ISS is not in space

Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.

There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.

Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.

Sorry, haven't got around to uploading images of my own yet, but as Puttah said, you can just go outside and see it for yourself.

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2013, 05:32:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:30:57 AM

Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.

There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.

We observe what we observe. What does this prove?

If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 05:51:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:43:16 AM

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2013, 05:32:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:30:57 AM

Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.

There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.

We observe what we observe. What does this prove?

If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.

If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 06:08:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 05:51:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:43:16 AM

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2013, 05:32:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:30:57 AM

Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.

There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.

We observe what we observe. What does this prove?

If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.

If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.

You are going on about the sun and bendy light not being a reason and yet you can have a tilted earth to explain your seasons etc.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?

Just because you think someone else's explanation is wrong doesn't make your explanation right.
We're not talking about the seasons here, we're just talking about the observed motion and size of the sun during a day, if you use the FE models to predict where the sun is then at any time except around noon your predictions will be wildly inaccurate when compared with actual observation.

You may not like the RE model but it accurately predicts where the sun will be.

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 06:24:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 06:12:18 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 06:08:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 05:51:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:43:16 AM

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2013, 05:32:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:30:57 AM

Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.

There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.

We observe what we observe. What does this prove?

If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.

If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.

You are going on about the sun and bendy light not being a reason and yet you can have a tilted earth to explain your seasons etc.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?

Just because you think someone else's explanation is wrong doesn't make your explanation right.
We're not talking about the seasons here, we're just talking about the observed motion and size of the sun during a day, if you use the FE models to predict where the sun is then at any time except around noon your predictions will be wildly inaccurate when compared with actual observation.

You may not like the RE model but it accurately predicts where the sun will be.

It only accurately predicts where the sun will be, because of the way in which they have the earth set up, as in tilted, bulging with a hint of wobble and a big 93 million mile 1000,000 plus km wide ball of nuclear fusion sitting smack bang in the middle and all merrily going around it.

Of course observations are going to match.

So let me clarify, as far as you're concerned observational data matches the predictions made by the RE model.

Now try the same with a FE model.

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 06:24:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 06:12:18 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 06:08:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 05:51:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:43:16 AM

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2013, 05:32:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:30:57 AM

Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.

There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.

We observe what we observe. What does this prove?

If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.

If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.

You are going on about the sun and bendy light not being a reason and yet you can have a tilted earth to explain your seasons etc.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?

Just because you think someone else's explanation is wrong doesn't make your explanation right.
We're not talking about the seasons here, we're just talking about the observed motion and size of the sun during a day, if you use the FE models to predict where the sun is then at any time except around noon your predictions will be wildly inaccurate when compared with actual observation.

You may not like the RE model but it accurately predicts where the sun will be.

It only accurately predicts where the sun will be, because of the way in which they have the earth set up, as in tilted, bulging with a hint of wobble and a big 93 million mile 1000,000 plus km wide ball of nuclear fusion sitting smack bang in the middle and all merrily going around it.

Of course observations are going to match.

So are you trying to say that the observations match the model because the model was created based on the observations?

So how is the observed data being manipulated to match a round earth. Afterall you can go online, use a round earth model to predict when and where the sun will rise, where it will be at any specific time and then when and where it will set. You can then verify this yourself anytime you want, well almost anytime it's a bit grey in the UK at the moment. 

The flat earth model needs more work but it's the logical choice

lol

and very few people have worked on this theory, unlike the many that's made a round earth fit when things didn't work. Cue , Einstein and the rest of the motley crew.

You don't even know what Einstein did. The anomaly in gravitation was off by small percentages (which can't be ignored), while things like FET and the sun are off by huge margins, which you're happy to explain away with "it looks like that but isn't really blah blah".

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 30, 2013, 06:39:15 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 06:29:24 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 06:24:33 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 06:12:18 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 06:08:13 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 05:51:29 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:43:16 AM

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2013, 05:32:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 05:30:57 AM

Would you like to make a diagram showing exactly what you mean.

There's no need. The model of the sun's angular position changing constantly throughout the day can be observed every day of your life. The sun's angular position changing slowly in the distance and faster when overhead can be imagined by watching an aeroplane approach you.

We observe what we observe. What does this prove?

If what you observe doesn't match what your model predicts then one is wrong, usually your model but occasionally what you observe. The observed motion of the sun doesn't match what the FE models predict so one is wrong this is where the bendy light theory comes from.

If we can have a "tilted" earth for some inexplicable reason as to why it should do this, then all theories are open in truth aren't they.

I'm afraid you're going to have to explain this statement as I have no idea what it has to do with trying to tie observed data with a flat earth model.

You are going on about the sun and bendy light not being a reason and yet you can have a tilted earth to explain your seasons etc.
Do you see where I'm coming from here?

Just because you think someone else's explanation is wrong doesn't make your explanation right.
We're not talking about the seasons here, we're just talking about the observed motion and size of the sun during a day, if you use the FE models to predict where the sun is then at any time except around noon your predictions will be wildly inaccurate when compared with actual observation.

You may not like the RE model but it accurately predicts where the sun will be.

It only accurately predicts where the sun will be, because of the way in which they have the earth set up, as in tilted, bulging with a hint of wobble and a big 93 million mile 1000,000 plus km wide ball of nuclear fusion sitting smack bang in the middle and all merrily going around it.

Of course observations are going to match.

So are you trying to say that the observations match the model because the model was created based on the observations?

The round earth model was created based on lies, lies and more lies.

Name one "lie" that you have actually experimentally proven to be a lie and I'll start to believe you.   "It's crap because the Earth is flat" doesn't cut it.

I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.

Okay,  I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat,  so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 30, 2013, 07:26:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 07:21:26 AM

I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.

Okay,  I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat,  so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.

Incorrect.
My statement that the rotating globe is a lie is based on the fictional means that are made for it to work. One of which is air to solid rotation of which has been discussed to death but that is just one small part of a larger lie and has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in a flat earth.

So tell us again how all the data about the suns movements has been manipulated to fit a round earth when you can go out and collect your own data and it will match with the RE model?

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 08:10:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:06:02 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 30, 2013, 07:26:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 07:21:26 AM

I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.

Okay,  I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat,  so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.

Incorrect.
My statement that the rotating globe is a lie is based on the fictional means that are made for it to work. One of which is air to solid rotation of which has been discussed to death but that is just one small part of a larger lie and has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in a flat earth.

So tell us again how all the data about the suns movements has been manipulated to fit a round earth when you can go out and collect your own data and it will match with the RE model?

Of course it will match the round earth model, because it's been made to match. That's what I've been saying.
They even had to rotate the moon the opposite way to make it all fit.

Do you even realise what you're typing anymore?
What has been made to match? The model to the data or the data to the model?
What you're actually saying at the moment is "of course observations match the model, the model was made to match them"

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 08:20:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:15:56 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 08:10:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:06:02 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 30, 2013, 07:26:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 07:21:26 AM

I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.

Okay,  I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat,  so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.

Incorrect.
My statement that the rotating globe is a lie is based on the fictional means that are made for it to work. One of which is air to solid rotation of which has been discussed to death but that is just one small part of a larger lie and has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in a flat earth.

So tell us again how all the data about the suns movements has been manipulated to fit a round earth when you can go out and collect your own data and it will match with the RE model?

Of course it will match the round earth model, because it's been made to match. That's what I've been saying.
They even had to rotate the moon the opposite way to make it all fit.

Do you even realise what you're typing anymore?
What has been made to match? The model to the data or the data to the model?
What you're actually saying at the moment is "of course observations match the model, the model was made to match them"

The model has been set out to match what people see. Oh hang on...ok I'll change this, I realise I have to be careful in what I type.
The model has been set out to dupe the person into believing that what they see is due to the earth's rotation.

So where people seeing this before RE was pushed and the model of RE was pushed to match these observations so people would start to believe in a RE?

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 08:20:34 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:15:56 AM

Quote from: Manarq on May 30, 2013, 08:10:23 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:06:02 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 30, 2013, 07:26:21 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 07:21:26 AM

I can't prove it that will make you or others like you accept and you know this, so just accept from me, that your model is based on lies and fabrication and although it won't cut it for you...the earth is flat, 100% certain.
It's just the finer points needed to iron out how it all fully works in it's entirety, which we may never fully find out, yet it appears your round earth is all done and dusted until the shit hits the fan and some discrepancy comes to light, which will then be accounted for by some other fabricated crap.

Okay,  I just wanted to clarify that your statement that it is all lies is based solely on your belief that the Earth is flat,  so the science has to be filled with lies it else that view can be dispelled fairly quickly.

Incorrect.
My statement that the rotating globe is a lie is based on the fictional means that are made for it to work. One of which is air to solid rotation of which has been discussed to death but that is just one small part of a larger lie and has nothing whatsoever to do with my belief in a flat earth.

So tell us again how all the data about the suns movements has been manipulated to fit a round earth when you can go out and collect your own data and it will match with the RE model?

Of course it will match the round earth model, because it's been made to match. That's what I've been saying.
They even had to rotate the moon the opposite way to make it all fit.

Do you even realise what you're typing anymore?
What has been made to match? The model to the data or the data to the model?
What you're actually saying at the moment is "of course observations match the model, the model was made to match them"

The model has been set out to match what people see. Oh hang on...ok I'll change this, I realise I have to be careful in what I type.
The model has been set out to dupe the person into believing that what they see is due to the earth's rotation.

I'm not trying to trip you up here just trying to get a grip of where you think the problem is.

Would you agree that the data related to where and when you see the sun rise, where it's zenith is and where and when it sets is reliable and testable? At least in your experience.

First of all let me start by saying you guys need to learn what quoting is for and the forum rules for quoting.

And sceptic is being intellectually dishonest. I showed him months ago in kiddy terms (because that's how he likes it) exactly how a circling sun does not match observations. He knows very well that the current model is not the most logical.

The model has been set out to match what people see.

So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? 

The roatating sun model doesn't work. The areas that are in the spotlight during the winter requires the sun to be circling outside the rim. If you combine that with tfes excuse for sun sets then we wouldn't even see the sun in the winter!
These issues have never been addressed.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2013, 05:53:09 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 29, 2013, 02:25:59 PM

Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

That explains the light, but not the object itself.  Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits.  That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.

The effect would still occur through a camera filter. It's an effect on the atmosphere, not an effect of the eye/lense.

So announcing another thory is the right one doesn't make it correct. Especially when it's been shown as incorrect with simple observations.

Most people that believe in a rotating globe, do so, not because they know any particular reasons for it, it's just that they are shown a globe, time and time again and in geography lessons they use it.

No one has ever denied this. You also are told that Australia is a very large island, and even though you've never witnessed it for yourself, you have no reason to deny it and are also incapable of proving it to be otherwise. This is how most of the population works in regards to believing in a round Earth, but it has no bearing on the validity of RET.

You're trotting around as though you're superior to everyone that just blindly follows mainstream science, and not only that, but you automatically think that you must be correct. Why not go to the "Australia is not an island" forum and feel like a superior being there too?

In reality you can't expect them to think any other really but I would expect intelligent people who study this to know, yet it appears too many are still grazing.

That's right, and intelligent people that study this do know. Personally, I know more about why the Earth is round now than I did when I first joined this forum. If grazing means to not agree with your illogical arguments then sure, I'm grazing.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 29, 2013, 06:10:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2013, 05:53:09 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 29, 2013, 02:25:59 PM

Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

That explains the light, but not the object itself.  Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits.  That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.

The effect would still occur through a camera filter. It's an effect on the atmosphere, not an effect of the eye/lense.

It is an effect of the atmosphere magnifying the luminous aura.   The filter removes this and allows you to see the Sun without the glow.   So it would remove this from the equation and we are back to a major issue of the Sun not decreasing in size by the time it reaches the horizon.   If you carefully read what you linked,  you would have seen it was related only to the glow.

Go read your private message from me again where I show you how the sun works on a flat earth.

You are clearly the brainwashed one here.

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:27:26 AM

The model has been set out to match what people see.

So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? 

Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.

I'd rather you take a critical look at the sun's movement through the sky, but you're too engrossed in nonsensical theories to have that happen.

Quote from: Puttah on May 30, 2013, 09:35:51 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 09:28:31 AM

Most people that believe in a rotating globe, do so, not because they know any particular reasons for it, it's just that they are shown a globe, time and time again and in geography lessons they use it.

No one has ever denied this. You also are told that Australia is a very large island, and even though you've never witnessed it for yourself, you have no reason to deny it and are also incapable of proving it to be otherwise. This is how most of the population works in regards to believing in a round Earth, but it has no bearing on the validity of RET.

You're trotting around as though you're superior to everyone that just blindly follows mainstream science, and not only that, but you automatically think that you must be correct. Why not go to the "Australia is not an island" forum and feel like a superior being there too?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 09:28:31 AM

In reality you can't expect them to think any other really but I would expect intelligent people who study this to know, yet it appears too many are still grazing.

That's right, and intelligent people that study this do know. Personally, I know more about why the Earth is round now than I did when I first joined this forum. If grazing means to not agree with your illogical arguments then sure, I'm grazing.

My stance is your stance, except our stances are for different earth shapes.
Round earth believers come over as saying, "this is that and that is this, deal with it."
I'm simply saying, "no it's not, you just think it is."

You say you have learned a lot from being on here. Good for you.
Try and look at the alternative view and you might learn a whole lot more. It's possible.

I know I've looked at FET to see what evidence there was,  and I found it very lacking.   You assume we believe the earth is round because we never questioned it.   We have been telling you that we have performed experiments that match with what we expect on a round earth.   These same experiments give a vastly different result when applied to FET.  We are telling you that you can't deny simple observations that can be done across the world by anyone at almost any time.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 30, 2013, 09:31:20 AM

Quote from: DuckDodgers on May 29, 2013, 06:10:56 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on May 29, 2013, 05:53:09 PM

Quote from: Lolflatdisc on May 29, 2013, 02:25:59 PM

Scepti. Here is a video of a sunset with a filter. Look from 0:44 onwards. Does the sun shrink in size as it goes down?
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

That explains the light, but not the object itself.  Lol posted a filtered video showing the Sun, without the solar glare caused by the light it emits.  That link even specifies the luminous aura of the light is larger, especially when the air is moist.

The effect would still occur through a camera filter. It's an effect on the atmosphere, not an effect of the eye/lense.

It is an effect of the atmosphere magnifying the luminous aura.   The filter removes this and allows you to see the Sun without the glow.   So it would remove this from the equation and we are back to a major issue of the Sun not decreasing in size by the time it reaches the horizon.   If you carefully read what you linked,  you would have seen it was related only to the glow.

Lens filters only removes glare and glow which manifests on the lens. A lens filter wouldn't remove remove a physical projection upon the atmosphere. The atoms and molecules are all lit up, projecting the image of the sun to the observer. A lens filter couldn't turn that off, only dim the scene equally.

Nor would a lens filter used in a movie theater remove the projected image of a movie on the screen. Lens filters are only used to mitigate local lens flares on the lens.

My stance is your stance, except our stances are for different earth shapes.
Round earth believers come over as saying, "this is that and that is this, deal with it."
I'm simply saying, "no it's not, you just think it is."

So when it comes to the topic of the sun falling below the horizon, you're saying that it doesn't. Based on what? Definitely not your observation, because you know exactly what objects that move away from you do. You even said it yourself that "It doesn't work the same way for larger objects like the sun". Did this come from observation? No. It came from your determination to support FET.

You say you have learned a lot from being on here. Good for you.
Try and look at the alternative view and you might learn a whole lot more. It's possible.

You don't think I've looked at FET? This whole time I've been on this forum and I haven't looked at FET? lol
I've seen at least 3 different flat Earth maps, all of which fail to explain intercontinental travel times in the southern hemisphere or from east to west, I've seen the sun fall below the horizon and be told that it doesn't, etc. etc. etc.

I've seen FET and none of it makes sense.

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:27:26 AM

The model has been set out to match what people see.

So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? 

Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.

I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means.  Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon.  If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.

Tom as little as I'd like to converse with you, you need to be corrected. It was stated in this thread that the sun gets bigger during the day.

Isn't your stance that it DOES stay the same size but due to atmospheric magnification the sun appears the same size?

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 09:34:24 AM

Quote from: markjo on May 30, 2013, 09:06:41 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on May 30, 2013, 08:27:26 AM

The model has been set out to match what people see.

So you would rather have us believe a model that doesn't match what people see? 

Not at all. I'd rather people took a more critical look at what they have accepted as correct but that would require a full on unbiased scrutinisation, meaning a rotating globe has to be omitted from the mind.
Not an easy thing to do, when someone's mind has been focused on just that, or their work has been based around that, as in study.

I'm not sure that you understand what "critical look" really means.  Regardless of whether I believe that the earth is rotating or not, I can see the sun move behind and below the horizon.  If I assume that the earth is not rotating, then this still tells me that the earth is smaller than the orbit of the sun.

Perhaps septic should illustrate what he believes.

He can the account for the spotlight, seasons and differences for the hemiplanes. Also taking into account for the distance required to be able to see the sun during our winter while making sure it is possible for the sun to illuminate the correct areas.