Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.

The Sun clearly appears larger

In this clip?



Other than the halo from the clouds where it makes the sun appear larger for a bit as it sets that has nothing to do with actual apparent size of the sun.  Just flare.

No.

Your debunked.

https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&sca_esv=ed897b2776f2f88d&hl=en-ca&q=sun+time+lapse&tbm=vid&source=lnms&prmd=vinsmbtz&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjJma2MopGEAxWZMjQIHeeFCywQ0pQJegQICRAB&biw=320&bih=451&dpr=2#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:2fbdc6dd,vid:p8HNd8F8z0A,st:0

The Sun clearly appears larger in these time lapse clips. The first one shows it nicely.

The Sun and moon are also by far the largest objects in the sky, so their change in size is less noticeable than with planes or whatever. But this proves the Sun does look smaller and bigger with distance. Stop the first clip at the first time the Sun is seen. Stop the clip a second later and it is bigger than it was when further away, and I’d not yet blurred outward like when closer in.

Done

If you want to link to a video, do it properly, by linking to the actual video.

What you are appealing to is glare.
Made quite obvious from around 22 seconds in by clouds passing in front of the sun causing dramatic changes in intensity of the light, effecting the extent of the glare. Or as you would say, making the sun appear to grow and shrink.
This shows it is NOT the distance making it change size.

You can do the same by adjusting the exposure.

But this is why I say the moon is better. It isn't as effected by glare as it isn't bright and is easy to photograph and video without glare, showing it roughly the same angular size.

And no, something being bigger doesn't mean its apparent size will change less.
Once an object is far enough away, the product of the angular size and distance remains roughly constant.
i.e. double the distance, half the angular size.
It doesn't matter if that object is 1 m wide, or 1 million km wide.

When viewed through a solar filter, one which cuts out the glare, there is no significant change in angular size at all.

Yet the moon does look larger at times, when it is closer to us, which would not occur if it was 250000 miles away from Earth. And it’s not. It’s very close to Earth, and quite small.

Yet the moon does look larger at times, when it is closer to us

Yes, due to its far more significant elliptical orbit, with the distance varying from ~350 000 to over 400 000 km. That is a substantial difference.
But this occurs over the course of a month.
Over the course of a day, the moon does not vary in size dramatically.

This is again consistent with the RE model, and not the FE model.

Flat Earth Sunsets - Should the Sun Shrink?




Not sure what this is all about?



Paraphrase from the video, “When we see parallel lines side on we don’t see any apparent change in distance?  “

All one has to do is watch the sun rise, arc over the sky, and sink bellow the horizon.  It’s pretty obvious the sun is a set distance above a rotating earth.  It’s not coming in a straight line at a fixed altitude of 3000 miles then passing over head to go away from you.

(etc)

This video is a falsehood.

If you're not sure what this is about, should you be quoting it? You just set something telling here though.

The sun rises. The sun arcs the sky. The sun sets.

You can clearly see those things, even if you don't get the idea the author of the video was saying. You say those things by convention, not understanding that like "around the world" for FE ppl, they are phrases that betray your philosophy.

RE heliocentrism tells people that even though your eyes see the sun rise, and the sun move across the sky, and the sun set, you are obviously delusional, and the real reality is that the Earth spinning pulls the sun around. Yes, despite the fact that a single carousel ride at Disney should tell you different. The sky does not appear to move. Even if the entirety of the ground below our feet should appear still, the skybeing suspended gas, ought to be in constant flux. But wind is periodic not constant. Nor does that jive with what our stomach does.

The sun rises. The sun arcs the sky. The sun sets.

We can argue angles later. Today, let's talk semantics. You cannot say that, and believe heliocentrism. You are a falsehood.

The sun rises. The sun arcs the sky. The sun sets.

And I addressed on the first page of this thread on what a sun on the flat earth should do…. Especially if you believe and push the video this thread debunks.

Quote from: turbonium2 on October 14, 2023, 10:43:29 PM

The Sun is positioned below the dome of the Firmament, so it moves below the arc in circles above Earth.

So stupid.  Why doesn’t the sun illuminate the bottom of your dome? 24/7? Duh…

Anyway.  The sun would have to turn north after setting in California.  No evidence.

The sun and its radiation are physically blocked by the curvature of the earth to create night. 

The sun wouldn’t set on a flat earth because the sun is too far above the earth in the delusion with the dimensions of the earth too small. 

And.  Again.

If the earth was flat. The sun should still come at you with seemingly very little change in speed for a long time, then seem to speed up and to fly by at a high rate of speed.  Greatly changing in apparent size.

Something like this. 




Which is nothing like reality.



Or this




Where on a flat earth the sun always 300 to 3000 miles above the earth couldn’t illuminate a cloud like this from the bottom. (and seriously, flat earther’s can’t scientifically agree on an actual distance to the sun by now?)




Where the sun stays a constant size as it arcs high into the sky from a earth rotating around its axis as it orbits the sun that is that  center of the solar system.

Where the sun changes very little distance from the viewer. 


Sorry.  No indication a sun 32 miles in diameter orbiting above a flat earth in atmosphere at high speed always relatively above the clouds in the middle of the van Allen belts making a constant right turn illuminating the underside of a dome.

And for a flat earth, the sun still would have to turn relative north and travel roughly parallel to the west coast of North America after passing over California.

You guys call this lies, but let's do a challenge. Make a picture of how exactly this works. Sun millions of miles away, bounces on a curve and hits the moon, which appears to be opposite it and the same size.

If the sun is the perfect distance away to look the same size as the moon, shouldn't it usually appear behind the moon or above it? But no, except for during an eclipse, the sun and moon are nearly always opposite each other. And shouldn't we see this light transferring one to another? After all, it should be passing by us. But no, we can see the sun's rays from the sun, we can see moonlight from the moon, but we never see sun to moonlight. We also can look directly at the moon, and we do not go blind.

It's easy to make a picture of how it works with the globe, but you seem to be describing something different.  I'm not sure you understand how the moon is illuminated.

Yes, despite the fact that a single carousel ride at Disney should tell you different.

  Why should it tell you different?

The sun rises. The sun arcs the sky. The sun sets.

Just like we would expect on a RE, and nothing like a FE.

RE heliocentrism tells people that even though your eyes see the sun rise, and the sun move across the sky, and the sun set, you are obviously delusional, and the real reality is that the Earth spinning pulls the sun around.

No. You aren't delusional for seeing the relative motion of the sun. And it isn't Earth spinning "pulling the sun around".

Instead, it is just like a merry go round, where you can observe things come into view from one side, arc around you and appear to set on the other.

From such a simple observation, you cannot tell if it is the sun circling Earth, or Earth rotating.
But notice how this has nothing to do with flat vs round?
Or more specifically, if the relative path of the sun is a circle centred roughly on your location with it being below you at times, vs being above you at all times, circling in a plane parallel to the ground over a flat Earth.

The sky does not appear to move.

Look at the night sky. You can even make time lapses of it showing the relative motion. You can even have them keep the stars fixed and have Earth appear to move.

e.g.

We can argue angles later.

You mean you want to yet again dodge simple issues that show you are wrong.

How about instead of trying to play semantic games, you explain what magic causes the sun to appear to circle you on a FE and appear to remain the same distance at all times.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 11, 2024, 05:37:19 AM

The sun rises. The sun arcs the sky. The sun sets.

Just like we would expect on a RE, and nothing like a FE.

It was quite literally his words not mine.

All one has to do is watch the sun rise, arc over the sky, and sink bellow the horizon.  It’s pretty obvious the sun is a set distance above a rotating earth.  It’s not coming in a straight line at a fixed altitude of 3000 miles then passing over head to go away from you.

You people are so unbelievably dishonest. Even if your own people say something, you lie about it and pretend it didn't happen.

I'm not sure you understand how the moon is illuminated.

I know how you think it is illuminated. And I suspect I know how it actually is illuminated. These things are quite different.

You think the sun casts light on the moon, and the position or angle in respect to the sun dictates the phases. I thought that might be the case for awhile, but the logic doesn't pan out.

1. Even when refracted, the light of the sun is damaging to the eyes. We could say that this was to do with conductivity, but this too is crap. If I were to hold up say, a rock, it would cast shadow, not its own light.
2. In fact, the light of the moon is degrees colder than the areas where moonlight does not touch. While sunlight has warming effect, moonlight actually cools slightly.
3. It also seems to be a different hue of light.
4. When the sun and moon are out together, the moon does not appear to be any brighter than when the sun can no longer be seen. In other words, this is not the sun casting light on an object. This is two distinct sources of light, as though you were to face an iPhone and a black light at each other. They don't interact under normal circumstances.
5. The sun is supposed to be way bigger yet the perfect distance in the sky to appear perfectly the same size. Kindly try drawing this out.  You see, actual experience tells me the sun is often opposite the moon. But the sun according to these models should be above (past) the moon. So either it lines up with the sun, in which case lighting the moon would mean an eclipse, or we have light only abstractly affecting the moon.

At what point will you admit you are lying and/or your theories are garbage?

Quote from: JackBlack on February 11, 2024, 11:58:57 AM

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on February 11, 2024, 05:37:19 AM

The sun rises. The sun arcs the sky. The sun sets.

Just like we would expect on a RE, and nothing like a FE.

It was quite literally his words not mine.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on October 12, 2023, 11:44:14 AM

All one has to do is watch the sun rise, arc over the sky, and sink bellow the horizon.  It’s pretty obvious the sun is a set distance above a rotating earth.  It’s not coming in a straight line at a fixed altitude of 3000 miles then passing over head to go away from you.

You people are so unbelievably dishonest. Even if your own people say something, you lie about it and pretend it didn't happen.

Quote

I'm not sure you understand how the moon is illuminated.

I know how you think it is illuminated. And I suspect I know how it actually is illuminated. These things are quite different.

You think the sun casts light on the moon, and the position or angle in respect to the sun dictates the phases. I thought that might be the case for awhile, but the logic doesn't pan out.

1. Even when refracted, the light of the sun is damaging to the eyes. We could say that this was to do with conductivity, but this too is crap. If I were to hold up say, a rock, it would cast shadow, not its own light.
2. In fact, the light of the moon is degrees colder than the areas where moonlight does not touch. While sunlight has warming effect, moonlight actually cools slightly.
3. It also seems to be a different hue of light.
4. When the sun and moon are out together, the moon does not appear to be any brighter than when the sun can no longer be seen. In other words, this is not the sun casting light on an object. This is two distinct sources of light, as though you were to face an iPhone and a black light at each other. They don't interact under normal circumstances.
5. The sun is supposed to be way bigger yet the perfect distance in the sky to appear perfectly the same size. Kindly try drawing this out.  You see, actual experience tells me the sun is often opposite the moon. But the sun according to these models should be above (past) the moon. So either it lines up with the sun, in which case lighting the moon would mean an eclipse, or we have light only abstractly affecting the moon.

At what point will you admit you are lying and/or your theories are garbage?

They will never admit it, they  have no integrity or honesty, just like those they defend.

Sadly, you cannot argue with them as an open, honest group. They are not honest or open, they make endlessly changing excuses after their previous ones were ripped apart.

It is like telling onr of Charles Mansons brainwashed people, or anyone in a cult, that their leader is a psychopathic nut. You cannot reason with them . If you showed them their leader stabbing an old woman to death on a street, and a freezer of chopped up body parts in his freezer, they’d tell you the video isn’t showing him, and the body parts are from a cadaver that he was doing scientific research on.

There are a million ways to come up with excuses for something. This example shows you how easy it is. That’s what the ball Earth zombies do all the time, they cannot answer the problems with valid explanations.

What I am doing is hoping that others may read these threads, with an open unbiased mind, and see the truth for themselves, by looking at all the REAL evidence.  I’ve seen some who read these threads on other forums who HAVE done so,and that’s what I’m trying to do as well, put the evidence out there for all to see, and decide for themselves, use their own brains and common sense

You people are so unbelievably

Why do you keep embarrassing yourself.

If the earth was flat.

The sun would not set.

The sun would have to turn north and travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America after passing California.

The sun would change apparent size throughout the day.

The sun in the morning for California would appear small and move slow as it came towards the viewer.  Would appear to grow and speed up.  Appear large and zoom overhead at noon. Then appear to slow down and grow smaller in size.

By modelled and calculation is how FE would work.  Your video is debunked.  Flat earth is debunked. FE doesn’t explain the observed movement of the sun. FE doesn’t explain and accurately predict solar eclipses and tides.  FE doesn’t explain night which is literally the curvature of the earth casting a shadow across the land. 

What I am doing is hoping that others may read these threads,

You been caught and proven to be a chronic liar too many times to achieve anything than damage the cause you champion. 

4. When the sun and moon are out together, the moon does not appear to be any brighter than when the sun can no longer be seen.

The moon doesn’t seem as bright and noticeable during the day.  Like the brights of the headlights on a car are not any brighter in the day than at night. But don’t blind oncoming traffic during the day, but headlights on high beam at night will blind oncoming traffic. 

It was quite literally his words not mine.

And they show how RE matches reality, while FE does not.

You people are so unbelievably dishonest.

Says the one who repeatedly lies, gets refuted, flees from the topic, and then brings up the same lies again?

You think the sun casts light on the moon, and the position or angle in respect to the sun dictates the phases. I thought that might be the case for awhile, but the logic doesn't pan out.

Yet the explanation makes perfect sense and you cannot show a fault and instead just lie about it.

1. Even when refracted, the light of the sun is damaging to the eyes.

But not when scattered.

e.g. if you go outside during the day, you can look at loads of objects without damaging your eyes; objects which are illuminated by the sun, just like the moon.

If I were to hold up say, a rock, it would cast shadow, not its own light.

Now, instead of holding the rock in front of the sun and looking at the shadow, try looking at the side that the sun is hitting.
You will see it illuminated by the sun.

2. In fact, the light of the moon is degrees colder than the areas where moonlight does not touch. While sunlight has warming effect, moonlight actually cools slightly.

That is a blatant lie. The moon, when directly measured, is hotter, not colder.
What you are entirely ignoring, as has been explained before, is that the night sky is colder.
There are 3 main methods of heat transfer, conduction, convection and radiative heat transfer.
If you place an opaque, insulating cover directly over something, you prevent all three.
That means something exposed to the cold night sky, capable of conducting heat to the air, having that air undergo convection to keep cool air coming in to take more heat, and allowing it to radiate the heat away into space, will end up cooler than something under a blanket.

This is why no FEer has ever tried an actual controlled experiment. Because it would show they are wrong.

3. It also seems to be a different hue of light.

Which simply means it doesn't scatter all wavelengths equally. That doesn't show a problem.
Do you think trees cast their own light because they are green?

4. When the sun and moon are out together, the moon does not appear to be any brighter than when the sun can no longer be seen.

Which is still entirely consistent.
You aren't showing any problem. You are just yet again, being incredibly dishonest.

Take a flash light, place it down so it is shining at an object.
Stand in a position where you can see both the flashlight and the object.
Then use your hand or some other obstacle to block the light going from the flashlight to you, but not the flashlight to the object.

Does being able to see the flashlight directly magically make the object appear brighter? NO! Because that light going from the flashlight to your eye doesn't impact how much light is going from the flashlight to the object.
Instead, you seeing the light directly typically makes your eyes adjust and have it appear darker.

5. The sun is supposed to be way bigger yet the perfect distance in the sky to appear perfectly the same size.

No. There is nothing perfect about it.
Due to the changing distances, the moon ranges from appearing smaller than the sun to appearing larger than it.
This is also shown by the fact that we get both annular and total solar eclipses.

But again, this isn't a problem.

You see, actual experience tells me the sun is often opposite the moon. But the sun according to these models should be above (past) the moon.

You mean as wilful ignorance and according to blatant lies.

Actual experience from countless observations show the moon varies from roughly 0 degrees to 180 degrees to 360 degrees separated from the moon.
This matches with the phases.

Additionally, it is rarely perfectly at 0 or 180 degrees.
This means eclipses are rare.



In other words, you are yet again being dishonest to prop your failed fantasy.
You can't show an actual fault with the RE model, so you just lie about it; pretending there is a problem, so you can pretend your fantasy is true.

At what point will you admit you are lying and/or your theories are garbage?

Good question, when will you?
You have been shown to be lying repeatedly.
It has been shown repeatedly that your "theories" are pure garbage with no chance of explaining reality.
Yet you keep on spouting the same refuted BS.

They will never admit it, they  have no integrity or honesty, just like those they defend.

Quite the opposite.
Unlike you and Bulma, who are clearly quite willing to blatantly lie to prop up your fantasy, I have integrity. So I will not admit to such a blatant lie.

You are yet to show any fault with the RE model. Instead you lie and use whatever other dishoneset BS you can to pretend there are problems, typically needing to blatantly misrepresent the model, or reality, or both, to pretend there is a problem.

And you cannot defend your fantasy either, being entirely incapable of providing an actual explanation for countless phenomenon that the RE explains with ease.

For example, the sun, how does it set? We know it can't be perspective because it doesn't appear to slow down nor shrink.

Sadly, you cannot argue with them as an open, honest group.

You can, but that would require you to be honest, which would mean admitting Earth isn't flat.

They are not honest or open, they make endlessly changing excuses after their previous ones were ripped apart.

If by "they" you mean FEers, then Yes.
You are a great example of that.
You happily switch between contradictory claims to try and prop up your BS.

What I am doing is hoping that others may read these threads, with an open unbiased mind, and see the truth for themselves, by looking at all the REAL evidence.

Be honest.
What you are hoping is that fools may read the thread and be conned by your mountains of BS into accepting your blatant lies.

If intelligent people with an open, unbiased mind read the thread and look at the evidence, they will accept Earth is round.
They will see FEers blatantly lying to prop up their failed fantasy.
They will see FEers fleeing from simple issues which expose the faults in their fantasy.
They will see FEers blatantly lying about the RE and reality to pretend there are faults.
And they will see FEers fleeing from the refutations of their lies.

decide for themselves, use their own brains and common sense

Maybe you should try that yourself some time?

They will never admit it, they  have no integrity or honesty, just like those they defend.

Sadly, you cannot argue with them as an open, honest group. They are not honest or open, they make endlessly changing excuses after their previous ones were ripped apart.

It is like telling onr of Charles Mansons brainwashed people, or anyone in a cult, that their leader is a psychopathic nut. You cannot reason with them . If you showed them their leader stabbing an old woman to death on a street, and a freezer of chopped up body parts in his freezer, they’d tell you the video isn’t showing him, and the body parts are from a cadaver that he was doing scientific research on.

There are a million ways to come up with excuses for something. This example shows you how easy it is. That’s what the ball Earth zombies do all the time, they cannot answer the problems with valid explanations.

What I am doing is hoping that others may read these threads, with an open unbiased mind, and see the truth for themselves, by looking at all the REAL evidence.  I’ve seen some who read these threads on other forums who HAVE done so,and that’s what I’m trying to do as well, put the evidence out there for all to see, and decide for themselves, use their own brains and common sense

I'm not actually sure why I talk to them. I'm just hoping somewhere I can find a place with friends that have shared interests. And since I got to such a place and find instead a bunch of people antagonizing other people, I just talk to whoever might listen.

Unlike you and Bulma, who are clearly quite willing to blatantly lie to prop up your fantasy, I have integrity. So I will not admit to such a blatant lie.

Yeah, I think you're right. JackBlack's "integrity" is too great to admit that a person looking at the facts more than casually is like "huh?!?"

You are yet to show any fault with the RE model.

 I have. Several times. I've shown repeatedly how this doesn't work. Like Columbo suspects, 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. Indeed, just as the answers those suspects give lead to more questions, your answers don't provide anything satisfying. I had doubts when I first came here, and the more I've talked to people here, the more they solidified into unbelief.

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?



This sorta makes sense on a flat Earth, until you get that it really doesn't because phases. But on a round Earth, the sun is supposed to be farther away, mych bigger, and orbiting Earth is supposed to go around the sun. The size is wrong, the angle is wrong, and it's just a stupid model that doesn't match perceived reality.

And Data yet again tells us in bold that I'm debunked, practically screaming this. No, I'm not.
 "You are debunked." No, I'm not.

 I've shown repeatedly how this doesn't work.

Your video is debunked.

If the earth was flat.


The sun would have to turn north and travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America after passing California.

The sun would change apparent size throughout the day.

The sun in the morning for California would appear small and move slow as it came towards the viewer.  Would appear to grow and speed up.  Appear large and zoom overhead at noon. Then appear to slow down and grow smaller in size.

The sun would not set on a flat earth. 

I'm not actually sure why I talk to them.

Because in real life, people would look at you like you’re a delusional loon and walk away. 

Because in real life, people would look at you like you’re a delusional loon and walk away. 

No they wouldn't. Because in real life I'm just shy.

Unlike the sort of people who frequent Flat Earth Society discussion boards and try to convince everyone there that the Earth is round, I don't go anywhere and convince anyone of anything. 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.

Your video is debunked.

If the earth was flat.


The sun would have to turn north and travel roughly parallel to the coast of North America after passing California.

The sun would change apparent size throughout the day.

The sun in the morning for California would appear small and move slow as it came towards the viewer.  Would appear to grow and speed up.  Appear large and zoom overhead at noon. Then appear to slow down and grow smaller in size.

The sun would not set on a flat earth. 

Mmmm hmmm. 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.

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.

Right... 

Oh yeah. And I'm still due a diagram that maps out where the sun is, if it's casting light on the moon yet also in the same sky as it.

Note.  Wrong thread.  But I’ll add to it and leave it…

Hmm




Crop and zoom in a bit on the tiny picture to simulate a zoom lens.



Crop and zoom in a bit on the tiny picture to simulate a zoom lens one more time..




Sun still visibly above the earth.  Huh


Funny.  No matter how small.  The sun is always visibly above the earth?

NASA

The earth was proven and demonstrated to be spherical long before NASA.

Spherical earth answers,

One, why the sun doesn’t turn relative north after passing California.  It would have to on a flat earth.




Two, even from a mountain top after sunset why a telescope that can bring stars to faint to be seen with the unaided eye can’t bring the sun back in to view.  It’s physically blocked by the earth’s curvature. 

Three, night fall is literally the earth’s curvature casting a shadow.

Four, For a flat earth.  Then sun would not set.  “Perspective” cannot block the suns light and radiation.

Five, For a flat earth. For a person in California.  Not only would the sun change apparent size throughout the day.  The sun would seem to move slow after sunrise, speed up and grew in size for noon.  After noon, the sun’s speed would seem to slow down and the sun would shrink in apparent size.


Something like this flashlight coming at the camera at a fixed height






bulmabriefs144, your video is debunked.

It’s demonstrated the earth is spherical.

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.

That isn't north!


I've explained this before. The sun moves along Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn during the seasons.

You also have no rationale behind why it "has to" turn north.

This is a flat Earth equidistant map. Even so, I had to fumble through the lines a bit to figure out where the tropics were due to tiny print. It does not have to turn north. If it still gives that impression, I misdrew one of the circles.



And this does not explain why the sun and moon are in the sky together. It says that the phases are as they are from light from the sun, without adequately explaining why when the sun is not visible in the sky, phases would be the same. Nor does it explain how the sun can move about while sharing the sky with the moon, and its phase stays the same through the whole time. Nor does it explain different phases with the sun in the sky together. It doesn't explain anything actually. Try again.

That isn't north!

How does the sun not turn visibly to the “right” or relative north after passing California if the earth is flat?




You’re missing the point bulmabriefs144.  The sun would visibly turn right if you watched the sun from California on a FE.

The animation isn't meant to convey that the sun (or Moon) moves in a straight line. It's meant to show that perspective of a very close and small sun would shrink as it moves further from you or you move further than it. It doesn't shrink like everything else in our perspective does.

Also… South is meaningless on a FE.


Considering navigation and celestial observation points to this…



And not this..

How not?

Because the circle is obscenely large.

The circle orbit
Is
Large




Ask why you SHOULD agree that a ridiculously large circle wouldnt notice a noticebale change inndirection.

I've explained this before. The sun moves along Tropic of Cancer and Capricorn during the seasons.

You mean you have lied before.

You weren't able to explain at all.
Instead you dishonestly switched to a map you claim isn't accurate to pretend it magically solves it.

It also shows a wonderfully dishonest double standard of FEers, where you continually complain about curve and how things should go down, yet fail to realise the equivalence for things going north in your fantasy.

This is a flat Earth equidistant map.

No, it is an azimuthal equidistant projection that FEers use as a FE map, even though it fails to match reality when taken as a FE map.

But here is the problem.
I like using the equinox, when the sun appears to rise in the east, pass along a point due north/south of you or overhead for those at the equator and then set due west.
And we get 12 hours of daylight out of 24 hours, so the sun rises 1/4 of the way around, and sets 1/4 of the way around.

That results in this:

That doesn't match reality.

And this does not explain why the sun and moon are in the sky together.

What do you mean?
You see roughly 180 degrees from side to side.
That means there is a broad range where the sun and moon are in the sky together.

It says that the phases are as they are from light from the sun, without adequately explaining why when the sun is not visible in the sky, phases would be the same.

What is inadequate about it?
The MOON needs to be able to get the light from the sun. Not you.

Nor does it explain how the sun can move about while sharing the sky with the moon, and its phase stays the same through the whole time.

The sun doesn't have phases.
It produces its own light.
You are acting like it is pure magic and the existence of the moon should magically lock the sun in place.
Just what do you think there is to explain here?

Nor does it explain different phases with the sun in the sky together.

Again, it does.
It is based upon the angular separation between the sun and the moon.
The sun and the moon being in the sky together doesn't change that.

It doesn't explain anything actually.

Instead of just pathetically asserting it doesn't explain anything, how about you try dealing with the explanation to say why it is wrong.

The Sun clearly appears larger in these time lapse clips.

Once glare and clouds are considered.  The sun is clearly the same size hour to hour day to day as proven by long exposures.

Creating this photo of sun trails took eight years and a beer can

https://www.popsci.com/story/technology/beer-can-camera-long-exposure/



The lines across the sky show the sun's path. The speckles in the lines show where clouds obscured the sun.

Quote from: turbonium2 on February 12, 2024, 01:34:21 AM

They will never admit it, they  have no integrity or honesty, just like those they defend.

Sadly, you cannot argue with them as an open, honest group. They are not honest or open, they make endlessly changing excuses after their previous ones were ripped apart.

It is like telling onr of Charles Mansons brainwashed people, or anyone in a cult, that their leader is a psychopathic nut. You cannot reason with them . If you showed them their leader stabbing an old woman to death on a street, and a freezer of chopped up body parts in his freezer, they’d tell you the video isn’t showing him, and the body parts are from a cadaver that he was doing scientific research on.

There are a million ways to come up with excuses for something. This example shows you how easy it is. That’s what the ball Earth zombies do all the time, they cannot answer the problems with valid explanations.

What I am doing is hoping that others may read these threads, with an open unbiased mind, and see the truth for themselves, by looking at all the REAL evidence.  I’ve seen some who read these threads on other forums who HAVE done so,and that’s what I’m trying to do as well, put the evidence out there for all to see, and decide for themselves, use their own brains and common sense

I'm not actually sure why I talk to them. I'm just hoping somewhere I can find a place with friends that have shared interests. And since I got to such a place and find instead a bunch of people antagonizing other people, I just talk to whoever might listen.

Quote

Unlike you and Bulma, who are clearly quite willing to blatantly lie to prop up your fantasy, I have integrity. So I will not admit to such a blatant lie.

Yeah, I think you're right. JackBlack's "integrity" is too great to admit that a person looking at the facts more than casually is like "huh?!?"

Quote

You are yet to show any fault with the RE model.

 I have. Several times. I've shown repeatedly how this doesn't work. Like Columbo suspects, 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. Indeed, just as the answers those suspects give lead to more questions, your answers don't provide anything satisfying. I had doubts when I first came here, and the more I've talked to people here, the more they solidified into unbelief.

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?



This sorta makes sense on a flat Earth, until you get that it really doesn't because phases. But on a round Earth, the sun is supposed to be farther away, mych bigger, and orbiting Earth is supposed to go around the sun. The size is wrong, the angle is wrong, and it's just a stupid model that doesn't match perceived reality.

And Data yet again tells us in bold that I'm debunked, practically screaming this. No, I'm not.
 "You are debunked." No, I'm not.

Its impossible to draw a diagram of so much going on, in a 2d drawing. How's that?