Well, here's the thing about the side view you describe.  It puts the person on the top of the curve.  I was assuming the person would be on one side of the curve and the sun on the opposite side of the curve like the hill in your drawing.  That way the sun is getting "hidden behind the curve" like supposedly what happens at sunset.


 
There is a bump between the person and the sun on ball earth.

No bump, no hidden sun behind the curve.

So the guy can't be standing on the top of the curve.

I see what you are saying with the recessed ceiling light now.  Thanks!

But the light is all around like the sunlight in the sky. 

We are talking specifically about the "reflection" or sun glint...that shiny narrow line of light that extends across the water.

It's a reflection that demonstrates the angle of the sun hitting the water.

When the candle or flashlight is this high behind the paper towel the light will extend to the person on the other side of the hill/bump/curve.






When the candle/flashlight is lower it looks very much like this.






Except with the paper towel roll in the dark room the light does not reach to the other side of the curve.  It doesn't go over the bump.

I don't know how to load photos or I would show it.

The paper towel with the light behind it in a dark room looks just like this photo actually...it's a really good replication

except the sunglint wouldn't reach over the curve to the feet of the photographer.  The photographer would be standing with total darkness at his feet.

If the photographer stood on top of the curve he would still see the sun and it wouldn't be setting or "hiding behind the curve." Where is the horizon line?

It wouldn't be "sinking down below the horizon line".

For the sun to hide behind the curve,  there has to be a bump between the viewer and the sun on the ball earth.

Miser, in the rotating GE model explanation for sunsets, you are at the "top" of the bump. Essentially, the earth rotating to the point where you can no longer see the sun itself is what creates the "bump" if that makes sense. If you can still see the sun, the sun can still cast light onto the water in front of you. Behind you could be obstructed by the bump though :)






Mind you, these pictures are definitely not perfect. The sun is too close. The line of sight isn't exactly straight. Instead of showing the earth rotating, it looks like the sun is actually going down. This is a very rough interpretation of what is happening, but I believe it still gets the point across. As long as you have a visual on the sun, it can cast light on the water at your feet. When you can no longer see the sun, the "bump" is in the way.

Paper towels do not reflect light in nice shiny rays like water does. A flashlight does not light up the surrounding area like the sun does. Looking directly into a flashlight just prevents you from being able to see exactly where the light is traveling. You kind of need the side view perspective in order to have a real idea of how the light is traveling. Actually from my experiments earlier, the light traveled further than I expected it to. Even when the flashlight was well below the onion/paper towel tube, it was still illuminating the top!

Given that even a small flashlight can illuminate a significant percentage of the surface of the objects in question ABOVE where the beam is shining, I would imagine even a very tall person would have trouble seeing the sun after the light on the ground has disappeared. It seems to me that the sun throws light slightly past the bump. Probably you could observe this by viewing the sunlight as it illuminates the tops of mountains but not the valleys, or perhaps by watching the sun on a beach side building (a tall one lol).

I may be wrong, but I would imagine that if you had a tall enough building at beach side, you might be able to watch as the bottom is slowly swallowed by darkness slightly before the rest. I have seen before how lower elevations get dark a lot sooner. This seems like a plausible extension of that.

If you stay the same speed, don't you mostly just feel the wobble of unlevel ground under your wheels +wind in your face?

Lots of stuff to cover here but I'll do my best. 

I'd rather talk about this than the other current events going on right now!  :D

And you keep it fun and not contentious, so thank you for that!


So if we spin at 1000mph why don't we feel 1000mph winds?

Water sticks to a ball the same way rocks and dust stick to other planets. We can see that other planets are definitely round. We can see that they have the same "gravity" mechanism that RE theories present for here on earth. We can see that the moon is covered with dust and rocks. 

How do we know planets and the moon have rocks and dust?

Here is a photo of a moon rock:


 


Moon Rock Is Really Just Petrified Wood

"A prize possession in the Dutch national museum is not what the curators thought. In 1969, three Apollo 11 astronauts visited the Netherlands. And the U.S. ambassador gave the Dutch prime minister what he said was a moon rock. When an expert saw the rock in the museum, he didn't think it was real. Geologists have identified the moon rock as petrified wood."
 
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112324216#:~:text=the%20curators%20thought.-,In%201969%2C%20three%20Apollo%2011%20astronauts%20visited%20the%20Netherlands.,moon%20rock%20as%20petrified%20wood.

Ooops.  They pulled a fast one 'em!  LOL 


It's no surprise because I don't know if you've looked into it but we never went to the moon.  NASA even says we can't send a man to Mars because they can't go past the Van Allen Belt so how did they get to the moon?  LOL :P

Here are some of NASA's artists creating planet pictures for us.  They hire a lot of artists.  All of the "photos" of the earth and the planets are made by artists.  There's one thing they are honest about!

https://www.bitchute.com/video/tEC2vxmkNIsb/

Have you seen the video of planets amateurs are getting with their Nikon P1000 cameras?  They don't look at all like what NASA said.

Here is one but there are many people doing this and finding amazing things:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZwAv1OMrkAVt/

We can see the moon is round but can we verify it's a ball?  Why has nobody seen the back side, especially if it's spinning?

I think the terms round earth and globe earth can also describe the flat earth.  Flat earth models are round and with the firmament can create a globe.  I think Ball Earth is probably a better term for globe.

Gravity works for large and small objects right?  So why can't we take a large ball and carve out a lake and a few ponds and fill them with water and spin it around?  


 

Supposedly a 6' tall human can see for about 3 miles on flat ground, but over 200 miles on top of Mount Everest (assuming no clouds get in the way). If I am wrong, feel free to let me know because I actually haven't been to Mt Everest to verify

Lol.  Me neither. :)

So how far out does a boat need to go to go over the curve?

Level vs curved is hard for me to explain lol. If you put 10 different levels, at say 100 miles apart, they would all show that they were level, despite the fact that they would be at slightly different angles when you compared them to each other.

Hmmm...okay, is there any proof for this?  

As far as the constellations changing goes, my understanding is that we are going in a big rotation every year, and that we return to about the same place we started in at the end of the year. The constellations DO change throughout the year (look up stellar parallax) but it's very slight and probably not really noticable unless you have a way to measure it. We also do see different constellations depending on the time of the year! There are some that appear only in winter, some in summer, and I believe a few that are year round depending on your location!

See to me, the "Wheel In The Sky" over flat earth explains this motion of the stars in the Heavens much better than this:

2:08



So not only is the earth spinning at 1000 mph but it's also:

"moving about our sun in a very nearly circular orbit. covers this route at a speed of nearly 30 kilometers per second, or 67,000 miles per hour. In addition, our solar system--Earth and all--whirls around the center of our galaxy at some 220 kilometers per second, or 490,000 miles per hour."

Zooming through the universe like a comet, always progressing forward (which is a Kabbalah belief--the solar system is a Kabbalah system), forward, but our zodiacs remain in the same rotation visible from earth for thousands of years? 

Are the zodiacs zooming through space like comets too?  Always forward in the same exact trajectory as earth? 

btw:  Know what else is based on Kabbalah?  Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ :O

Now if you tried to turn an Aussie plane to fly at the same angle as say... A plane in Canada... I don't think it would go very well. This is because it would no longer be flying parallel to the center of the earth.

I've never heard of flying parallel to the center of the earth.

I was a flight attendant and I asked pilots if the plane makes adjustments nose downward as we go over the curve and they told me no. 

You would feel it if the plane was tilting nose downward. It would feel strange while you try to eat or watch a movie.  You can feel when a plane leans back during takeoff and you could also feel when a plane heads nose down but they never do the entire flight (unless something goes wrong!) .  They lean back but never forward.  Even while landing it's leaning back not forward.

Planes fly straight across over the plane of the earth.   They "level out" at cruising altitude and fly a comfortable level path.  When you go to the bathroom you don't walk downward or back upward during the flight.  You don't lean forward in your seat during flight.  The plane is nice and flat---level.  The captain announces we are "leveling out". 

And the nose down wouldn't be a subtle adjustment either.  Ships don't have to travel very far to "go over the curve" so the plane would be adjusting down the entire trip.  If you didn't, it would miss the curve and fly straight out into space wouldn't it?

Also, how fast does the plane need to go to catch up with the 1000mph spin? 

In the other direction can it just hover and let the earth spin below until it gets to it's destination?

I have seen some interpretations that say the firmament is an expanse, rather than a literal, physical, fish bowl style dome. My personal best guess is just that the firmament encloses basically everything we can possibly see or reach, and that heaven is on the other side of that.

I can only make sense of this using the flat earth model.  The same one all the ancient civilizations used.  Have you seen those pictures Digital Logos posted?

Douay-Rheims Bible  Gen 1:6

And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters.

I can't see how the firmament would work with the solar system shooting like a comet through an ever expanding space like the video I posted above. ??

So they want to make Christians look crazy because modern science trumps the Bible and Christians need to get with the times?

Haven't we heard that one before?

I mentioned this somewhere but when I asked one of the pilots why I couldn't see the curve from the cockpit view over the ocean and why we were flying over the arctic and other questions he told me I'd have to be a Freemason to know about that.   Hmm???

I know they don't like their special "knowledge" getting out to the "profane" (loosers like us). :P

RE: Miser

Well, the endless sun in both the arctic and Antarctic in summer is always in sunset mode, wouldn't that be correct? It's never full sun there, even in summer. I can see how that would lend itself to the idea of a ball earth, but it could work on a flat earth too, since on a flat earth, the sun still moves above and around the entirety of the earth in 24 hours, and could show a sunset mode in both the arctic and Antarctic, even though the Antarctic surrounds the earth.

No, you'd need to have insane light propagation models for a local Sun to light the entire surrounding Antractican ring plus the day half of the known Earth while not lighting the night half. It's pretty much impossible, 24h Sun at the South Polar circle is impossible on a flat Earth.

This is explained here: https://youtu.be/3WiHly5J6mM?t=408

No, you'd need to have insane light propagation models for a local Sun to light the entire surrounding Antractican ring plus the day half of the known Earth while not lighting the night half. It's pretty much impossible, 24h Sun at the South Polar circle is impossible on a flat Earth.

This is explained here: https://youtu.be/3WiHly5J6mM?t=408

In thinking about it again, I have to wonder how it is that there could be enough sunlight to light up both the north and south pole on a ball earth model. After all, if you view the sunset sun in antarctica in summer, the sun doesn't look as if it's over the equator, but it would have to be, in order for the ball model to work, wouldn't that be right? It doesn't look like the sun is that far away. 

I mentioned this somewhere but when I asked one of the pilots why I couldn't see the curve from the cockpit view over the ocean and why we were flying over the arctic and other questions he told me I'd have to be a Freemason to know about that.  Hmm???

He's clearly just messing with you.

He's clearly just messing with you.

Okay.

If you say so.

I'll go back to my couch, watch tv, and drool...




But before I go...



How many miles out does a ship need to get in order to go over the curve?

 If you happen to see a ship in the distance coming toward you, you will see the mast of the ship first, and then the ship will get bigger as it comes closer to you.

At what distance?

How many miles out?