My very first comment, if you bothered to pay attention to the logic of it, debunked your debunking. You don't bother to understand things, then you pretend they don't exist.
No, it didn't.
It appealed to a magical parabola with no explanation at all, then switch to a bunch of lies to pretend Earth can't be round.
You can be in denial all you want, but it's a bit like being in a garden with rose-colored glasses. One day you take them off and discover everything is dead around you.
There you go projecting yet again.
It's about tendency of angles to "roll". I showed an example of this drawing out angles of the sun passing parallel to humans. That is, if an object passes overhead at a level altitude, when it's behind you, you start with like an acute angle, then it becomes right overhead, then as the sun moves across (not away, across, the sun remains at the same distance in altitude), the angle lengthens, causing a lowering effect.
Which has nothing at all to do with your parabola, and cannot make it set.
Again, it truly is simple math.
If Earth was flat, with an object at an altitude of h above your eyes, and moving in a straight line, level line (level in this case would be flat as this hypothetical has a flat Earth), then when it is above a point a distance d away along the Earth, it will appear at an angle of elevation given by atan(h/d).
This will ALWAYS be positive.
It means when overhead it will change in angle quite rapidly, and then as it moves away, that rate of change decreases as it slowly approaches 0, but never actually getting there.
It will ALWAYS appear overhead and it will NEVER appear to set.
If this is what caused the sun to disappear, the sun would appear to slow down as it shrinks to a point and vanishes.
Instead, we observe it continue to move at the same rate as it appears to go into Earth with Earth obstructing the view.
If you want, I can dig up the picture I used to show exactly that. And then I can draw the line he did in the picture to show you that yes, this is consistent with the theory behind the video.
And I can refute it as a did before.
if you look around you without the built in assumption that the Earth is round, you see everywhere that it is built on a series of locally flat domes.
No, we don't.
We see that Earth is obviously curved.
It is only if you desperately look at Earth with the desperate need for it to be flat, that you see such nonsense.
You need to invoke domes to hide the fact that Earth is round.
Because a RE is the only way to explain it.
Actually, that's an accurate depiction. A flat disc with a hemispheric sky dome (*cough* "parabola") above. Wikipedia is trying to tell us that this represents a round Earth?
No, that was the ancient FE model.
The ancient FE model has more in common with the modern RE model than the garbage modern FEers produce.
Do you know a big difference between the ancient FE model and the modern garbage?
In the ancient one, the sun set because it set.
No need to invoke any parabola or BS like that, it went below Earth, with Earth blocking the view to the sun, plunging Earth into darkness until it rose against the next day.
This worked for them because they only dealt with a small area.
They didn't need to explain why it was day in New Zealand while it was night in the United Kingdom.
But the modern FE garbage does.
So the modern FE garbage needs excuses for why if the sun is above Earth it can be seen in NZ but not in the UK.
Likewise, they would have no problem with the issue of the OP.
As the sun is rising, it is coming up from below Earth, so it is coming up from below the clouds.
So it has no problem with casting light upwards.
Likewise, they would have no problem with the sun remaining roughly the same size.
It is tracing out a circular path (one in which the plane of the circle intersects the surface of Earth like the RE model, not one parallel to and above Earth like the modern FE BS) with the sun so far away that the distance to it does not change significantly throughout the period of observation. This also explains why everyone sees it in the same apparent position. (remembering that they are just dealing with a small area)
If you take the current RE model, and take just a small area of Earth, and make a few approximations, and change the centre of the model, you get that ancient FE model.
So if you want to say that is the FE model, then you are saying there is only 1 time zone, the sun rises for the entire disc at once and sets for the entire disc at once.
If instead, you want to discard that ancient FE model and instead have the sun magically stay above Earth the entire time yet magically not be visible for half of Earth, then you introduce massive problems.
it actually just lists in passing things that are supposed to disprove FE.
No need to try qualifying it with "supposed". They do disprove a FE, and no one has been able to come up with a coherent FE model to explain it.
Pythagoras was insane. Why do you need to square a circle unless you already think the Earth is a sphere?
To easily determine the area of the circle.
The idea of squaring the circle is to go from a circle to a square with the same area, so you can just measure the side length of the square and multiply it by itself to get the area.
Instead, he came up with an irrational number (3.14...etc) because he is an irrational person who thought you can measure a sphere using a triangle.
No, they came up with an irrational number, because that is reality.
"irrational" in the sense of a number simply means you can't represent it as a fraction of integers.
There is no rational number for the ratio between a circles diameter and its circumference, or its diameter and its area, or its circumference and its area.
Everything beyond this point was either Freemasonic liars in creepy robes plotting the slow destruction of humanity, or people making stupid mathematical assumptions.
Or, people trying to explain reality, rather than clinging to your delusional fantasy.
You cannot measure the circumference of Earth by using the bad math of old dead people.
But we can using the good math of old dead people.
You are again using math to reinforce assumptions (delusions) you have in your head.
Wrong again. You are fleeing from math to reinforce your own delusions and attempt to escape from reality.
Not exploring to see if at any point the ocean actually curves, or just the sky.
And we can easily see that the ocean does curve, by observing it obstruct the view to distant objects (especially when we can see and resolve the object but the bottom is missing), when we know that both us and the object are above the water.
Pi gets us routine failures of tires (known as flats) because the tire is not properly round, unrecognized mistakes made in measuring rotations per minute, and idiots trying to memorize pi to the 200th decimal point.
Flats have nothing at all to do with pi. That is from the tire being punctured.
People failing to understand math and screwing it up is not a failure of pi.
It's easy to prove RE if you program a computer to never sway from this assumption.
Or if you just honestly look at the world.
And no, you can't just expect a computer to demand Earth is round to make it work.
You can easily model RE vs FE, to show what should be expected, and compare it to reality.
RE matches. FE doesn't.
So again, how does the sun, being ABOVE an object, cast light from BELOW the object?