also surprised that there was no “Context box of honor” telling us the “truth”. The presence of Context boxes are to protect us from wasting our time actually thinking or considering other possibilities. Nothing to see here folks! Just move along. In reality, any video content with a Context box is the truth, more often than not.
Welcome to the dark side...
Glad you could join us...
I hope you will follow this up with additional observations. Must be TONS of real world examples you or others can timelapse no matter where you live. I'm almost in the Arctic, 65 degrees north, in Sweden and that alone should make for some cool observations since I can see the sun above the horizon 90+% of the cycle in the summer. I'm thinking I'm gonna look for some cool place that exemplifies this effect.
That would be really interesting from that far north. I do believe these are observations anyone could make but in your location I'm guessint the sun can take some time to 'set', since the angle to the horizon would be shallow. More opportunity to see a shadow get taller than the object IF we live on a globe.
@@shadowreveal1476 Well from my vantage point it *appears* elliptical, since I'm not in the exact center, but the ball model can pound sand as far as I'm concerned. I'm amazed they got away with this for as long as they did. That's the power of propaganda for ya. They've been doing this since Gutenberg and the printing press in my opinion... I loved your work in blender, shouldn't a ball model be possible to do in autocad with the correct (ball model) distances? That would just smash it I think 😂
@@shadowreveal1476 - how exactly would the sun “set” on a flat plane?
@@duncanmcneill7088 consider that the sun is much much closer than we have been told. The sun never sets. It simply moves closer and farther each day from our stationary position.
@@gs1100ed - nope, view the sun through a solar filter and you will see that it DOESN’T get smaller as it sets. If it was “going away” it would shrink in size as it sets.
Also, on a flat plane it would never drop below horizontal no matter how far away it went.
Complete garbage.
Perhaps u should do an animation containing both the sunrise/approach and sunset/recede for both models. On a static sun spinning globe model, the first hint of direct morning sunlight would hit the easterly portion of the ceiling, chase the horizons shadow, crawl westerly across the ceiling, down the west wall, head east across the floor to and up the east wall, crossing the ceiling again this time from east to west being chased by the horizons shadow. On a flat stationary earth with an overhead orbiting sun, the suns direct light will never touch the ceiling. We all know direct sun light never hits the ceiling!!!!
I try explaining here>>>> ua-cam.com/video/5-OBVdI4HYg/v-deo.html
@@In_Rem Good Video. I see you have your share of what we in the UK call 'plonkers' in your comments - ignore them. Shows you are on the right track as they will try in vain to film direct sunlight on the ceiling.
Great video, the shadow problem is something I noticed a few years ago when driving in the late afternoon. If you happen to pass through an area with some hills near by, there is a very clear line of demarcation, full sun vs. shadow on the ground cast by the hill. It always bothered me that the shadow line never visibly seems to move as one would expect with either model. Seems like once the shadow line is established on the ground its mostly fixed then the intensity of the full sun as well as the shadow area both just decrease in illumination until its so dim there is no more contrast thus no shadow. Unfortunately, that behavior is not consistent with either model, though your flat model is closer to reality than the globe model. Wonder if that phenomenon could be modeled by including the inverse square law and atmospheric diffusion to account for the decrease in photometric energy.
I have observed the same. Atmospheric opacity and the inverse square law play their part in fading out the defined shadow line. It might be possible to model it but it's not easy. I have tried in vain to model this at full scale, but the distance they claim for the sun seems to make the model fail. I think it's because of the decimal places to which the computer has to calculate. I have not been able to make it work in either Blender nor Autocad.
@@shadowreveal1476 The Sun is most likely not that far away. What happens if you try using something like 5,000 miles? We know what the angular viewing size of the sun is so the diameter at that 5,000 mi distance could be found by projecting the cone out to that distance. Just thinking out loud. I don't have the AutoCAD experience to do any of this myself.
@@bentleyjarrard885 I agree about the local sun and a FE model can be done in autocad etc. The shadows behave pretty much the same as in my non scale video for any FE sun distance. Can't model the globe however.
Two thunderstorms, one to the east and one closer and just to the west will replicate the predicted globe model. The western storms shadow will ascend and rise above the eastern storm before being overtaken by a horizontal shadow (the Earth's shadow).
Excellent deflerfing. The light going through the the window starts low and moves up the wall and touches the ceiling matching reality of the spherical earth. In The flat earth model the light starts low then stays at the window height, not matching reality. Thanks
so simple and so well presented!
true, i personally have not seen such a model presented by either group
i do feel this is extremely one sided though - perhaps for the next lesson you can include some numbers, a formula and some old school math-e-magic...just to be fair.
i have to compliment crital thinking for making me lol by showing circle/disc and sphere/globe all have _R_ value 🤣 a strong contender for the 2023 parroting award 👏
thank you!
Thanks for your comment, well timed. I had just read CT's latest reply to me and was wondering whether it was worth replying to him - Frankly I think I'm wasting my time there. I really don't want to get into text debates with people here as I have never yet seen comments anywhere that resolve anything. Usually just decends into insults.
I agree, the whole thing is a bit one sided since, for FE, it's trying to prove a negitive. I am working through what I believe will give anyone willing to experiment the best chance of capturing an upward shadow. Based on geometry, which I prefer, in CAD. I have always been a graphical person since my early days in architecture, when we used drawing boards and T squares. Anyway, I hope to show the principles in my next video.
Do you consider that in the globe model the surface of the Earth is curved? If you're only comparing a close Sun and a distant Sun, that's not an adequate representation, particularly if you're looking at how the Sun is blocked by the Earth itself.
Is there a way to adjust the angle of the pillars and house based on the 'backward' rotation of the earth? It would reduce the apparent height of the objects casting shadows.
Hey! Can you give the coordinates for the start and end point of that Google Earth elevation profile that Taboo used in his video?
So this confirms that on a flat earth the sun would never set - it would just become dimmer and smaller with distance. Exactly as we DON’T observe.
Proof by contradiction that the earth cannot be flat.
Thank you.
You're welcome Duncan. The blender models and animations cannot confirm anything however. They are simply tools to illustrate what might be expected in each situation. As regards "proof by contradiction", I have watched numerous videos posted by others which clearly show the sun reducing in size and dimming. Is that contrary proof by counter-contradiction? I think not. Since the sun appears to both 'set' and go away in various real world observations, this needs to be explained for both situations. Unfortunately I think both sides of this debate will site atmospheric distortion and refraction - impasse.
This is why I have proposed real world observations which arise from the blender model animations. I believe they should be relatively easy to conduct and I invite you to participate. I look forward to your results.
@@shadowreveal1476 - of course, if you observe the sun setting through a solar filter then it’s obvious that the size doesn’t change as the sun “sets” and it is obviously occluded by something. Thus it cannot be receding into the distance as so many Flat Earthers claim.
Strange how mountains are always illuminated at the top first during sunrise with the shadow moving downward as the sun rises - and the opposite occurs during sunset. I wonder what is causing that shadow.....? 😉
I imagine modelling atmospheric refraction is quite difficult in Blender.
@@duncanmcneill7088 Excellent! Now you are talking about real world evidence that could be scrutinized, two good possibilites.
Solar filter - I assume you have done this? - If not, no problem. If you want to convince me, then set up an observation and video it. The parameters required would be a dual camera set up, one with the filter you propose and the other without. Specify the location, time and equipment used. Both cameras must video the same sunset simultaneously. If the result shows the sun appearing to diminish and fade in one, and it setting below an unobstructed horizon (e.g. the sea) in the other, then others should be able to repeat it as verification.
Illuminated mountains - The second asserertion you make requires some clarification but, it is exactly the evidence required. The shadow of the earth surface rising up, or decending down, a mountain facing the ocean is exactly what is predicted by the globe animation. If you have observed this first hand then please make sure you havent been mislead by a distant elevated landscape obscuring the sun as it 'goes away'. If you are happy that this is not an issue, and wish to convince me, then please go out and record a video or timelapse to confirm. The parameters to meet for this one will be that there is no obscuring landscape between the mountain and the sun. i.e. it would need to be adjacent to a flat landscape (or as you might maintain a 'curving away' landscape) or better still, to eliminate all chance of error, next to the sea or large lake. Again the the location, time and equipment used will be required. Someone from the opposing camp can then replicate to verify.
I wish you well in your efforts, whatever the result. 👍
@@shadowreveal1476 - the Mount Rainier time lapse observations (mainly to do with upward pointing shadows on clouds) demonstrate the shadow rising up the face of the mountain as the sun sets. As far as I’m aware, there are no significant obstructions between Mount Rainier and the Pacific Ocean.
Everyone should experience a west coast sunset at some point in their lives. My most memorable one was viewed from the walls of Fort Adelaide in Port Louis, Mauritius many years ago. Truly spectacular watching the sun gradually being occluded from the bottom up. It was a beautiful cloudless evening too - no solar filter required, just sunglasses.
@@duncanmcneill7088 Duncan, I trust you will be willing at the very least to concede that there is a difference of opinion as to what the Mt. Ranier observations show. It is after all one of the things that prompted me to make the animations. You will be unsurprised to learn that I disagree with your assertion that they 'demonstrate the shadow rising up the face of the mountain'. I assert that sadly they do not. However both your statment and mine are not evidence of anything and simply stements of belief.
Memories such as your Fort Adelaide one are to be treasured indeed. I think you must agree however it does not constitute evedince of any kind either. I suspect (perhaps wrongly) you would have no interest in considering the effects of atmospheric lensing, or how an object on a flat table can seem to disappear bottom up due to angular resolution. You observation falls into the category of what I would call an indicator. By that I mean it appears to indicate a setting sun. However other observations such as the ones to which I have referred indicate, that there may be an alternative explanation and, a setting sun may be an illusion. That is why verifiable experimentation is required.
I also note in you latest comment the absence of any commitment to carry out your own real world observations in a way that could be presented for scrutiny.
Unfortunately that means this conversation can only ever be a debate where I try to refute your assertions. As my time is limited I unwilling to continue that sort of conversation and must therefore bid you adieu.
I thank you for at all times being courteous in your comments, that is appreciated. 👍
As someone who has investigated this and has obtained verifiable, repeatable evidence to show conclusively how the real world behaves, I have some comments. First I want to make it clear that I hope you are genuine in your quest for the right answer. In my previous experience, it is clear that no amount of verifiable, repeatable evidence is enough to open the eyes of closed minded people. The shadow most definitely does go higher than the casting object. Thanks for doing the work on the model. There are a few things that are incorrect, and you have identified that the scale is not correct. Unfortunately this very thing has a big influence on what we see in the real world. There are several other things that need correcting if you are interested in hearing about it. Also I have video evidence that the shadow is cast upwards.
Thanks for taking the time to reply I would be very interested in whatever insights you can provide on this subject. I would be particularly interested in seeing your video. Where can I view it?
Since you agree with me that verifiable, repeatable evidence is what is required, can I assume therefore you will be willing to provide full details of your observation such as location, time, equipment used etc. I would hope that another subscriber will be close enough to the location to be able to repeat your observation and verify it.
I would also be interested in what you consider needs to be corrected in my video. With regard to the scale, I deliberately modeled out-of-scale in order to easily illustrate the principle differences in shadow casting I belive there are between the globe and flat geometry. A full scale model does not permit the differences to be shown clearly in video format. I am considering possible ways to do that however, a 3d model will never be proof either way and real world observation is the only true test.
Can I assume that you do not disagree with the 4 conclusions I drew in my video?
Namely:
1. On a globe; the shadow of an object, formed on a vertical surface, must (however briefly) rise above the height of the object.
2. On a flat earth; the shadow of an object, formed on a vertical surface, cannot ever rise above the height of the object.
3. On a globe; the shadow of the lowest physical horizon (sea), must form (however briefly) on a vertical surface and rise above the height of that surface as the sun sets.
4. On a flat earth; the shadow of the lowest physical object (sea), will never form on a vertical surface which is above that (sea) level. The shadow of any object which is above sea level, will never rise above the height of that object, as the sun moves away.
Hopefully we can at least agree on the above. I must of course caveat the above with the comment that these 4 observations are subject to atmospheric distortion, refraction etc. I would be happy to hear any comments you may have on factors which may also affect observations.
I am currently working on another video to outline the issues involved in making real world observations of this subject. I hope to include considerations to be made for both globe and flat observers.
@@shadowreveal1476 Thanks for the reply. To address this in detail, I would like to make a video, but I will make as many points as possible in this limited space.
Yes I agree that evidence is what is required, and I will state that the evidence of the Sun and it's shadow conclusively matches the globe. I will further state again, that, even when this evidence is provided, there are still people who want to dismiss the evidence without any rational thought.
*"1. On a globe; the shadow of an object, formed on a vertical surface, must (however briefly) rise above the height of the object."*
Just note here that the angle is small at ground level and the duration is brief, so you have to be in the right place at the right time, with favourable conditions. Also the setting sun is fading away and the shadow gets dim, making a photo difficult, but not impossible.
Real world evidence shows that indeed it does. Here is a list of some items
Here is my video I did about the upward shadow ua-cam.com/video/YAicgl0Wt_A/v-deo.html
Shadows in the sky (crepuscular rays) show a Sun below level ua-cam.com/video/s2Pspc883ME/v-deo.html
Here is a picture I have taken of the sun below level at sunrise. I know there is no shadow in the picture, but this is impossible to see if the Earth were flat. i.imgur.com/4L20H8U.png
Here is a picture of the setting sun casting a shadow on the underside of a water tower. Impossible if the Earth were flat. i.imgur.com/qdfLyi2.jpg
One of the best measurements has been done by Bobby Shafto on his channel. Bobby is very meticulous with his measurements and experiments. See ua-cam.com/video/Jd7OH5kfDC8/v-deo.html and ua-cam.com/video/qv089xgKMik/v-deo.html
When higher up, the angle is greater, Wolfie6020 captured this ua-cam.com/video/1EGvRuUe8rU/v-deo.html and this ua-cam.com/video/pFvhaPCEwFo/v-deo.html and this ua-cam.com/video/FVeNNfC1VOY/v-deo.html
That will do for now.
*"2. On a flat earth; the shadow of an object, formed on a vertical surface, cannot ever rise above the height of the object."*
True but not quite correct. According to the geometry of the flat earth the Sun can never get lower than 10 degrees in the sky. At midnight the flat earth sun is still visible because it is still above the plane. At sunset it's more like 15-20 degrees. Even if you subscribe to the theory that it fades as it gets further away, simple geometry will dictate it will fade while in the sky. In your model, this kinda shows that, with the shadow stopping short of reaching the level of the window. If you scale it correctly, the shadow will stop well short on a flat earth. We don't see that. Shown in the evidence above, and easy to verify for yourself.
Also, on the flat earth model, the sun must have a circular motion, and not just get further away. This would cause the shadow to shift laterally. You don't show that, and we don't see that in reality. Hence the real life shadow does not match the flat earth model.
*"3. On a globe; the shadow of the lowest physical horizon (sea), must form (however briefly) on a vertical surface and rise above the height of that surface as the sun sets."*
Yes I've show that by the shadow on the vertical cloud bank. A point to note, your model doesn't take into account the penumbra of the Sun shadow. It will never be a sharp line. Most people will just notice things getting darker slowly, but really it's the penumbra moving through. Illustrated by the cloud bank shadow. You are incorrect on your analysis of the dusk effect. On the globe, the dusk effect is a combination of the penumbra and the increased distance of travel through the atmosphere.
*"4. On a flat earth; the shadow of the lowest physical object (sea), will never form on a vertical surface which is above that (sea) level. The shadow of any object which is above sea level, will never rise above the height of that object, as the sun moves away."*
My video of the cloud bank, and the shadow retreating on the clouds at sunset shows the shadow of the sea/mountains rising above their height. The Earth cannot be flat. The physical evidence confirms this. What commonly happens here is that flat earth proponents will deny the evidence or make up unscientific stuff to try to dismiss it.
@@shadowreveal1476 It's pre-dawn and the Sun is illuminating the underside of the plane's wing. i.imgur.com/SmKyKfS.jpg
And this one i.imgur.com/hAD0yYQ.jpg
@@CriticalThink Thanks for the reply. I have had a look at your links and a brief look at your channel. They fall I think into two categories:
Experimental observations and observations only. Both are open to interpretation but the later are generally uncontrollable.
Experimental observations
First the good news. In the first video from your channel I believe you have something which FE needs to address.
Video - Everywhere I go in the world, R value confirmed! ua-cam.com/video/aV3pOuIFsqc/v-deo.html
Good experiment, repeatable and verifiable. I would like to see this repeated independently by others. Also would like to see if a similar journey across Australia along a line of latitude produced consistent weight measurements.
Needs a big country and many repetitions to be significant I think.
If confirmed needs to be explained by FE model as it is inconsistent. There are a lot of variables here though, so not in itself a convincer for me and, it does beg the question as to why the oceans do not spin out to the equator? Think Saturn. I'm afraid gravity does not hold water on this for me - if you'll excuse the pun. Water is a free agent and will follow the greater pull.
Video - Can a Setting Sun Cast a Shadow Upwards? ua-cam.com/video/Jd7OH5kfDC8/v-deo.html
Shadow rising on a scale. Good experiment, repeatable and verifiable. This is close to the sort of thing that could prove something either way. Sadly in this instance the setup is not shown and the relative heights of the shadow object are critical. Could be redone to be more precise however for locations close to sea level the level of precision required increases as does the effect of our old pal refraction. A tool used by both sides to cry foul. Similar experiments at the highest elevation possible is what is required.
Video - More Confirmation Sun Descends Below Horizontal ua-cam.com/video/qv089xgKMik/v-deo.html
Sunset viewed through tube. Good experiment, repeatable and verifiable. This is close to the sort of thing that could prove something either way. I would like to see a modified version of this repeated independently by others, with a little more care with the setup. Sadly the camera position is moved and the tube is not viewed concentricaly. My interpretation of the video is that it is not inconsistent with what I would expect to see on a FE.
Video - A nice sunset in New York is more bad news for Flat Earthers. ua-cam.com/video/FVeNNfC1VOY/v-deo.html
Good news I say. My interpretation is that this shows exactly what the FE model predicts the shadow just about reaches the top of the pier but never above and the illumination of the ceiling is a reflection from the polished floor. I suspect you will disagree. This is however again close to the sort of thing that could prove something either way. Shadow movement within tall buildings, with an un-obscured view to the rising or setting sun, are some of the best locations to observe.
Observations Only
Video - Qantas flight at Sunset - Far side of a curved object not illuminated by sun - Unimpressed. If you can't tell why the far side of a curved object is not lit I can't help you.
Video - Shattering the hopes and dreams of Flat Earthers from 47,000 ft - Unimpressed. Filmed on a plane unverifiable, too many variables, aircraft attitude, glazing refraction etc.
i.imgur.com/qdfLyi2.jpg Satelite dish picture - very funny! Again if you can't tell what's wrong with this I don't think I can help you.
Video - Phuket Word Proves the Globe Without Leaving His Living Room
Only two items of note in this one for me.
1. Shadow rising on cloud - This is an interesting observation however, I would need more detail such as location, observer elevation, orientation etc. You mention in passing a 3-400m mountain. This needs to be verifiably eliminated before this observation could be presented as a proof. If the earth is a globe this shouldn't be a rare phenomenon, but location is key to eliminate high-ground shadows which will produce the same effect on a FE.
2. Shadow of curve retreating to the west - Down to interpretation I'm afraid. I see nothing inconsistent with a sun retreating. I can hear you laughing in your Australian cave.
Anyway thanks again for replying, as you say the space here is limited and a video is a better medium to convey these complex issues. Typing this stuff is surprisingly time consuming and I have gardening to do as my wife will remind me. 😅
@@shadowreveal1476 Thanks for the reply. To be perfectly frank, I'm disappointed with your comments. You seem to show an unwillingness to look at the evidence objectively.
*"Experimental observations and observations only. Both are open to interpretation"*
There are a lot of things that are NOT open to interpretation. Once an experiment or observation can be repeated with the same results by several people, it's not a matter of interpretation. For example, I use a measuring device to measure the length of a piece of wood. My measuring device says it is 1 meter long. Another person uses a different measuring device and they also get 1 meter long. Was any of this "open to interpretation"? Of course not. It is not possible to interpret the results to conclude that the wood is 2 m long. You may think this is an silly example, but this is exactly what happens in the flat earth world. For example the distance from East to West in my area can be measured and on the globe, it should be a certain distance. On the flat earth it will be a different distance. I measured it, and the distance I measured matches the globe, but the flat earth is off by more than a factor of 2. This is not open to interpretation. There is no way you can interpret 1 km into a 2km measurement. The simple fact is by measurement, the Earth is not flat. No amount of interpretation can change that.
Weight vs Latitude
*"Good experiment, repeatable and verifiable."*
Yes, exactly what you asked for, but the following comments show you don't understand the significance of the experiment and why it so clearly favours the globe.
*" I would like to see this repeated independently by others."*
Yes, it's been repeated independently by others. Bob the Science Guy, Wolfie6020, Greater Sapien to name a few. Also, I've repeated this experiment on multiple occasions throughout Australia and South East Asia. The result is always the same. Why don't you do it yourself?
*"Also would like to see if a similar journey across Australia along a line of latitude produced consistent weight measurements."*
Why? Do you not believe the experimental evidence and analysis? And why Australia in particular? I already have measurements at similar latitudes, why is that not good enough? And if more measurements were taken, would that satisfy you? I think not. Why don't you do that measurement yourself? It can be done anywhere in the world.
*"Needs a big country and many repetitions to be significant I think."*
As already stated the measurement has been repeated in many parts of the world already, so no it doesn't need this. Go right ahead and do it yourself if you doubt the result.
*"If confirmed needs to be explained by FE model as it is inconsistent."*
It's already been confirmed, so the "if" is not required. The analysis is clear, it cannot be explained by the FE model. The FE model predicts no weight change, or maybe even a weight change according to density. I've ruled out both of these. If you are expecting there to be an unknown explanation that will somehow save the FE model, then you are completely ignoring the scientific method. What I am hearing here is this "There must be an FE explanation because the Earth is flat". There is no FE explanation, there never will be.
*"There are a lot of variables here though, so not in itself a convincer for me"*
What variables? I get this a lot, and it's not valid. I've discussed all the variables in one of the videos, and accounted for all the known variables. The fact that the weight follows exactly the variables of latitude and height above sea level according to the physics of a rotating spheroid is highly significant. The significant variables have been identified and a 98% correlation confirmed by mathematical analysis.
I'm not going to go through the whole thing, but here are a couple of other significant points.
You completely ignore that what we observe is not possible on a flat earth. You completely ignore that by simple geometry the Sun can not be below a certain height in the sky on a flat earth. Going away is just not good enough. The geometry will dictate how far away you need to be for the Sun to get low in the sky. That geometry is ignored for FE convenience.
*"Shadow rising on a scale. Good experiment, repeatable and verifiable. This is close to the sort of thing that could prove something either way. Sadly in this instance the setup is not shown and the relative heights of the shadow object are critical."*
Except that this experiment already proves the very thing you have asked for. Yet you are still looking for excuses. I don't know why you think the setup is not shown, because it is shown quite explicitly in the video, and I could easily reproduce it and so could you. I recommend you try it yourself. Did you forget that on a flat earth the shadow can never get that high? I mean really it's quite conclusive.
*"Satelite dish picture - very funny! Again if you can't tell what's wrong with this I don't think I can help you."*
I get this sort of comment a lot. My response is this: If you can't tell me what's wrong with it, there is nothing wrong with it.
So I'd be interested in seeing if you can articulate what you think is wrong with this picture that fairly obviously falsifies the flat earth.