Why doesn't the sun get smaller.

If we see the sun set due to prospective, why doesn't it get smaller? Because for everything else that goes away gets smaller, so why doesn't the sun? Or does the sun get smaller and we just don't notice it? If that's the case prove it gets smaller.

If we see the sun set due to prospective, why doesn't it get smaller? Because for everything else that goes away gets smaller, so why doesn't the sun? Or does the sun get smaller and we just don't notice it? If that's the case prove it gets smaller.

Howdy, NeutralProspective, what's up?

If we see the sun set due to prospective, why doesn't it get smaller? Because for everything else that goes away gets smaller, so why doesn't the sun? Or does the sun get smaller and we just don't notice it? If that's the case prove it gets smaller.

The sun is very very large and very very far away IMO. That and atmoplanic lensing.

Also its spelled perspective, pity you used it for your screen name also.

Where are these guys coming from?

Edit.
prospective
prəˈspɛktɪv/Submit
adjective
expected or expecting to be the specified thing in the future.
"she showed a prospective buyer around the house"
likely to happen at a future date.
"a meeting to discuss prospective changes in government legislation"

Quote from: NeutralProspective on November 08, 2016, 08:56:58 PM

If we see the sun set due to prospective, why doesn't it get smaller? Because for everything else that goes away gets smaller, so why doesn't the sun? Or does the sun get smaller and we just don't notice it? If that's the case prove it gets smaller.

The sun is very very large and very very far away IMO.

A correct observation that doesn't help to explain the FE theory. If it's very very large and very very far away it would evenly illuminate the entire disc, which it doesn't. It would always be visible from all parts of the disc if it is daytime anywhere on the planet, which it isn't.

That and atmoplanic lensing.

Sounds like a made-up fudge factor.

I could equally claim that not only is the Earth not a sphere, and not flat, but is actually an inverted cylinder. So why can't we see Australia above our heads? Because "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves".  These "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves" simply give the Earth the appearance of being flat or spherical, but the reality is, inverted cylinder.

See what I did there? I made something up to explain away observations that contradict my theory. That, in a nutshell, is the Flat Earth Theory.

Quote

That and atmoplanic lensing.

Sounds like a made-up fudge factor.

I could equally claim that not only is the Earth not a sphere, and not flat, but is actually an inverted cylinder. So why can't we see Australia above our heads? Because "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves".  These "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves" simply give the Earth the appearance of being flat or spherical, but the reality is, inverted cylinder.

See what I did there? I made something up to explain away observations that contradict my theory. That, in a nutshell, is the Flat Earth Theory.

Nice attempt at diversion.  What is that fallacy in which you attempt to make something sound ridiculous instead of addressing the issue? 

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on November 17, 2016, 05:22:06 AM

Quote

That and atmoplanic lensing.

Sounds like a made-up fudge factor.

I could equally claim that not only is the Earth not a sphere, and not flat, but is actually an inverted cylinder. So why can't we see Australia above our heads? Because "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves".  These "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves" simply give the Earth the appearance of being flat or spherical, but the reality is, inverted cylinder.

See what I did there? I made something up to explain away observations that contradict my theory. That, in a nutshell, is the Flat Earth Theory.

Nice attempt at diversion.  What is that fallacy in which you attempt to make something sound ridiculous instead of addressing the issue?

You started it with "atmoplanic lensing"! It's something you made up to explain away an observed phenomenon that would otherwise not fit with the FE theory.

Quote from: jroa on November 17, 2016, 05:30:44 AM

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on November 17, 2016, 05:22:06 AM

Quote

That and atmoplanic lensing.

Sounds like a made-up fudge factor.

I could equally claim that not only is the Earth not a sphere, and not flat, but is actually an inverted cylinder. So why can't we see Australia above our heads? Because "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves".  These "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves" simply give the Earth the appearance of being flat or spherical, but the reality is, inverted cylinder.

See what I did there? I made something up to explain away observations that contradict my theory. That, in a nutshell, is the Flat Earth Theory.

Nice attempt at diversion.  What is that fallacy in which you attempt to make something sound ridiculous instead of addressing the issue?

You started it with "atmoplanic lensing"! It's something you made up to explain away an observed phenomenon that would otherwise not fit with the FE theory.

Ah ha! So it is the Straw Man fallacy that you are playing!  I was hoping for the Red Herring defense, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it is very apparent that your only form of rebuttal is the Straw Man now.  I love how you people are so sure about your beliefs that you have to resort to fallacies in a serious scientific questions and answers forum. 

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on November 17, 2016, 06:43:55 AM

Quote from: jroa on November 17, 2016, 05:30:44 AM

Quote from: PsychedelicPill on November 17, 2016, 05:22:06 AM

Quote

That and atmoplanic lensing.

Sounds like a made-up fudge factor.

I could equally claim that not only is the Earth not a sphere, and not flat, but is actually an inverted cylinder. So why can't we see Australia above our heads? Because "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves".  These "anti-aetheric-calamity-waves" simply give the Earth the appearance of being flat or spherical, but the reality is, inverted cylinder.

See what I did there? I made something up to explain away observations that contradict my theory. That, in a nutshell, is the Flat Earth Theory.

Nice attempt at diversion.  What is that fallacy in which you attempt to make something sound ridiculous instead of addressing the issue?

You started it with "atmoplanic lensing"! It's something you made up to explain away an observed phenomenon that would otherwise not fit with the FE theory.

Ah ha! So it is the Straw Man fallacy that you are playing!  I was hoping for the Red Herring defense, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it is very apparent that your only form of rebuttal is the Straw Man now.  I love how you people are so sure about your beliefs that you have to resort to fallacies in a serious scientific questions and answers forum. 

Do you not clearly see you're doing the very same thing? HA!

Ah ha! So it is the Straw Man fallacy that you are playing!  I was hoping for the Red Herring defense, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it is very apparent that your only form of rebuttal is the Straw Man now.  I love how you people are so sure about your beliefs that you have to resort to fallacies in a serious scientific questions and answers forum. 

This isn't a serious scientific questions and answers forum. But it is fun, arguing for and against the un-possible!