Sure, that was just a relatable demonstration of how light doesn't necessarily illuminate an entire unobstructed area.
The reason you can't see the sun at all times is related to rules of perspective.
Everything as it moves farther away from you moves towards your 'apparent horizon'. A road on flat ground, as distance increases, moves up towards the horizon. A cloud, as distance increases, moves down towards the horizon.
Ultimately what that means is, there's exponentially more 'stuff' in the path of light near the horizon. So as the sun moves away from you, it also moves behind anything that is in-between your viewing angle and the sun. So that's clouds, mountains, buildings, or even just particles in the atmosphere itself.
If you own a drone, you can test this yourself. You can set an altitude on your drone over your head - then fly it 100 feet out in front of you at the same altitude. What's happened to your viewing angle? That change continues as you add distance, until the object is nearly sitting on top of the horizon itself.
So the short version is, the sun moves away from your location. As it moves away it also moves towards the horizon due the rules of perspective that you can test literally anywhere. Once it's far enough away, there is enough 'stuff' in between you and the sun at your viewing angle for it to disappear from view. As that happens, the sun appears to set behind whatever that stuff is. Usually clouds, mountains, trees, nearby buildings.
I see what you mean but I don’t really grasp how that gets to a point below the horizon entirely. Getting “closer” to the horizon makes sense, but not below
Also, what causes the change in length of time to experience daylight?
It sounds like you are understanding exactly right. The sun will never go below the horizon. It will be blocked by all of the 'stuff' that has also made it's way to that level of your apparent horizon. Imagine 250 miles of clouds also collecting at the horizon. It would create a wall of clouds, ultimately. Even atmosphere will do this. I think you get the gist.
Change in daytime - The sun's position changes over time. You can google Gleason's flat earth map to see a general representation of how things are oriented. Now imagine a sun spiraling around the north pole's center, slowly creeping inward, reaching the tropic of cancer and then slowly spiraling outward to the other tropic. The sun's bias north or south of the equator still dictates the length of daylight.
Let me know if that makes it possible to visualize.
But the thing is it DOES go below the horizon. I’ve watched the sun set hundreds of times, on clear days, over water, etc. Nothing “blocking” it. So I’m not sure how you can explain that in a flat earth model.
So I don’t really understand the spiraling in and out visualization. I’m the North Pole, I get that, it makes sense. But for it to be daytime 24hrs in the South Pole in December, the sun has to be whipping around the outer perimeter of the earth, right?
Have you examined with a critical eye the myriad claims of the heliocentric model? Even the most fundamental? I'm not asserting that FE has 'all of the answers', and the heliocentric model attempts to explain away all kinds of phenomena in many laughable ways. This whole process is what lead me to feel much more confident in a flat, non-rotating model vs the spinning, twirling ball.
With that said, I'd put the question back to you: How are you proving that the sun is leaving your field of view via rotation, rather than through perspective as I've described? Whether it is 'rotation' or perspective, the sun will leave your vision the same way, from the bottom up. There's a reason why we think things are 'going over the curve', because things at long distance will go out of sight from the ground-up. Your vision is most obstructed at eye-level. Less obstructed slightly above eye level, less above that... etc.
If you think it's disappearing behind the curve, what have you done to attempt to measure the curve? We know water rests flat on it's surface and takes the shape of it's container, the Helio claim is that this water is perfectly spherical. Measurements don't suggest that. Why not? Etc, etc, etc.
The south pole - no one is allowed to travel there, so claiming you know what's going on down there is dubious at best. You'll say there are eye-witnesses that claim they've seen 24 hour sunlight, and I've seen books written by people who attempted to circumnavigate Antarctica and gave up due to travelling tens of thousands of miles further than they should have needed to. The short answer is - we have no idea.
Sure, that was just a relatable demonstration of how light doesn't necessarily illuminate an entire unobstructed area.
The reason you can't see the sun at all times is related to rules of perspective.
Everything as it moves farther away from you moves towards your 'apparent horizon'. A road on flat ground, as distance increases, moves up towards the horizon. A cloud, as distance increases, moves down towards the horizon.
Ultimately what that means is, there's exponentially more 'stuff' in the path of light near the horizon. So as the sun moves away from you, it also moves behind anything that is in-between your viewing angle and the sun. So that's clouds, mountains, buildings, or even just particles in the atmosphere itself.
If you own a drone, you can test this yourself. You can set an altitude on your drone over your head - then fly it 100 feet out in front of you at the same altitude. What's happened to your viewing angle? That change continues as you add distance, until the object is nearly sitting on top of the horizon itself.
So the short version is, the sun moves away from your location. As it moves away it also moves towards the horizon due the rules of perspective that you can test literally anywhere. Once it's far enough away, there is enough 'stuff' in between you and the sun at your viewing angle for it to disappear from view. As that happens, the sun appears to set behind whatever that stuff is. Usually clouds, mountains, trees, nearby buildings.
I see what you mean but I don’t really grasp how that gets to a point below the horizon entirely. Getting “closer” to the horizon makes sense, but not below
Also, what causes the change in length of time to experience daylight?
It sounds like you are understanding exactly right. The sun will never go below the horizon. It will be blocked by all of the 'stuff' that has also made it's way to that level of your apparent horizon. Imagine 250 miles of clouds also collecting at the horizon. It would create a wall of clouds, ultimately. Even atmosphere will do this. I think you get the gist.
Change in daytime - The sun's position changes over time. You can google Gleason's flat earth map to see a general representation of how things are oriented. Now imagine a sun spiraling around the north pole's center, slowly creeping inward, reaching the tropic of cancer and then slowly spiraling outward to the other tropic. The sun's bias north or south of the equator still dictates the length of daylight.
Let me know if that makes it possible to visualize.
But the thing is it DOES go below the horizon. I’ve watched the sun set hundreds of times, on clear days, over water, etc. Nothing “blocking” it. So I’m not sure how you can explain that in a flat earth model.
So I don’t really understand the spiraling in and out visualization. I’m the North Pole, I get that, it makes sense. But for it to be daytime 24hrs in the South Pole in December, the sun has to be whipping around the outer perimeter of the earth, right?
Keep in mind as you ask these questions:
Have you examined with a critical eye the myriad claims of the heliocentric model? Even the most fundamental? I'm not asserting that FE has 'all of the answers', and the heliocentric model attempts to explain away all kinds of phenomena in many laughable ways. This whole process is what lead me to feel much more confident in a flat, non-rotating model vs the spinning, twirling ball.
With that said, I'd put the question back to you: How are you proving that the sun is leaving your field of view via rotation, rather than through perspective as I've described? Whether it is 'rotation' or perspective, the sun will leave your vision the same way, from the bottom up. There's a reason why we think things are 'going over the curve', because things at long distance will go out of sight from the ground-up. Your vision is most obstructed at eye-level. Less obstructed slightly above eye level, less above that... etc.
If you think it's disappearing behind the curve, what have you done to attempt to measure the curve? We know water rests flat on it's surface and takes the shape of it's container, the Helio claim is that this water is perfectly spherical. Measurements don't suggest that. Why not? Etc, etc, etc.
The south pole - no one is allowed to travel there, so claiming you know what's going on down there is dubious at best. You'll say there are eye-witnesses that claim they've seen 24 hour sunlight, and I've seen books written by people who attempted to circumnavigate Antarctica and gave up due to travelling tens of thousands of miles further than they should have needed to. The short answer is - we have no idea.