When will RE Community Accept Defeat?

Ha
I didnt see earlier that plata used the words atmophere and troposphere.

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

How would they look the same? A flat earth 3000 mile high, 32 mile sun would recede into a pinpoint off in the distance and would never get near the horizon.

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth.

That depends highly upon what kind of FE you have.

With the ancient FE model of a small disk that the sun went behind, it would look quite similar to a RE.
But for the modern FE models, the sun would never set.

Sunsets have the sun go below you. That is impossible for the modern FE models. So it disproves them.

FE "perspective" does not employ science. It employs blatant lies to pretend the sun can set.

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:



There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE.  To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true.  Take a look for yourself:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

The problem with FE is an issue with dependency.  We'll start with sunrise/sunset.  If the Earth is flat, and the sun/moon are on a plane of movement parallel to the Earth, it is impossible for either celestial object to rise or set below the horizon (this is due to parallel lines never intersecting, thus neither object can pass below the plane the Earth is on).  Now, a popular FE solution to this problem is to say refraction is the reason why it sets.  This does not solve the issue; while refraction of light is a known phenomena, the behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set is opposite to what we know about that phenomena.  Light refracts a particular way in any given medium, and that way is known given we also know the medium.  The atmosphere is a known medium and the refraction of light through it can be determined with a high degree of accuracy.  The behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set if the Earth was flat does not keep with what we know about light's interaction with the atmosphere. 

So, in order to make this particular behavior true, we commit a logical fallacy of special pleading; we make an exception for light's behavior in this instance and say that for "reasons" light behaves like X, which provides a solution to the problem.  But it creates more problems...  If light behaves in this fashion, how come we can't reproduce this behavior, or if it is reproducible, how come the medium where it behaves this way isn't anything close to being composed of atmosphere?  So, the FE "scientist" is left creating an elaborate lattice of dependencies, all based on fallacious logic.  This is the issue with dependency.  If we return to the root, expose it's truth value, and in this case it is zero, the entire lattice collapses.
 

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

You know, I called myself "sunset" for a reason. Sunsets like sunrises, prove the shape of the earth, every single day.

You're going to try and say, using flat earth pseudoscience, that the air closest to the earth somehow magically bends the high soaring and circling sun, down below the horizon. Yet it doesn't do it with planes. Yet, it doesn't do it with stars. I suppose you'll also say it does the same with the moon, but can't explain moon phases, or know what a tidal bulge is. 

Terrorise us, plat. Tell us how the circling overhead sun and circling overhead moon, are bent down below the horizon when stars aren't, and planes aren't.

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 09:06:09 AM

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:



What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE.  To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true.  Take a look for yourself:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

The problem with FE is an issue with dependency.  We'll start with sunrise/sunset.  If the Earth is flat, and the sun/moon are on a plane of movement parallel to the Earth, it is impossible for either celestial object to rise or set below the horizon (this is due to parallel lines never intersecting, thus neither object can pass below the plane the Earth is on).  Now, a popular FE solution to this problem is to say refraction is the reason why it sets.  This does not solve the issue; while refraction of light is a known phenomena, the behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set is opposite to what we know about that phenomena.  Light refracts a particular way in any given medium, and that way is known given we also know the medium.  The atmosphere is a known medium and the refraction of light through it can be determined with a high degree of accuracy.  The behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set if the Earth was flat does not keep with what we know about light's interaction with the atmosphere. 

So, in order to make this particular behavior true, we commit a logical fallacy of special pleading; we make an exception for light's behavior in this instance and say that for "reasons" light behaves like X, which provides a solution to the problem.  But it creates more problems...  If light behaves in this fashion, how come we can't reproduce this behavior, or if it is reproducible, how come the medium where it behaves this way isn't anything close to being composed of atmosphere?  So, the FE "scientist" is left creating an elaborate lattice of dependencies, all based on fallacious logic.  This is the issue with dependency.  If we return to the root, expose it's truth value, and in this case it is zero, the entire lattice collapses.
 

What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

You tell us Plat Terra, how far is the sun from Earth in your flat model?  We'd need to know that distance, along with where the viewer is on the planet before using simple math to figure that out.  I smell another red herring...

Quote from: Gumwars on September 07, 2019, 02:39:28 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 09:06:09 AM

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:



What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE.  To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true.  Take a look for yourself:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

The problem with FE is an issue with dependency.  We'll start with sunrise/sunset.  If the Earth is flat, and the sun/moon are on a plane of movement parallel to the Earth, it is impossible for either celestial object to rise or set below the horizon (this is due to parallel lines never intersecting, thus neither object can pass below the plane the Earth is on).  Now, a popular FE solution to this problem is to say refraction is the reason why it sets.  This does not solve the issue; while refraction of light is a known phenomena, the behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set is opposite to what we know about that phenomena.  Light refracts a particular way in any given medium, and that way is known given we also know the medium.  The atmosphere is a known medium and the refraction of light through it can be determined with a high degree of accuracy.  The behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set if the Earth was flat does not keep with what we know about light's interaction with the atmosphere. 

So, in order to make this particular behavior true, we commit a logical fallacy of special pleading; we make an exception for light's behavior in this instance and say that for "reasons" light behaves like X, which provides a solution to the problem.  But it creates more problems...  If light behaves in this fashion, how come we can't reproduce this behavior, or if it is reproducible, how come the medium where it behaves this way isn't anything close to being composed of atmosphere?  So, the FE "scientist" is left creating an elaborate lattice of dependencies, all based on fallacious logic.  This is the issue with dependency.  If we return to the root, expose it's truth value, and in this case it is zero, the entire lattice collapses.
 

What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

1 AU.

Quote from: Gumwars on September 07, 2019, 02:39:28 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 09:06:09 AM

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:



What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE.  To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true.  Take a look for yourself:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model

The problem with FE is an issue with dependency.  We'll start with sunrise/sunset.  If the Earth is flat, and the sun/moon are on a plane of movement parallel to the Earth, it is impossible for either celestial object to rise or set below the horizon (this is due to parallel lines never intersecting, thus neither object can pass below the plane the Earth is on).  Now, a popular FE solution to this problem is to say refraction is the reason why it sets.  This does not solve the issue; while refraction of light is a known phenomena, the behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set is opposite to what we know about that phenomena.  Light refracts a particular way in any given medium, and that way is known given we also know the medium.  The atmosphere is a known medium and the refraction of light through it can be determined with a high degree of accuracy.  The behavior necessary for the sun/moon to rise or set if the Earth was flat does not keep with what we know about light's interaction with the atmosphere. 

So, in order to make this particular behavior true, we commit a logical fallacy of special pleading; we make an exception for light's behavior in this instance and say that for "reasons" light behaves like X, which provides a solution to the problem.  But it creates more problems...  If light behaves in this fashion, how come we can't reproduce this behavior, or if it is reproducible, how come the medium where it behaves this way isn't anything close to being composed of atmosphere?  So, the FE "scientist" is left creating an elaborate lattice of dependencies, all based on fallacious logic.  This is the issue with dependency.  If we return to the root, expose it's truth value, and in this case it is zero, the entire lattice collapses.
 

What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

It is not so much that distance, but the angle  from the vertical, approximately 45° or greater, considering no mountains in the way.

What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

No distance will make it so the sun appears to set, nor allow it to cast a shadow upwards.
The best you will be able to do is have it appear to get quite close to the ground, when it is just a tiny point.

What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead  and at sunset?

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 09:06:09 AM

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:



There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE.  To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true.  Take a look for yourself:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model


 

Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance increases. List what else should be included.

And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.

We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences.  But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.
We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up, but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why? 








Will you now admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?

Quote from: Macarios on September 06, 2019, 11:05:34 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 06, 2019, 10:13:52 PM

WARNING Did you know...

...how easy it would be for any mathematician to take a stationary Plane Earth’s circling celestial bodies and change the distance and size, placing them far away through scale invariance and claim the Earth spins and is orbiting a stationary Sun? They could even fake the seasonal path of the Sun by giving the Earth a stationary tilt. They could easily establish a Heliocentric theory through pseudoscience and claim Earth a sphere and is not of intelligent design.

And did you know, no one could tell the difference unless they understood their surroundings through observation? All you need is deceptive Astronomers, Scientists and Governments. That's right, and that’s exactly what as happened through the centuries and the hoax continues through fake media, fake news, entertainment, TV and fake space programs and propaganda.

If lies are propagandize long enough, the masses will also come to believe in more than two genders through pseudoscience.

So, if you repeat the "Earth is Flat" long enough, you think people would start believing it?

Unfortunately, it was done before, but not all people fell for that.
Also, it was told for centuries that the Earth was static sphere, and it still didn't work.

There are people who observe and measure on their own, and they discovered that
no indoctrination can flatten the Earth and pin it into static position.

Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years away.
What orbital speed should it have to revolve the Earth once in 24 hours?
1.23 light years per hour?

What about Andromeda Galaxy at 2.5 million light years from here?

You have watched too much Star Trek.

How often do you view Andromeda Galaxy?

Can you always see it?

Those distances were measured decades before Star Trek was made, before you and I were born.

As for Andromeda:

From mid-northern latitudes, you can see M31 – also called the Andromeda galaxy – for at least part of every night, all year long. But most people see the galaxy first around northern autumn, when it's high enough in the sky to be seen from nightfall until daybreak.

(from: https://earthsky.org/clusters-nebulae-galaxies/andromeda-galaxy-closest-spiral-to-milky-way)

Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance decreases.

Is this a typo?  Objects get smaller as distance decreases??

List what else should be included.

This is your model, not mine.  You list what needs to be included.  I'm merely pointing out the perpetual paradoxes that are created by this wild conjecture.

And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.

The sun doesn't get smaller as it sets, that's the point.  The GIF I provided is the logical implication of saying the Earth is flat and the sun being located above it. 

We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences.  But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.

You are dead wrong.  If the Earth is flat along with the other assumptions regarding the size and location of the sun are also considered, this GIF presents what that should look like.  Obviously, this isn't what we see in reality.  Therefore, the Earth isn't flat. 

We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up, but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why? 

Because the sun doesn't get smaller and fade away.  Our line of sight is cut off by the horizon.  Not one of these videos are honest representations of reality.  I'm at work and can go outside, right now, and watch the sun set completely.  Not one of those videos shows the stars coming out (impossible if the sun never sets) or a moon coming into view.  The fact that you would resort to outright lies to try and win an argument shows the quality of your character.

Will you know admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?

I cannot admit that which is no true.  The sun sets over the horizon, it does not diminish in size (though refraction does distort its shape, slightly), and you seem to be unable to either acknowledge or speak the truth.

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 04:56:43 PM

What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead  and at sunset?

I'm not a Flat Earth expert. But I am proof that someone with a high school education can school you guys with degrees of education because your belief is a fallacy. That doesn't really look good for you and your theory, does it?

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 05:58:32 PM

Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance decreases.

Is this a typo?  Objects get smaller as distance decreases??

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 05:58:32 PM

List what else should be included.

This is your model, not mine.  You list what needs to be included.  I'm merely pointing out the perpetual paradoxes that are created by this wild conjecture.

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 05:58:32 PM

And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.

The sun doesn't get smaller as it sets, that's the point.  The GIF I provided is the logical implication of saying the Earth is flat and the sun being located above it. 

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 05:58:32 PM

We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences.  But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.

You are dead wrong.  If the Earth is flat along with the other assumptions regarding the size and location of the sun are also considered, this GIF presents what that should look like.  Obviously, this isn't what we see in reality.  Therefore, the Earth isn't flat. 

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 05:58:32 PM

We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up, but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why? 

Because the sun doesn't get smaller and fade away.  Our line of sight is cut off by the horizon.  Not one of these videos are honest representations of reality.  I'm at work and can go outside, right now, and watch the sun set completely.  Not one of those videos shows the stars coming out (impossible if the sun never sets) or a moon coming into view.  The fact that you would resort to outright lies to try and win an argument shows the quality of your character.

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 05:58:32 PM

Will you know admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?

I cannot admit that which is no true.  The sun sets over the horizon, it does not diminish in size (though refraction does distort its shape, slightly), and you seem to be unable to either acknowledge or speak the truth.

Typo, thanks.

Of all the videos I posted of a sunset how many of them show the Sun remaining the same size (at sunset) and existing from bottom up? Please compare them to any video you have and show how it is the same as your video. I can post many more if you like.

And, are you saying none of the videos I presented show a Sun getting smaller in appearence at sunset?  None of them?

And, show me one or more that matches your sunsets.

Thanks!

Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance decreases. List what else should be included.

No, that one point is the one being discussed at present.
There is also the "point of science" where the sun seems to rises full-size top first from behind "something".

And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.

Easy! But how many times has it been explained only to be totally ignored?
Because the sun is so bright that when higher in the sky the glare from the sun makes it seem far larger than it really is.
When the sun nears the horizon even clear air reduces the brightness to see and photograph as in these photos:

So a suitable solar filter should be used as Matrix Decode did in these photos:

So the sun stays the same angular size from near solar noon to near sunset.

We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences.  But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.
We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up,

Well, explain how perspective can cause what we see!

but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why? 

No! We do not ignore it. We continually tell you that it is simply due to the glare of the sun cause the image of the sun to appear far larger than it is.
That can easily be shown to be true by taking photos of the sun with and without a solar filter - even a very dense arc welding glass or "eclipse glasses" are better than nothing.
Look at these:

You can't trust "Sun size" videos unless a Solar Filter is used.

Another Sunset with and without the Solar Filter - (Clearer skies today)

But you keep ignoring that simple fact, one that you would know yourself if you knew a little about photography!

          

Will you know admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?

There is nothing to "admit" to!
I've never doubted that if a suitable filter isn't used the camera simply gets too much light and the glare makes the sun seem much bigger than it really is.

Notice how there is nor sharp edge to the sun, except when very close to the horizon, in any of the videos that you showed.

But the moon is far less bright, about the same as a sunlit day on earth, so there is no problem there, for example:
The following photos were taken with automatic exposure and focus. The 35mm equivalent focal length used on all photos was 1,600 mm.

These show the moon at quite different altitudes:

(1) May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°,  size  0.52°

(3) May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST Alt 23.1°, Az  99.6°,  size  0.52°

(5) May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST Alt 37.8°, Az  92.7°,  size  0.52°

The next photos are at higher altitudes, but are on different nights.

(6) June 21, 2916 at 23.12 EAST, Strawberry Moon+1, Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°,  size  0.53°

(7) May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°,  size  0.52°

(8) June 20, 2916 at 23:38 EAST, Strawberry Full Moon Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°,  size  0.52°

The angular size of the moon stays (almost) the same size from rising to virtually overhead.

Typo, thanks.

No problem.

Of all the videos I posted of a sunset how many of them show the Sun remaining the same size (at sunset) and existing from bottom up? Please compare them to any video you have and show how it is the same as your video. I can post many more if you like.

All of the videos you provided are from less than reputable sources.  Some of them are altered and it is readily apparent that they are. 

Ever think to look at videos of sunsets from neutral sources? 

And, are you saying none of the videos I presented show a Sun getting smaller in appearence at sunset?  None of them?

I don't trust any of the videos you've posted.  You don't find it problematic that every video you've picked is from a channel that supports FE?  You didn't think to maybe, just maybe pick something from a channel that doesn't care if the Earth is a ball or a pancake?  Like this one, for example:



This is just a person with a drone and a love for beautiful locales.  No motivation to prove anything.  It also shows the entire sunset.  Notice that the sunburst diminishes as the sun sets, but the size of the sun doesn't change.  If you have the correct equipment, you'll notice that the size doesn't change, at all.

And, show me one or more that matches your sunsets.

Thanks!

What do you mean, matches my sunsets?  The GIF provided earlier is what we should expect if the world is flat.  I've only just now provided support for how the sun actually sets.  Plat, you're desperately confused about how the world works.  You keep moving goal posts every time an argument is presented you can't handle.  I see you've moved on from Eratosthenes, why is that?  You seemed hard set that we were wrong and you weren't, where's the bravado now? 

We've gone over Sigma Octantis, and you were proven wrong there.  We've gone over Eratosthenes, and you were proven wrong again.  Now we are discussing sunsets, and you're going to lose here too.  Did you ever stop to wonder why you keep losing ground?  It isn't because we are better at arguing the points; it is due entirely to the strength of the points presented.  FE loses because it doesn't make sense.  There are too many paradoxes, too many logical inconsistencies, and too much dependency on crap that is logically impossible.  Stop for a second and take inventory of what is required for FE to be true:

-Abandonment of all modern physics
-Abandonment of critical thinking
-Abandonment of mathematics
-Abandonment of academics

This all leads, ultimately, to an abandonment of truth.  I don't take this lightly.  Everything we've accomplished to this point in human history is dependent on a succession of exploration, experimentation, and meticulous record keeping.  The computers we are sitting here arguing with each other on are based on the same science you say is wrong.  When we travel to other countries, or buy stuff from halfway around the world, that process is managed using technology based on a world that is a sphere.  Why does it work if your claim is true?  Did you ever stop to think about that?  How do planes get to their far off destinations?  How does GPS work if the world is flat?  How does satellite communication work if the world is flat? 

They work because the world isn't flat.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 07, 2019, 05:57:03 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 04:56:43 PM

What's the distance to the sun from the viewer at Sunset, sunset?

You're supposed to be the flat earth expert!
You tell us the distance to the sun from the viewer at sunrise, when overhead  and at sunset?

I'm not a Flat Earth expert. But I am proof that someone with a high school education can school you guys with degrees of education because your belief is a fallacy. That doesn't really look good for you and your theory, does it?

BWAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

Of all the videos I posted of a sunset how many of them show the Sun remaining the same size (at sunset) and existing from bottom up? Please compare them to any video you have and show how it is the same as your video. I can post many more if you like.

None! C-zars is close but shows an inferior mirage making the sun seem to shrink at the end.

All show a grossly enlarged sun because the photographer did not use an appropriate solar filter!

And, are you saying none of the videos I presented show a Sun getting smaller in appearance at sunset?  None of them?

All except one showed the sun getting smaller and at the end that one seemed to show it but that was just the top edge of the sun getting smaller! This one:


And that one has an obvious inferior mirage reflecting the sun and making it appear to "shrink away".

Inferior mirage showing reflection of top half of the sun.

And, show me one or more that matches your sunsets.

Thanks!

C-zar's almost does, see above!

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 05:58:32 PM

Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance decreases. List what else should be included.

No, that one point is the one being discussed at present.
There is also the "point of science" where the sun seems to rises full-size top first from behind "something".

Quote from: Plat Terra

And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.

Easy! But how many times has it been explained only to be totally ignored?
Because the sun is so bright that when higher in the sky the glare from the sun makes it seem far larger than it really is.
When the sun nears the horizon even clear air reduces the brightness to see and photograph as in these photos:

So you agree the sun faded away above the horizon in our videos and did not exit from bottom up like in your beloved photos? Correct?

Quote from: Gumwars on September 07, 2019, 02:39:28 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 09:06:09 AM

A Sunrise and Sunset would look the same on FE and RE Earth. Neither one would prove Earth's shape. For FE, you just have to understand the science involved with perspective.  Will post a graph later.

Except, and this is becoming a trend, you're wrong:



There is no "science involved with perspective" when it comes to these fundamental problems with FE.  To give you an idea of how batshit crazy this notion is, a fairly talented programmer and blogger created an interactive model of the snow-globe variety flat Earth and demonstrates how absolutely bonkers light must behave in order for this lunacy to be true.  Take a look for yourself:

http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=flat+earth+dome+model


 

Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance increases. List what else should be included.

And then please explain why we can also see the Sun get smaller and fade away above the horizon.

We can see your Sunset and we see our sunset. Conditions have to be right for both occurrences.  But it does not prove Earth is flat or a sphere.
We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up, but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why? 

The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion. 1
The replay does not help your case

The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.2
the zooming in and out gives a false view of what is happening, and you don't let it set.

The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.3
You see what you want to see here, but not a clear sky once again.

The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.4
i don't need to say anymore

The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.5
Once again the hazel on the horizon,

The heavy clouds on the horizon, are the cause of the illusion.6
Once again the hazel on the horizon,

Will you now admit that sometimes the Sun appears to get smaller and fades away?

yes it is an  illusion.

So you agree the sun faded away above the horizon in our videos and did not exit from bottom up like in your beloved photos? Correct?

No your videos did not show "the sun fade away above the horizon"!

It seemed to fade away because all the videos that I watched, except for C-zars, because your photographers are totally ignorant about photographing the sun!

C-zar seems fairly competent but his has an inferior mirage distorting the apparent location of the horizon.

Because the sun is so bright that when higher in the sky the glare from the sun makes it seem far larger than it really is.

But you refuse to take the slightest notice of anything said and if you ever hope to convince anybody you'd better change you attitude!

Wow, the light gets darker at the end of the tunnel, yet they're the same wattage.  Imagine that. How can that be? I bet if that tunnel was just 400 feet long it would be dark at the end with the lights on all the way to the end.  We might see a bit of twilight, don't you think?

How can this be related to a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere? 

Your model only has one point of science, an object gets smaller as distance increases.

No it doesn't.
It also includes the angular position becoming lower as the altitude appears smaller as it gets further away.
But notice how it still remains quite high in the sky, unlike reality where it drops below the horizon?

We don’t ignore your evidence of a Sun exiting from bottom up

You certainly seem to, and when you don't you just deflect.
FE has no explanation for it which doesn't appeal to pure fantasy.

but you ignore our evidence of a Sun getting smaller and fading away, why?

No we don't, as no one has been able to provide such evidence.
If you wish to claim such evidence exists which is being ignored, then provide it. But none of your videos you linked contains that.

Instead, all that FEers have been able to provide akin to that is the amount of glare changing.
No one has been able to provide clear images of the sun with it appearing to shrink.

This is also why I say the moon is so much better. As it is far less bright and has clear surface features it is quite easy to resolve and doesn't have the issue of glare.

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 08:19:07 PM

So you agree the sun faded away above the horizon in our videos and did not exit from bottom up like in your beloved photos? Correct?

No your videos did not show "the sun fade away above the horizon"!

It seemed to fade away because all the videos that I watched, except for C-zars, because your photographers are totally ignorant about photographing the sun!

C-zar seems fairly competent but his has an inferior mirage distorting the apparent location of the horizon.

Because the sun is so bright that when higher in the sky the glare from the sun makes it seem far larger than it really is.

But you refuse to take the slightest notice of anything said and if you ever hope to convince anybody you'd better change you attitude!

The Dunning-Kruger Syndrome is strong in this one along with an incurable case of Confirmation Bias!

 In the videos I posted did the Sun exit from bottom up like in your beloved photos and videos?

Wow, the light gets darker at the end of the tunnel, yet they're the same wattage.  Imagine that. How can that be? I bet if that tunnel was just 400 feet long it would be dark at the end with the lights on all the way to the end.  We might see a bit of twilight, don't you think?

How can this be related to a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere? 

Only you said anything about "a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere"!

Where did you drag that rubbish from?

Quote from: Plat Terra on September 07, 2019, 08:50:48 PM

Wow, the light gets darker at the end of the tunnel, yet they're the same wattage.  Imagine that. How can that be? I bet if that tunnel was just 400 feet long it would be dark at the end with the lights on all the way to the end.  We might see a bit of twilight, don't you think?

How can this be related to a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere? 

Only you said anything about "a Sunset looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere"!

Where did you drag that rubbish from?

Knowledge, my own observation and common sense. Don't you and I live in and breathe the same layer of atmosphere? Isn’t the atmosphere dense with water vapor, rain, fog, and smog?  I live in the USA, how far away do you live?

In the videos I posted did the Sun exit from bottom up like in your beloved photos and videos?

BTW, dense atmosphere is a part of the FE model. You, know, that density that blocks light and what you call rubbish.

Plat Terra, what you're doing is called moving goalposts, and it is another act of fallacious logic. (please read up on it here: https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving-the-Goalposts )

When are you going to get it through that immensely thick skull of yours that this delusion is nothing more than a fantasy?