I have. Several times. I've shown repeatedly how this doesn't work.
No, you haven't.
Not once.
Instead, you have blatantly lied about what is expected for the RE model, or reality, or both.
And each time you have had your false claims refuted.
You are yet to show an actual fault.
Lying by claiming there is a fault doesn't mean you have shown a fault.
you dispute the points without really addressing the cause of suspicion.
No, I directly address the point and explain why you are wrong.
Conversely, you deflect at all costs.
Take a look at this thread as an example, with FEers still unable to explain how perspective can make the sun appear lower without making it appear smaller.
your answers don't provide anything satisfying.
Only to people like you, people who don't find reality satisfying; people who need to flee into a fantasy; people who aren't looking for arguments for the truth, but instead are looking for arguments to support their fantasy.
Oh and neither of you drew that diagram I asked for. You know, how when then sun and moon are both in the sky but the sun casts light on the moon, even though the two of them look to be across from each other?
Because you are yet to clarify exactly what you think the problem is.
I have also provided a simple alternative.
Go pick up a ball, and hold it in the sunlight.
If you like, you can even stand in some spot, then hold the ball out towards the moon, while still in the sunlight, and see the ball lit up, just like the moon.
You have also been provided with plenty of diagrams.
For example, this one:
Which you just ignored.
This sorta makes sense on a flat Earth, until you get that it really doesn't because phases.
It makes pretty much no sense on a flat Earth.
And yes, phases are a big part of why.
For your FE fantasy, people at different parts of Earth should be looking at the moon from drastically different directions and seeing a different part lit up. And you never have the alignment required for a full moon.
But with the RE, it does work, and you are yet to show a fault.
The size is wrong, the angle is wrong, and it's just a stupid model that doesn't match perceived reality.
Why is the size wrong?
Why is the angle wrong?
Why do you feel it is just a stupid model that doesn't match reality?
Are you complaining that it isn't a to-scale model?
If you want a to-scale model, showing the phases of the moon, then you are going to need the moon being a decent number of pixels.
Lets just make it a tiny 10 pixels, still quite poor.
That means the distance to the sun would be roughly 432 000 px.
Most image hosting sites wont allow an image that big.
No, I'm not.
You not liking the fact that you have been debunked doesn't mean you haven't been.
If you go to a forum, and set about arguing the opposite of what the forum is named, you are every bit like a street corner proselyte.
Again, this is a forum for discussion, not just a forum for those who believe Earth is flat.
You understand literally nothing of flat Earth or round Earth, and you claim you'd have to do things, yet don't apply your same nonsense to your own theory.
And here you are projecting again.
You spout pure nonsense clearly failing to comprehend basic geometry, or just outright lying.
You have those false claims of yours refuted, only to repeat them again later.
You either understand so little it isn't funny, or you are intentionally lying to everyone.
NASA says the sun would be around 3,000,000 miles different from different seasons.
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/seasons/en/
Yet round Earth says this makes no difference in size or light intensity. But distance of less than 7000 miles will make the sun shrink.
See, this is an example of you failing basic geometry.
If you stand right next to a small building, it takes up basically your entire FOV.
But step back a few 10s of m, and it appears to shrink.
If you look at a distant mountain 10s of km away, and move a few hundred m, the apparent size doesn't change much.
It isn't simply how much the distance changes. It is how much, relative to the original distance.
The sun is roughly 150 000 000 km away.
That distance varies by roughly 5 million km.
So lets say the sun starts out at exactly 150 000 000 km away, with an angular size of exactly 0.5 degrees.
Using simple geometry, we know angular size =2*asin(radius/distance), or a=2*asin(r/d).
So r=sin(a/2)*d.
This gives us a radius of 654,496.392711986 km (to the level of precision of excel).
Note this doesn't match the reported radius, because we have assume the above numbers are exact, when they are not, but for the purpose of this argument, that doesn't matter.
Now we move the sun to a distance of 150 000 000 km, the angular size is reduced to 0.484 degrees. A change of 0.016.
If we instead bring it closer, to a distance of 145 000 000 km, the angular size is increased to 0.517 degrees. A chance of 0.017 degrees.
If we instead use the reported numbers, with a radius of 696,000 km, an aphelion of 152,097,597 km and perihelion of 147,098,450 km, we end up with angles of 0.524 and 0.542 degrees. That is a change of 0.018 degrees. That is a change of roughly 3 %, which would be observed over the period of 6 months.
That is not much, and something you wont notice unless you are carefully measuring the size.
Now compare this to the FE.
If it passes overhead at 5000 km, with an angular size of 0.5 degrees, that gives it a radius of 21.8165464237329 km.
When it is then at 45 degrees, it would be above a point 5000 km away, putting it a total distance of 7071 km away, and an angular size of 0.354 degrees.
That is a change of 29%.
If we go to "sunset", when it is above a point 10 000 km away (FE would actually need it much further), putting it a total distance of 11180 km away, its angular size would have reduced to 0.22 degrees. That is a change of 55%.
So you are comparing a change of 3% over the course of 6 months, to a change of 55% over the course of a day.
They are drastically different.
And for completeness, taking the lazy option of putting Earth at perihelion, and pretending you can see straight through Earth at midnight, the change over the course of a day for the RE would be going from 0.54217 degrees to 0.54222 degrees. A change of 0.00005 degrees or 0.009%.
And this is a great example of "you dispute the points without really addressing the cause of suspicion. Your "perfectly reasonable explanation" offers excuses to cover minor points, while the major logical problems go unaddressed."
You don't address the issue at all.
You don't explain why the sun shouldn't change size.
You instead deflect to claim a problem with the RE model, objecting to the fact you don't notice a small 3% change over the course of 6 months, yet we expect to notice a massive 55% chance over the course of a day.
That doesn't help you at all.