2 things that would debunk FE

  • 55 Replies
  • 9017 Views
2 things that would debunk FE
« on: April 24, 2017, 03:41:18 AM »
Hi guys

1st post as the FE vids on YouTube brought me here. I am not a 100% FE believer but think that there is more to the nature of our reality.

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?

Hope everyone is 😎

*

napoleon

  • 913
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #1 on: April 24, 2017, 03:51:44 AM »
Hi guys

1st post as the FE vids on YouTube brought me here. I am not a 100% FE believer but think that there is more to the nature of our reality.

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?

Hope everyone is 😎
First of all, don't have illususions that you can come here and "debunk" FE.
Believe me, we all tried that, and it doesn't work.
If you paid any attention, none of the FE models explain contain all answer. FE-ers use different models for different questions and all of these models contradict with each other at some point.
Even that is not enough for the FE-ers to debunk FET. They just ignore the evidence, call it dark energy or dark matter or denspressure or buoancy etc. but it never disencourages them to change their perspectives.
So, nice tried kiddo....but no success...
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #2 on: April 24, 2017, 03:52:36 AM »
The other cool thing about the Burge Khalifa is that you can watch the sunset at ground level, then go all the way to the top and watch it again, something which makes perfect sense on a round Earth, but not at all on a flat one.

Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #3 on: April 24, 2017, 03:58:42 AM »
Hi guys

1st post as the FE vids on YouTube brought me here. I am not a 100% FE believer but think that there is more to the nature of our reality.

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?

Hope everyone is 😎
First of all, don't have illususions that you can come here and "debunk" FE.
Believe me, we all tried that, and it doesn't work.
If you paid any attention, none of the FE models explain contain all answer. FE-ers use different models for different questions and all of these models contradict with each other at some point.
Even that is not enough for the FE-ers to debunk FET. They just ignore the evidence, call it dark energy or dark matter or denspressure or buoancy etc. but it never disencourages them to change their perspectives.
So, nice tried kiddo....but no success...

And your point was? Answers?

*

napoleon

  • 913
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #4 on: April 24, 2017, 04:04:28 AM »
my point is...there are a lot of strong arguments which prove that FE doesn't make sense at all...many many questions which can not be answered by the FE-ers. Yet none of that matters...if they can't answer your question, then you will simply be ignored, and they continue to believe what they believe...nothing changes...
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #5 on: April 24, 2017, 04:09:09 AM »
my point is...there are a lot of strong arguments which prove that FE doesn't make sense at all...many many questions which can not be answered by the FE-ers. Yet none of that matters...if they can't answer your question, then you will simply be ignored, and they continue to believe what they believe...nothing changes...

Ok point taken.

Blind belief is very dangerous and self destructive, question everything

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #6 on: April 24, 2017, 04:18:26 AM »
Hi guys

1st post as the FE vids on YouTube brought me here. I am not a 100% FE believer but think that there is more to the nature of our reality.

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?

Hope everyone is 😎
First of all, don't have illususions that you can come here and "debunk" FE.
Believe me, we all tried that, and it doesn't work.
If you paid any attention, none of the FE models explain contain all answer. FE-ers use different models for different questions and all of these models contradict with each other at some point.
Even that is not enough for the FE-ers to debunk FET. They just ignore the evidence, call it dark energy or dark matter or denspressure or buoancy etc. but it never disencourages them to change their perspectives.
So, nice tried kiddo....but no success...

And your point was? Answers?
What napoleon is pretty much correct. "Indoctrinated" Flat Earthers (and describes their belief fairly well) will never be convinced, but I do not post so much for them as for newcomers and the 200 or so "guests" that often are reading the posts.

And, I agree that evidence like
1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?

should be fairly convincing, they will simply answer with things like perspective or prove the flights are real.

But,  best of luck.

*

Jonny B Smart

  • 691
  • +0/-0
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #7 on: April 24, 2017, 04:18:59 AM »
They can't explain how RE science can predict eclipses, why we see polar constellations all year while equatorial constellations come and go throughout the year, why people from the north see different circumpolar constellations than people from the south, why stellar spectroscopy tells us that stars are super-hot balls of hydrogen and helium (just like the sun), and they can't explain this:
http://www.amusingplanet.com/2013/10/the-shadow-of-mount-rainier.html?m=1

Good luck getting a logical answer. Most likely they will rave about perspective or aether (perhaps after huffing too much ether) while telling you that there's no such thing as gravity.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2017, 01:31:07 PM »
Hi guys

1st post as the FE vids on YouTube brought me here. I am not a 100% FE believer but think that there is more to the nature of our reality.

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?

Hope everyone is 😎

1 they would say perspective. Granted the sun does not get smaller and they also do not have an explanation about why someone on top of the tower has a different sunset.

2 https://flightaware.com/live/flight/ANZ30/history/20170421/0805Z/NZAA/SAEZ I track this flight a lot and have watched its progress once.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/QFA63 is another "impossible" flight

Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #9 on: April 24, 2017, 01:34:03 PM »
my point is...there are a lot of strong arguments which prove that FE doesn't make sense at all...many many questions which can not be answered by the FE-ers. Yet none of that matters...if they can't answer your question, then you will simply be ignored, and they continue to believe what they believe...nothing changes...
Pretty much
I take pride in the fact that FE does not respond much to my posts. That means they have no rebuttal.

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #10 on: April 24, 2017, 01:39:41 PM »

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.
The atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.


2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?
Who says those flights are fake?

Given that you are 0 for 2, it is safe to say that your debunking failed. Better luck next time, friend.

Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #11 on: April 24, 2017, 01:54:35 PM »

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.
The atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.


2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?
Who says those flights are fake?

Given that you are 0 for 2, it is safe to say that your debunking failed. Better luck next time, friend.
Also if there is a transparency issue. Why can we see stars but not the sun from the tower. Aren't they similar distances on FE theory?

There are a ton of youtube videos that claim these flights are fake.
Also, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69899.msg1887508#msg1887508

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #12 on: April 24, 2017, 02:14:00 PM »
Also if there is a transparency issue. Why can we see stars but not the sun from the tower. Aren't they similar distances on FE theory?
Why wouldn't you be able to see the stars? The amount/distance of atmoplane you would need to see through is significantly different.

There are a ton of youtube videos that claim these flights are fake.
Also, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69899.msg1887508#msg1887508
I can't claim to know much about FE videos on YT. The few I have watched were terrible. I would assert that they are wrong.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #13 on: April 24, 2017, 03:00:49 PM »
1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.
1 they would say perspective. Granted the sun does not get smaller and they also do not have an explanation about why someone on top of the tower has a different sunset.
The entire point of a telescope is to overcome perspective.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #14 on: April 24, 2017, 03:08:50 PM »
1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.
The atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.
Yet the fact remains that the sun disappears from view by dropping below the horizon, not from fading to a blur through the "atmoplane".
Also, we can see stars much closer to the horizon than the sun should, so that excuse doesn't work.
You now need to provide a reason why we can see these stars even though they should be obscured by the atmoplane which wouldn't also work on the sun.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?
Who says those flights are fake?
Lots of FEers do.
Regardless, they refute the FE.
On the FE these flights make no sense at all and go way too fast.
So do you have any explanation for that?

Given that you are 0 for 2, it is safe to say that your debunking failed. Better luck next time, friend.
I see you are projecting again.
You are the one that is 0 for 2. At best, 0.5 for 1.5 due to the complications of the 1st point (it would be better if he just focused on the angle).

I wouldn't say your refutation of point 2 failed, so much as it didn't exist.
But your refutation of point 1 failed.

Why wouldn't you be able to see the stars? The amount/distance of atmoplane you would need to see through is significantly different.
So where do you think these stars are? These stars which appear very dull compared to the sun, yet are visible just above the horizon (requiring them to be very far away).

There are a ton of youtube videos that claim these flights are fake.
Also, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69899.msg1887508#msg1887508
I can't claim to know much about FE videos on YT. The few I have watched were terrible. I would assert that they are wrong.
Then do you have an explanation for them?

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #15 on: April 24, 2017, 05:13:33 PM »
The entire point of a telescope is to overcome perspective.
The entire point of a telescope is to collect light.

Yet the fact remains that the sun disappears from view by dropping below the horizon, not from fading to a blur through the "atmoplane".
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Lots of FEers do.
Irrelevant.

I see you are projecting again.
Objectively false. It is sweet to see you try to apply a term that I taught you about, though. Now, you just need to learn to use it correctly.

Then do you have an explanation for them?
An explanation for what?

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2017, 05:56:12 PM »
The entire point of a telescope is to overcome perspective.
The entire point of a telescope is to collect light.

Like our eyes only magnified to show more from further distance
Quote


Yet the fact remains that the sun disappears from view by dropping below the horizon, not from fading to a blur through the "atmoplane".
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?

Yes you can see it every evening
Quote


Lots of FEers do.
Irrelevant.

Because it does not fit your believes
Quote


I see you are projecting again.
Objectively false. It is sweet to see you try to apply a term that I taught you about, though. Now, you just need to learn to use it correctly.

Then do you have an explanation for them?
An explanation for what?

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #17 on: April 24, 2017, 06:05:15 PM »
Like our eyes only magnified to show more from further distance

Well that is a gross oversimplification. You are equating a telescope to a magnifying glass. Do you know how a telescope works?

Yes you can see it every evening

So you have no evidence, then. Gotcha.


Because it does not fit your believes

Incorrect.

Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #18 on: April 24, 2017, 07:47:02 PM »
Also if there is a transparency issue. Why can we see stars but not the sun from the tower. Aren't they similar distances on FE theory?
Why wouldn't you be able to see the stars? The amount/distance of atmoplane you would need to see through is significantly different.

There are a ton of youtube videos that claim these flights are fake.
Also, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69899.msg1887508#msg1887508
I can't claim to know much about FE videos on YT. The few I have watched were terrible. I would assert that they are wrong.
With flat earth, how far away are the stars in comparison to the sun?

With the traditional FE map these flights would be impossible.

So do you admit that the FE Youtube videos are wrong?

*

Jonny B Smart

  • 691
  • +0/-0
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #19 on: April 24, 2017, 08:02:21 PM »
Junker, just saying, "No, it isn't," is not an argument. All you are offering are empty contradictions.

If we truly live under a flat earth with a spotlight sun with an "atmoplane" that only permits light to travel so far, then the sun would come into view at a pretty high angle (based on 3,000 mile Sun altitude and a diameter of 25,000 miles--would be interested if you had alternate numbers). Using trigonometry, that means it would come into view at above a 20 degree angle. Having seen the Sun descend to below zero degrees (below the horizon) over the ocean many times, I know that is false.

(Prediction: you will simply contradict this or ignore entirely because it involves facts)
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #20 on: April 24, 2017, 09:17:04 PM »
So do you admit that the FE Youtube videos are wrong?
The ones that are wrong, sure.


Using trigonometry, that means it would come into view at above a 20 degree angle. Having seen the Sun descend to below zero degrees (below the horizon) over the ocean many times, I know that is false.
Please provide evidence for your claim.

(Prediction: you will simply contradict this or ignore entirely because it involves facts)
Incorrect. But you round earth logicians seem to be used to that.

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #21 on: April 24, 2017, 10:25:33 PM »
Yet the fact remains that the sun disappears from view by dropping below the horizon, not from fading to a blur through the "atmoplane".
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
Really? You have never watched a sunset?
Do you need me to get you a video of one?

Then do you have an explanation for them?
An explanation for what?
Go back and read my comment, in context. It is clear what I am referring to.

Using trigonometry, that means it would come into view at above a 20 degree angle. Having seen the Sun descend to below zero degrees (below the horizon) over the ocean many times, I know that is false.
Please provide evidence for your claim.
What? Don't you understand simple trigonometry?
The numbers vary depending upon exactly where you are, so I will use the equator, on the equinox, with a FE model with the equator having a radius of 10 000 km and the sun being 5000 km high.
The sun rises/sets when the sun is roughly 1/4 of the way around Earth on the equator. (This is because it goes over the equator and there is roughly 12 hours of day and 12 hours of night with the sun directly overhead mid-way through the day, and the sun "moves" at a constant speed in the FE model. This means the sun takes 24 hours to do a complete circle and 6 hours to go from sunrise to directly overhead and then another 6 to go to sunset).
Using Pythagoras (you can use trig if you want), noting that 1/4 of a revolution is 90 degrees, we have a right angle triangle with the 2 short sides being 10 000 km long. The right angle is at the north pole (which the sun circles), one short side goes to the equator where the observer is, the other goes to where the sun is.
That places the sun at a distance of sqrt(10000^2+10000^2) km, or roughly 14 142 km.
Now, the sun is 5000 km above that point on the equator, and thus we set up another right angle triangle.
This time one side goes between the observer and the position directly below the sun, the other short side goes from that point to the sun (and the right angle is there).
Thus the angle of elevation follows the relation tan(theta)=5000 km/14142 km.
And thus solving for tan, you get theta=19.47 degrees, or roughly 20 degrees.
As such, if it was the "atomplane" restircting visibility, you would expect the sun to come in quite high in the sky, not rising from below the horizon.

(Prediction: you will simply contradict this or ignore entirely because it involves facts)
Incorrect. But you round earth logicians seem to be used to that.
Nope. He was completely correct, as you just showed by contradicting him.

*

napoleon

  • 913
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #22 on: April 24, 2017, 10:35:23 PM »
1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.
The atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.
Yet the fact remains that the sun disappears from view by dropping below the horizon, not from fading to a blur through the "atmoplane".
Also, we can see stars much closer to the horizon than the sun should, so that excuse doesn't work.
You now need to provide a reason why we can see these stars even though they should be obscured by the atmoplane which wouldn't also work on the sun.

Yet the fact remains that the sun disappears from view by dropping below the horizon, not from fading to a blur through the "atmoplane".
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
@ Crowsnest:
See what I mean?

He is asking for evidence that the sun is setting below the horizon instead of blurring away in the atmosphere.
And if you just do that...go outside and take a photo of the sunset and give him the evidence, he will say that your photo is false or manipulated.

That is how it works...
« Last Edit: April 24, 2017, 10:42:09 PM by napoleon »
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #23 on: April 24, 2017, 11:48:11 PM »
1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.
The atmoplane is not perfectly transparent.
Yet the fact remains that the sun disappears from view by dropping below the horizon, not from fading to a blur through the "atmoplane".
Also, we can see stars much closer to the horizon than the sun should, so that excuse doesn't work.
You now need to provide a reason why we can see these stars even though they should be obscured by the atmoplane which wouldn't also work on the sun.

Yet the fact remains that the sun disappears from view by dropping below the horizon, not from fading to a blur through the "atmoplane".
Do you have any evidence to support your claim?
@ Crowsnest:
See what I mean?

He is asking for evidence that the sun is setting below the horizon instead of blurring away in the atmosphere.
And if you just do that...go outside and take a photo of the sunset and give him the evidence, he will say that your photo is false or manipulated.

That is how it works...

I think that somebody who is saying that a event that you can see with your own eyes is not an evidence, is somebody that knows that he is wrong.

Junker seems to be a very special person because he admit that all evidence he saw, that the earth is flat, is wrong but he still believes that the earth is flat.
There are 3 possibilitys
- he is aware that he is wrong but he what's to be special therefore he pretends to believe in something crazy
- he is a troll
- he is simply that stupid and does not see the reality


*

napoleon

  • 913
  • +0/-0
  • The Earth is not round, nor flat. It is a Donut...
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #24 on: April 25, 2017, 12:08:44 AM »
Yeah, but the sad part is, He is not the only one.
Totalackey has the same symptoms.
Physical observer is also such a person.
You can provide all the hard evidence you want, yet they will ignore or deny.
can do nothing about that.

I now refuse to go in discussion with these guys...because it is not possible to have a constructive discussion with them. It is just not fun anymore...
Never argue with an idiot...
First they will drag you down to their own level,
and then they beat you by experience...

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30079
  • +129/-72
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #25 on: April 25, 2017, 07:00:35 AM »
Hi guys

1st post as the FE vids on YouTube brought me here. I am not a 100% FE believer but think that there is more to the nature of our reality.

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?

Hope everyone is 😎

1- Shrinking of the sun or not, is relevant with viewpoint.



2- There is nothing surprised on this flight. Some planes go fast, some go slow. You are free to write the number you want there. The round earth map is definitely wrong. We've proven it countless times.
He (somebody) is a troll homo playing role of girl.

(Look at the date)

WERERPC LEVEL2

DAY 1 ENDS IN:


?

Canadabear

  • 2525
  • +0/-0
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #26 on: April 25, 2017, 08:04:21 AM »
Hi guys

1st post as the FE vids on YouTube brought me here. I am not a 100% FE believer but think that there is more to the nature of our reality.

1) if the sun doesn't 'set' and go down past the horizon then anyone on top of the Burge Khalifa in Dubai armed with a telescope (with sun filter of course) would be able to see the sun forever.

2) flights from NZ to Chile etc, these are not fake so why is it the only answers FEs give?

Hope everyone is 😎

1- Shrinking of the sun or not, is relevant with viewpoint.



2- There is nothing surprised on this flight. Some planes go fast, some go slow. You are free to write the number you want there. The round earth map is definitely wrong. We've proven it countless times.

this video got already explained a lot of time.
the effect called glare.

*

Junker

  • 4165
  • +47/-10
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #27 on: April 25, 2017, 08:34:20 AM »
You have never watched a sunset?
I have. Were you trying to make a point, or just deflecting as ususal?

Don't you understand simple trigonometry?
I think I understand it quite well. Although, I could be wrong. I am still not sure what point you are trying to make, as you have provided no evidence for any of your claims, just more deflection.

As such, if it was the "atomplane" restircting visibility, you would expect the sun to come in quite high in the sky, not rising from below the horizon.
False. Seems you don't actually know much about the flat earth model. Oh well, I guess you can just continue to copy/paste things you picked up elsewhere that don't relate to the topic.

Nope. He was completely correct, as you just showed by contradicting him.
I know you have a hard time with simple logic, but this is getting bad even for you.

*

Jonny B Smart

  • 691
  • +0/-0
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #28 on: April 25, 2017, 01:32:22 PM »
You have never watched a sunset?
I have. Were you trying to make a point, or just deflecting as ususal?

Don't you understand simple trigonometry?
I think I understand it quite well. Although, I could be wrong. I am still not sure what point you are trying to make, as you have provided no evidence for any of your claims, just more deflection.

As such, if it was the "atomplane" restircting visibility, you would expect the sun to come in quite high in the sky, not rising from below the horizon.
False. Seems you don't actually know much about the flat earth model. Oh well, I guess you can just continue to copy/paste things you picked up elsewhere that don't relate to the topic.

Nope. He was completely correct, as you just showed by contradicting him.
I know you have a hard time with simple logic, but this is getting bad even for you.

Great job! More variations of empty contradiction...

Does the Earth have a definite size and the Sun a definite altitude? If "yes," then on a flat Earth:
--half the Earth is lit by the Sun
--the Sun must be above the center of the lit half
--a person observing "sunrise" would be at the edge of the lit area
--the person observing sunrise, the point below the Sun, and the Sun itself form a right triangle

Using  trigonometry, calculate the angle that the person would look up to observe the sun. This would vary depending on which dimensions for the earth you use, and which altitude for the sun you use. Since it is your model, I don't mind if you insert your own numbers.

 Since trigonometry is about ratios, the sun would have to be twice as far away to get half the angle. It would have to be 10 times as far away to get 1/10 the angle. It would have to be infinitely far away to get an angle of 0°.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

*

JackBlack

  • 26157
  • +51/-79
Re: 2 things that would debunk FE
« Reply #29 on: April 25, 2017, 02:39:02 PM »
1- Shrinking of the sun or not, is relevant with viewpoint.


Now try it with the correct filter to remove the glare.

2- There is nothing surprised on this flight. Some planes go fast, some go slow. You are free to write the number you want there. The round earth map is definitely wrong. We've proven it countless times.
Not fast enough to explain it.
And no, the RE map is definitely correct. You are yet to prove it wrong. Instead you make numerous baseless assumptions and then use a horrible method for trying to pretend Earth is flat.