You're giving this an excellent effort. I'm curious about what's lighting the underside of the top album, and how illuminated it actually is. What was on the ground between the light and the albums? Is this the same walkway we saw in your first video? That's flat and though it's rough it would still reflect light. The shadows of Mount Rainer and Mount Hood on the underside of those clouds was pretty sharp. It's hard to judge the sharpness of the shadow cast by that almond because it wasn't in focus. The pictures of the mountains and their shadows was easy because everything would be in focus when the lens was set to infinity. The camera's angle was a lot easier. My life experience tells me a light above a horizontal surface isn't going to directly illuminate the underside of that surface. I recognize you as someone who's looking for the truth.
Thanks again for your fair points. There was only dirt (natural earth surface) between the light and observer and no concrete. As you might imagine, it was hard to get a sharp shadow with an almond used as a mountain. It seems that light is either bending somehow or the light reflected off earth surface can also cause cloud illumination and shadows....
I have no idea what I am supposed to see here. Maybe try with chicken bones and voodoo? The shape of the Mount Rainier shadow onto the clouds can in no way be replicated other than the light being lower. And it is not only Mount Rainier but mountains all over the world. People living at those locations can see it with their own eyes. Also the underside of the bridge over the canal nearby my house is directly lit up at sunrise or sunset. Really doesn't matter what type of surface is underneath. You can do a bunny shadow with your hand in between the Sun and bridge to show the Sun is actually lower. Which, believe it or not, isn't a surprise. Maybe that is why all astronomers, meteorologists, seismologists, geologists, land surveyors, cartographers, communication companies, transport companies, ship captains and their crews, pilots and their crews, people sailing across the Pacific, people crossing Antarctica on foot or bicycle, all people working on Antarctica, all people visiting Antarctica as a tourist, engineers, all scientists, all people working for TV, all people working for the newspapers, all teachers, all people working in the oil industry, people on airplanes from Australia to South America, all people working in the navy, and a billion others have been working successfully with the globe model in the past, the present, and future. I have never met anyone using Flattardian science and technology because that works better. If the Earth was truly flat then all these people I mentioned before would use the Flattardian model and somehow made it appear as if it is a globe. Good luck with that.
@@mcgyverinstituteofninjatech Yes I know. But your GREAT SUPER FANTASTIC EXPERIMENT only feeds the Flattardian lunacy. Because you can't see shit. I'll ask my cat to show you how it can be done.
@@mcgyverinstituteofninjatech Well we don't see anything for once.Then you use an object that looks the same no matter how you turn it. And then it doesn't resemble anything we see in the pictures of Mount Rainier. So you tell me in what way your experiment is a success? Luckily you don't do experiments to see if the stuff we buy meets up to safety regulations.
@@driewiel the experiment demonstrates that shadows and illumination under clouds is possible on a flat plane with a light higher than the clouds. It is not a success, it is just information. I was not trying to prove a flat Earth. I was actually trying to disprove the flat Earth sun theory, but to my surprise I got results that were unexpected. I believed what you believe before I performed the test.
you didn't show it can work on a flat earth at all. Put that puppy to scale and it doesn't line up with the real world. The sun would never be low enough in the sky to cause that. Look slike Ron already pointed this out here but I pointed this out in your other video as well. The geometry does not line up with a flat earth and reality. You effectively disproved it.
Nice work. Hilarious how the true believers in the comments will deny clear experimental evidence and insist that something which conflicts in any way with their ideology must be impossible even when confronted with it occurring before their very eyes. Even more funny, because this does not prove the earth is flat, but just because it doesn't prove the earth is a globe the true believers must apply willful ignorance and fail to understand the obvious implications. Your demonstrations on this subject have clearly shown two things. One, is that shadows and illumination on the underside of clouds is not proof positive of a globe. Not the least bit surprising since proof positive is entirely unscientific to begin with. Two, shadows and illumination on the underside of clouds does not, on its own, falsify a flat earth. This is only very slightly counter-intuitive, but no more so than innumerable other aspects of physics. Virtually everything reflects light to some degree, except perhaps black holes, if they actually exist (I've never seen one personally). So while it might be slightly counter-intuitive (because people tend to think in overly simplistic models), it is not really surprising that light could act on the underside of an object which it can not reach directly, given that everything in the environment reflects light to some extent. Here is another thing to consider. In each of your demonstrations the distances involved have been fairly small. When you look through the gap, without zooming in, you can't really see the light directly. If the distance were greater though, causing the lamp and it's stand to appear much smaller, then it would be clearly visible through the small gap. With a greater distance, you could use a light that was much higher up as well, and at a certain distance, it would still become visible through the gap. Something else which seems counter-intuitive to me: Say you're standing on a beach, and far across the water you can see a mountain. The mountain looks very small to you, and due to the angular resolution, in the far distance the peak of the mountain appears only very slightly above the center of vision when looking out perpendicular to the ground (just slightly above eye level). If you hold a mirror out in front of you, and a foot our two above your head, keeping it perpendicular to and facing the ground, will you be able to see the peak of the mountain in the distance reflected in the mirror? According to physics you should not see the peak reflected, unless you tilt the mirror so it is not level with the ground, because the peak is thousands of feet higher than the downward facing mirror, so technically the peak is behind the reflective surface of the mirror. It is slightly difficult to reconcile this with our experience though, because from the perspective of the observer the peak appears to be below the mirror because of the reduced angular resolution due to its distance from the observer. The image that the observer perceives thus seems to show the peak beneath the downward facing mirror and thus seemingly in front of the reflective surface. Holding a small mirror facing down, just above my eyes, I am able to see objects reflected which are considerably higher than the mirror, but I can't be certain that I'm not tilting the mirror slightly. I would need a more precise setup to be sure the mirror is actually level. As for the shape of the earth, I'm with Thomas Dolby on that one, "the earth can be any shape you want it, any shape at all." th-cam.com/video/a0bHH5EvbeM/w-d-xo.html Personally, I think the either/or attitude of science sometimes leads us to the wrong conclusions. Logic has a hard time parsing paradox, yet the conditions we are faced with, when viewed with uncompromising logic, are entirely paradoxical.
Thank you for the kind and intelligent comments. You are correct. The light can go higher as the distance increases and still be visible. The horizon perspective regarding light is counterintuitive as I have found over the past few days. Sun Under clouds was my biggest question for flat earthers and since I received no good answers, I tested it for myself. The critics don't seem to understand that I believed what they do (regarding light and shadows) before I performed the test. I would like to see a video test of your mirror example. That sounds really interesting.
@@driewiel So what? I'm not supposed to write more than easily digestible, bite-sized snippets unless I post videos? That is just a weird thing to say. You said "[the spherical shape of the earth] can be measured, proven, without a single doubt." With that phrase you have shown yourself to be a true believer in a pseudo-scientific world view, rather than an intellectually honest, rational thinker. Even if the earth is spherical, that does not change the fact that you are just an ideological follower. The shape of the earth is not scientifically proven, and the notion that it even could be proven is entirely unscientific. The scientific method is a process of disproving things. Nothing can be proven beyond doubt, and to imagine something is completely beyond doubt is completely unreasonable. There are an infinite number of scenarios which could explain any given phenomena, and the vast majority of them, humans have never even conceived of. The scenarios which we run with are the ones we are unable at present to disprove, but there always remains the possibility that they may be disproved in the future, when we have more information, better technology, or conceive of novel experiments as yet unexplored. What counts casually as "proof" in science is not technically proof. A large enough pile of evidence, successful predictions, and a persistent failure to falsify is casually regarded as "proof," but the term is used only casually that way and all good scientists know that what is casually regarded as proven today may be disproved tomorrow. We employ the scientific method to develop very useful abstract working models, not the truth. The value of our abstract working models is in their usefulness. It seems to be that the closer our models are to the truth, the more useful they are, but that is really just an intuitive assumption because in fact there is no way to actually verify that. In fact, abstraction can never be the truth. A description is not the thing it describes. I'm not really concerned with the shape of the earth either, but blind followers, and volunteer thought police are a bit troubling in this era of increasing censorship. It is tragic that today millions will claim that they "believe" in science, because science is not supposed to be faith based. Legitimate science does not need millions of believers, not does it need to demonize disbelievers. When millions believe in something, it can be used against them, and today the socially engineered "belief" in science is being used to push agendas which are anything but transparent. It is also becoming popular to attack the unbelievers. There are very few actual 'science-deniers' but these days the term is used to attack, discredit, marginalize, and demonize people who disagree with certain theories, specific interpretations of data, or even those who merely point out obvious logical conflicts, or deceptive methodologies. When scientists who legitimately disagree with something based on sound scientific analysis are called "anti-science," then Clearly a distinction must be made between legitimate science, and Scientism which operates more like a thinly veiled religion than anything else. If you can not see the difference between science and Scientism, and you don't recognized the latter at play in shaping people's world views, then you are likely a blind follower, and athe useful idiot. Personally, I don't think the earth is flat, which is a very simple model. A ball is only a slightly more sophisticated model though, and I don't think it is that simple either. There are likely far more than just the easily observed three spatial and one temporal dimensions, but we only see a narrow band of a broad spectrum. Stands to reason, as we can only perceive narrow bands of every other spectrum. There is also no good scientific reason to believe that matter is fundamental. We have never observed matter outside of awareness. We can never verify that anything exists outside of awareness. The clear evidence suggests then, that awareness is fundamental. While all else is abstraction, awareness is the only direct experience. It is exactly what it is, aware, rather than a representation of something else. Everything is infinitely fleeting, lost in time before the signal even reaches the brain. We observe a present moment of zero duration that is gone before we even observe it. Everything exists only for a duration of zero, and everything is never anything but gone, and gone, and gone. Even the configuration of your thoughts, memories, and character, is fleeting in time. Nothing but awareness has any persistence at all. Awareness though, is the very thing itself, while all else are but gossamer representations in a mind abstracted from a brain which itself is just an idea fleeting in the mind. Awareness is the only thing with any persistence at all, and awareness is the only thing which is actually entirely obvious. Nothing has ever or will ever be found outside of awareness. Yet materialistic followers of the ideology of Scientism would have you "believe" that matter is fundamental and awareness is merely an emergent effect within it, which is utterly contrary to actual observation.
@@multi-mason Show me how the sun could possible be at the elevation and distances required with this experiment in the real world. Spoiler it doesn't work with a flat earth. The sun would never come anywhere near to where it his light source and laser were used in this in any flat earth. The geometry debunks the possibility. But show me how the sun could ever be at just over 1° above the horizon on a flat earth. I'd be very interested to see you explain that.
Yeah, you have not debunked anything with your so-called geometry. No one claimed this is evidence of a flat earth, nor is the phenomena being explored evidence of a globe. It is so strange the way you true believers must attack everything that does not serve as proof positive of your beliefs. Kind of tragic, since logically, nothing really serves as proof positive of anything. All he has done here is demonstrate that a light source can indirectly effect the underside of an object which is beneath it. He is not claiming this proves the earth is flat, because that would be totally irrational. It is just as irrational for you to claim that it in any way proves the earth is a sphere. Maybe the earth is spherical, but even so, that won't change the fact that you "believe" it is so.
@@multi-mason "so called geometry" buahahahahahahaha. Again the angle and distances involved to scale do not line up with anything we would ever see in the real world. But you go ahead and show me how a sun that is supposedly 32 miles wide and 3000 miles high for a flat earth could ever come anywhere near the horizon. I asked for you to explain it and you failed to do so with your first response which was just deflection. Let's see if you can do it with a second try. Round 2 go. This isn't about belief its about what lines up with reality.
You're giving this an excellent effort.
I'm curious about what's lighting the underside of the top album, and how illuminated it actually is.
What was on the ground between the light and the albums? Is this the same walkway we saw in your first video? That's flat and though it's rough it would still reflect light.
The shadows of Mount Rainer and Mount Hood on the underside of those clouds was pretty sharp. It's hard to judge the sharpness of the shadow cast by that almond because it wasn't in focus. The pictures of the mountains and their shadows was easy because everything would be in focus when the lens was set to infinity. The camera's angle was a lot easier.
My life experience tells me a light above a horizontal surface isn't going to directly illuminate the underside of that surface.
I recognize you as someone who's looking for the truth.
Thanks again for your fair points. There was only dirt (natural earth surface) between the light and observer and no concrete. As you might imagine, it was hard to get a sharp shadow with an almond used as a mountain. It seems that light is either bending somehow or the light reflected off earth surface can also cause cloud illumination and shadows....
I have no idea what I am supposed to see here. Maybe try with chicken bones and voodoo?
The shape of the Mount Rainier shadow onto the clouds can in no way be replicated other than the light being lower. And it is not only Mount Rainier but mountains all over the world. People living at those locations can see it with their own eyes.
Also the underside of the bridge over the canal nearby my house is directly lit up at sunrise or sunset. Really doesn't matter what type of surface is underneath. You can do a bunny shadow with your hand in between the Sun and bridge to show the Sun is actually lower.
Which, believe it or not, isn't a surprise. Maybe that is why all astronomers, meteorologists, seismologists, geologists, land surveyors, cartographers, communication companies, transport companies, ship captains and their crews, pilots and their crews, people sailing across the Pacific, people crossing Antarctica on foot or bicycle, all people working on Antarctica, all people visiting Antarctica as a tourist, engineers, all scientists, all people working for TV, all people working for the newspapers, all teachers, all people working in the oil industry, people on airplanes from Australia to South America, all people working in the navy, and a billion others have been working successfully with the globe model in the past, the present, and future. I have never met anyone using Flattardian science and technology because that works better. If the Earth was truly flat then all these people I mentioned before would use the Flattardian model and somehow made it appear as if it is a globe. Good luck with that.
I'm not claiming the Earth to be flat. I am testing flat Earth theories to see if they have any legitimacy.
@@mcgyverinstituteofninjatech Yes I know. But your GREAT SUPER FANTASTIC EXPERIMENT only feeds the Flattardian lunacy. Because you can't see shit. I'll ask my cat to show you how it can be done.
@@driewiel can you please tell us all in scientific terms how this experiment is flawed?
@@mcgyverinstituteofninjatech Well we don't see anything for once.Then you use an object that looks the same no matter how you turn it. And then it doesn't resemble anything we see in the pictures of Mount Rainier. So you tell me in what way your experiment is a success?
Luckily you don't do experiments to see if the stuff we buy meets up to safety regulations.
@@driewiel the experiment demonstrates that shadows and illumination under clouds is possible on a flat plane with a light higher than the clouds. It is not a success, it is just information. I was not trying to prove a flat Earth. I was actually trying to disprove the flat Earth sun theory, but to my surprise I got results that were unexpected. I believed what you believe before I performed the test.
Lets have an almond simulating a mountain...... LOL. This is meant to be a parody, i.e. to ridicule typical flat earthers 'experiments', right?
you didn't show it can work on a flat earth at all. Put that puppy to scale and it doesn't line up with the real world. The sun would never be low enough in the sky to cause that. Look slike Ron already pointed this out here but I pointed this out in your other video as well. The geometry does not line up with a flat earth and reality. You effectively disproved it.
Nice work. Hilarious how the true believers in the comments will deny clear experimental evidence and insist that something which conflicts in any way with their ideology must be impossible even when confronted with it occurring before their very eyes. Even more funny, because this does not prove the earth is flat, but just because it doesn't prove the earth is a globe the true believers must apply willful ignorance and fail to understand the obvious implications.
Your demonstrations on this subject have clearly shown two things. One, is that shadows and illumination on the underside of clouds is not proof positive of a globe. Not the least bit surprising since proof positive is entirely unscientific to begin with. Two, shadows and illumination on the underside of clouds does not, on its own, falsify a flat earth. This is only very slightly counter-intuitive, but no more so than innumerable other aspects of physics. Virtually everything reflects light to some degree, except perhaps black holes, if they actually exist (I've never seen one personally). So while it might be slightly counter-intuitive (because people tend to think in overly simplistic models), it is not really surprising that light could act on the underside of an object which it can not reach directly, given that everything in the environment reflects light to some extent.
Here is another thing to consider. In each of your demonstrations the distances involved have been fairly small. When you look through the gap, without zooming in, you can't really see the light directly. If the distance were greater though, causing the lamp and it's stand to appear much smaller, then it would be clearly visible through the small gap. With a greater distance, you could use a light that was much higher up as well, and at a certain distance, it would still become visible through the gap.
Something else which seems counter-intuitive to me: Say you're standing on a beach, and far across the water you can see a mountain. The mountain looks very small to you, and due to the angular resolution, in the far distance the peak of the mountain appears only very slightly above the center of vision when looking out perpendicular to the ground (just slightly above eye level). If you hold a mirror out in front of you, and a foot our two above your head, keeping it perpendicular to and facing the ground, will you be able to see the peak of the mountain in the distance reflected in the mirror? According to physics you should not see the peak reflected, unless you tilt the mirror so it is not level with the ground, because the peak is thousands of feet higher than the downward facing mirror, so technically the peak is behind the reflective surface of the mirror. It is slightly difficult to reconcile this with our experience though, because from the perspective of the observer the peak appears to be below the mirror because of the reduced angular resolution due to its distance from the observer. The image that the observer perceives thus seems to show the peak beneath the downward facing mirror and thus seemingly in front of the reflective surface. Holding a small mirror facing down, just above my eyes, I am able to see objects reflected which are considerably higher than the mirror, but I can't be certain that I'm not tilting the mirror slightly. I would need a more precise setup to be sure the mirror is actually level.
As for the shape of the earth, I'm with Thomas Dolby on that one, "the earth can be any shape you want it, any shape at all." th-cam.com/video/a0bHH5EvbeM/w-d-xo.html
Personally, I think the either/or attitude of science sometimes leads us to the wrong conclusions. Logic has a hard time parsing paradox, yet the conditions we are faced with, when viewed with uncompromising logic, are entirely paradoxical.
Thank you for the kind and intelligent comments. You are correct. The light can go higher as the distance increases and still be visible. The horizon perspective regarding light is counterintuitive as I have found over the past few days. Sun Under clouds was my biggest question for flat earthers and since I received no good answers, I tested it for myself. The critics don't seem to understand that I believed what they do (regarding light and shadows) before I performed the test. I would like to see a video test of your mirror example. That sounds really interesting.
@@driewiel So what? I'm not supposed to write more than easily digestible, bite-sized snippets unless I post videos? That is just a weird thing to say.
You said "[the spherical shape of the earth] can be measured, proven, without a single doubt."
With that phrase you have shown yourself to be a true believer in a pseudo-scientific world view, rather than an intellectually honest, rational thinker. Even if the earth is spherical, that does not change the fact that you are just an ideological follower. The shape of the earth is not scientifically proven, and the notion that it even could be proven is entirely unscientific. The scientific method is a process of disproving things. Nothing can be proven beyond doubt, and to imagine something is completely beyond doubt is completely unreasonable. There are an infinite number of scenarios which could explain any given phenomena, and the vast majority of them, humans have never even conceived of. The scenarios which we run with are the ones we are unable at present to disprove, but there always remains the possibility that they may be disproved in the future, when we have more information, better technology, or conceive of novel experiments as yet unexplored. What counts casually as "proof" in science is not technically proof. A large enough pile of evidence, successful predictions, and a persistent failure to falsify is casually regarded as "proof," but the term is used only casually that way and all good scientists know that what is casually regarded as proven today may be disproved tomorrow.
We employ the scientific method to develop very useful abstract working models, not the truth. The value of our abstract working models is in their usefulness. It seems to be that the closer our models are to the truth, the more useful they are, but that is really just an intuitive assumption because in fact there is no way to actually verify that. In fact, abstraction can never be the truth. A description is not the thing it describes.
I'm not really concerned with the shape of the earth either, but blind followers, and volunteer thought police are a bit troubling in this era of increasing censorship. It is tragic that today millions will claim that they "believe" in science, because science is not supposed to be faith based. Legitimate science does not need millions of believers, not does it need to demonize disbelievers. When millions believe in something, it can be used against them, and today the socially engineered "belief" in science is being used to push agendas which are anything but transparent. It is also becoming popular to attack the unbelievers. There are very few actual 'science-deniers' but these days the term is used to attack, discredit, marginalize, and demonize people who disagree with certain theories, specific interpretations of data, or even those who merely point out obvious logical conflicts, or deceptive methodologies. When scientists who legitimately disagree with something based on sound scientific analysis are called "anti-science," then Clearly a distinction must be made between legitimate science, and Scientism which operates more like a thinly veiled religion than anything else. If you can not see the difference between science and Scientism, and you don't recognized the latter at play in shaping people's world views, then you are likely a blind follower, and athe useful idiot.
Personally, I don't think the earth is flat, which is a very simple model. A ball is only a slightly more sophisticated model though, and I don't think it is that simple either. There are likely far more than just the easily observed three spatial and one temporal dimensions, but we only see a narrow band of a broad spectrum. Stands to reason, as we can only perceive narrow bands of every other spectrum.
There is also no good scientific reason to believe that matter is fundamental. We have never observed matter outside of awareness. We can never verify that anything exists outside of awareness. The clear evidence suggests then, that awareness is fundamental. While all else is abstraction, awareness is the only direct experience. It is exactly what it is, aware, rather than a representation of something else. Everything is infinitely fleeting, lost in time before the signal even reaches the brain. We observe a present moment of zero duration that is gone before we even observe it. Everything exists only for a duration of zero, and everything is never anything but gone, and gone, and gone. Even the configuration of your thoughts, memories, and character, is fleeting in time. Nothing but awareness has any persistence at all. Awareness though, is the very thing itself, while all else are but gossamer representations in a mind abstracted from a brain which itself is just an idea fleeting in the mind. Awareness is the only thing with any persistence at all, and awareness is the only thing which is actually entirely obvious. Nothing has ever or will ever be found outside of awareness. Yet materialistic followers of the ideology of Scientism would have you "believe" that matter is fundamental and awareness is merely an emergent effect within it, which is utterly contrary to actual observation.
@@multi-mason Show me how the sun could possible be at the elevation and distances required with this experiment in the real world. Spoiler it doesn't work with a flat earth. The sun would never come anywhere near to where it his light source and laser were used in this in any flat earth. The geometry debunks the possibility. But show me how the sun could ever be at just over 1° above the horizon on a flat earth. I'd be very interested to see you explain that.
Yeah, you have not debunked anything with your so-called geometry. No one claimed this is evidence of a flat earth, nor is the phenomena being explored evidence of a globe. It is so strange the way you true believers must attack everything that does not serve as proof positive of your beliefs. Kind of tragic, since logically, nothing really serves as proof positive of anything.
All he has done here is demonstrate that a light source can indirectly effect the underside of an object which is beneath it. He is not claiming this proves the earth is flat, because that would be totally irrational. It is just as irrational for you to claim that it in any way proves the earth is a sphere. Maybe the earth is spherical, but even so, that won't change the fact that you "believe" it is so.
@@multi-mason "so called geometry" buahahahahahahaha. Again the angle and distances involved to scale do not line up with anything we would ever see in the real world. But you go ahead and show me how a sun that is supposedly 32 miles wide and 3000 miles high for a flat earth could ever come anywhere near the horizon. I asked for you to explain it and you failed to do so with your first response which was just deflection. Let's see if you can do it with a second try. Round 2 go.
This isn't about belief its about what lines up with reality.