Read this: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun
Okay, I see a detailed response is required here. The latitudes 45° North and South are each ~3000miles from the equator, so when a flat earth is assumed, and the sun's angle above the horizon is measured on an equinox, the sun can be said to be ~3000 miles above it. However, if the measurements were made from latitudes 30° North and South on the equinox, the resultant calculated height would be ~3464 miles. The closer you went to the equator, the higher the sun would be according to this method. Also, taking measurements at another time of year (a solstice for example) will provide more conflicting results. Do you want me to go into it, or can you work it out yourself?
Read Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham.
I've done that. The number of mistakes, inconsistencies, misconceptions and outright biased comments render this a very unreliable publication. See the various threads I started in Debate regarding chapters/sections within ENaG.
I am not wrong. A radar gun bounces a signal off of the moving object to determine its distance.
If the distance was not needed only a receiver/camera would be needed, to measure the Doppler Effect and compute a speed. But no such device exists. If the police had point a device which did not bounce a radar signal off of you it would render in-car radar detectors ineffective.
As has been explained already (although perhaps not like this), a radar gun fires a burst of radio waves at a set frequency (which is regularly checked and calibrated) at a target, measures the frequency of the reflected radio waves (which is effected by the Doppler effect) and calculates the speed of the target relative to the radar gun. Do you understand now?
Still does not explain how the sun gets down to the horizon from ~27° above it.
Actually, it does.
How,
exactly?
Do you not know how refraction works? This is a perfectly reasonable explanation, with scientific evidence to back it up, unlike the FE explanation (or complete lack thereof).
What scientific evidence?
Do you actually wear glasses? If you wear glasses, then you are wearing evidence of refraction and the amount of research that has gone into it.
Put simply, there is a tendency for light to follow the curve of the earth due to the nature of the atmosphere (denser near the surface). This tendency means that the sun and moon can appear to be above the horizon, even when they are physically below it.
In my example we can see that the sun is "dipping" into the horizon and there is an obvious refraction effect which results in the sun appearing liquidy.
In your case, a perfect refraction effect is occurring which makes a distinct sun in the sky.
See above, and don't forget that there is a definite fog in you image, which is not always present during a sunset or sunrise.
In which scientific journal can I find your work?
Don't be a dick Tom, you didn't ask for published works, just whether I checked the results. Check them yourself, you'll see exactly what I mean. Assuming you can do basic trigonometry that is...
The shape of the path it takes, and the consistent rate at which it traverses this path (15° per hour). Actually, this is the best and most easily viewed proof of a round earth. I have actually tried to create a credible flat earth theory of my own (why not? every FE'er on here seems to have their own theory), but one sticking point (of many) has always been the sun's movement. There is just no way to get it to fit a flat earth model, and believe me, I've tried!
Art school perspective is not correct. I would suggest reading Earth Not a Globe, where the matter is proven by numerous experiments.
This comment had nothing to do with perspective Tom, I suggest you read it again. I also suggest you refresh yourself on basic geometry, and angular velocity. And no, as stated, I do not consider ENaG an accurate source of information. Too much bias and too many errors.