When will RE Community Accept Defeat?

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills.

Why hasn't the constant upwards acceleration flattened rolling hills like it did for the rest of the flat earth?

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 23, 2019, 12:22:11 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 12:11:14 PM

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere.  The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.

I don't see a "muddy surface" there!

Again...

How do you know all these things?

What is your primary source for this information?

How about a water soaked (sub-soil) surface?  That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.

Ok

~70% water logged surface

https://images.app.goo.gl/bQoqJAq49SujLV5a9

Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.  You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 12:11:14 PM

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills.

Why hasn't the constant upwards acceleration flattened rolling hills like it did for the rest of the flat earth?

There is no constant upwards acceleration in my world or a eastward rotation. On a calm day, feathers in motion and blown soap bubbles don't drift west with a Globe Earth nor rush to the ground with a Plane Earth.

Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.  You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.

Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:



Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)

Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:



Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?

Quote from: markjo on August 23, 2019, 04:28:09 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 12:11:14 PM

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills.

Why hasn't the constant upwards acceleration flattened rolling hills like it did for the rest of the flat earth?

There is no constant upwards acceleration in my world or a eastward rotation. On a calm day, feathers in motion and blown soap bubbles don't drift west with a Globe Earth nor rush to the ground with a Plane Earth.

What keeps your feet on the ground in your world?

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 09:54:22 PM

Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.  You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.

Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:



Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)

Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:



Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?

No. You are mopping up for NASA again. That is beyond a 23.5 degree tilt for an allotment of light for a fake Globe. Dress at anyway you wish. It's a fake picture. You can see the light allotment in the pic you posted.

See how much more land is viewed north.

The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe

Who cares about the suns allotment of light on your fake globe?
We are talking about the real one.

Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.

And here we have yet another baseless assertion from you.
How about you stop with the baseless assertions and start justifying your wild claims?

The picture looks fine.

Now, care to address why your allegedly flat Earth has hills when your magic downwards force should have made it all flat?
Or do you admit that line of reasoning by you is pure nonsense?

Quote from: Stash on August 23, 2019, 10:37:47 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 09:54:22 PM

Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.  You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.

Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:



Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)

Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:



Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?

No. You are mopping up for NASA again. That is beyond a 23.5 degree tilt for an allotment of light for a fake Globe. Dress at anyway you wish. It's a fake picture. You can see the light allotment in the pic you posted.

See how much more land is viewed north.

Umm, have you ever heard of a 'camera angle'? You know, taking photos from different perspectives; high, low, left, right, below, above. That type of thing?

The image was not taken from and equatorial dead on angle like this:



It was taken from an angle like this:

So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle? Is this what you want us to  believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?

Umm, you're making no sense. What trajectory plan was altered? What are you talking about?

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 10:54:48 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 23, 2019, 10:37:47 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 09:54:22 PM

Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.  You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.

Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:



Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)

Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:



Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?

No. You are mopping up for NASA again. That is beyond a 23.5 degree tilt for an allotment of light for a fake Globe. Dress at anyway you wish. It's a fake picture. You can see the light allotment in the pic you posted.

See how much more land is viewed north.

Umm, have you ever heard of a 'camera angle'? You know, taking photos from different perspectives; high, low, left, right, below, above. That type of thing?

The image was not taken from and equatorial dead on angle like this:



It was taken from an angle like this:

You posted the fact the picture in question is from the Apollo mission.

So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle? Is this what you want us to  believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with Earths alledged tilt. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt.

Your mopping is nailed!

Quote from: Stash on August 23, 2019, 11:22:34 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 10:54:48 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 23, 2019, 10:37:47 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 09:54:22 PM

Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.  You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.

Per usual, you are incorrect. Here's the original 'Blue Marble' image before it was cropped and flipped:



Image taken, Apollo 17, on December 7, 1972, at 05:39 a.m. EST (10:39 UTC)

Looking at timeanddate.com for that date and time, looks spot on:



Next unfounded issue you want smacked down?

No. You are mopping up for NASA again. That is beyond a 23.5 degree tilt for an allotment of light for a fake Globe. Dress at anyway you wish. It's a fake picture. You can see the light allotment in the pic you posted.

See how much more land is viewed north.

Umm, have you ever heard of a 'camera angle'? You know, taking photos from different perspectives; high, low, left, right, below, above. That type of thing?

The image was not taken from and equatorial dead on angle like this:



It was taken from an angle like this:

You posted the fact the picture in question is from the Apollo mission.

So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle?

No. And why would you even think that?

Is this what you want us to  believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?

Why don't you show us what you think Apollo 17's trajectory was? What an odd and ridiculous argument, it literally makes no sense.

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt.

How would you know? You have no idea where your flat earth sun is right now let alone where it was in 1972. If you feel so confident in your claim, why don't you tell us where the sun is at noon right now on your flat plane and how you figured that out. You can't can you? Didn't think so.

You posted the fact the picture in question is from the Apollo mission.

So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle?
[/quote]

No. And why would you even think that?

Is this what you want us to  believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?

Why don't you show us what you think Apollo 17's trajectory was? What an odd and ridiculous argument, it literally makes no sense.

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt.

How would you know? You have no idea where your flat earth sun is right now let alone where it was in 1972. If you feel so confident in your claim, why don't you tell us where the sun is at noon right now on your flat plane and how you figured that out. You can't can you? Didn't think so.
[/quote]

The picture is fake!!

And No. You need to accept defeat in defending a fake NASA picture.  Your fake picture has much more tilt than is allowed and it is seen in the picture YOU POSTED.  YOUR HAVE BEEN NAILED AGAIN BY YOUR OWN POST.  See how much more land is viewed (second picture) north with the proper fake tilt?

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with your fake Globe Earths alledged tilt. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt. Have a nice fake Globe  morning!

Quote from: Stash on August 23, 2019, 11:48:48 PM

You posted the fact the picture in question is from the Apollo mission.

So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle?

No. And why would you even think that?

Is this what you want us to  believe now? Or is this you being a mopper for NASA because the picture is fake?

Why don't you show us what you think Apollo 17's trajectory was? What an odd and ridiculous argument, it literally makes no sense.

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt.

How would you know? You have no idea where your flat earth sun is right now let alone where it was in 1972. If you feel so confident in your claim, why don't you tell us where the sun is at noon right now on your flat plane and how you figured that out. You can't can you? Didn't think so.

The picture is fake!!
I know by the mechanics of your fake Globe.

And No. You need to accept defeat in defending a fake NASA picture.  Your fake picture has much more tilt than is allowed and it is seen in the picture YOU POSTED.  YOUR HAVE BEEN NAILED AGAIN BY YOUR OWN POST.  See how much more land is viewed (following picture) north with the proper fake tilt?

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with your fake Globe Earths alledged tilt. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt. And I know this by the mechanics of your fake Globe. Your fake sun does not shine on your fake Globe as repesented in the FAKE PICTURE. Have a nice fake Globe morning!

The picture is fake!!

And No. You need to accept defeat in defending a fake NASA picture.  Your fake picture has much more tilt than is allowed and it is seen in the picture YOU POSTED.  YOUR HAVE BEEN NAILED AGAIN BY YOUR OWN POST.  See how much more land is viewed (second picture) north with the proper fake tilt?

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with your fake Globe Earths alledged tilt. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt. Have a nice fake Globe  morning!

Again, how would you even begin to think you know anything about trajectories, angles, tilts, and sunlight when you don't even know where your sun goes at night? That said, your evidence thus far is a toddler stomping their feet screaming, "It's fake!"

Well done, as usual, no knowledge, no evidence about your own flat earth model, let alone any other. Keep up the good work. Though you're becoming somewhat of a bore, too easy to defeat.

Still didnt answer why there arent hills on a flat earth.
Hills are fake news to plata

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The picture is fake!!

You are the one asserting that "The picture is fake!!" so the onus is on You to prove that "the picture is fake!!".

And No. You need to accept defeat in defending a fake NASA picture.  Your fake picture has much more tilt than is allowed and it is seen in the picture YOU POSTED.  YOUR HAVE BEEN NAILED AGAIN BY YOUR OWN POST.  See how much more land is viewed (second picture) north with the proper fake tilt?

You own diagram below shows that at UTC time = 10:38 on December 7, 1972 the whole of Antarctica is in full sunlight!

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with your fake Globe Earths alledged tilt. You still loose anyway because of the fake tilt. Have a nice fake Globe  morning!

Totally incorrect! Look at the day/night map from TimeandDate: Day and Night World Map!

You don't seem able to work out where the sun shines even with a day/night map in front of you!

So, we lose nothing!

So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle? Is this what you want us to  believe now?

And yet another baseless claim.
Why would that have required altering their trajectory plan?

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with Earths alledged tilt.

And another baseless claim.
Again, where is any justification for these multiple baseless claims you are making?
It seems all you have baseless claims and outright lies.

If you want any sane person to take your claims seriously you will need far more than just repetition of the same lies.

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 11:39:50 PM

So the Apollo Mission altered their trajectory plan to take a picture of Earth at a different angle? Is this what you want us to  believe now?

And yet another baseless claim.
Why would that have required altering their trajectory plan?

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 11:39:50 PM

BTW, the Suns light would not have reached that far south with Earths alledged tilt.

And another baseless claim.
Again, where is any justification for these multiple baseless claims you are making?
It seems all you have baseless claims and outright lies.

If you want any sane person to take your claims seriously you will need far more than just repetition of the same lies.

Judging by Jack Blacks continued contribution to this thread I've reached 2 conclusions

Jack Black will not accept defeat

Jack Black is rabinoz. I mean seriously, who else would have the stamina to argue a losing argument like this.

The jig is up Jackinoz

Quote from: Themightykabool on August 23, 2019, 04:08:49 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Crutchwater on August 23, 2019, 12:22:11 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 23, 2019, 12:11:14 PM

Gravity pulling to center of mass would not allow a sphere earth to have rolling hills. It goes against the force that creates spheres. And even more so with a centrifugal force is applied to a muddy surface, it has no choice but to curve and conform to a sphere.  The Globe Comunity can't have it both ways. One contradicts the other. It's no wonder why the defection continues.

I don't see a "muddy surface" there!

Again...

How do you know all these things?

What is your primary source for this information?

How about a water soaked (sub-soil) surface?  That's easily formed into a sphere with gravity pulling to center with a centrifugal force in effect.

Ok

~70% water logged surface

https://images.app.goo.gl/bQoqJAq49SujLV5a9

Your picture is fake. The Suns allotment of light on a fake Globe with a 23.5 degree tilt proves your pic is fake. Your picture has the Mediterranean Sea with a tilt to north far beyond 23.5 degrees.  You should take more time to choose fake pictures more wisely.

the picture is fine and shows exactly what one would expect to see for that time and angle with that lens. Yet another fail from Plat Terra

Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.

The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time.  And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon.  The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.

Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do

Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.

The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time.  And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon.  The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.

Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do

Garbage experiment:

- What's the refractive index of the lens he is using?
- We don't live inside a glass of water
- Why does the candle get larger as it gets further away, we don't observe that in reality
- I thought flat earthers claimed that with enough magnification anything could be pulled back into view from over the horizon?
- Lastly, we're talking about a 3000 mile high sun. Demonstrate that 'setting' along with a refractive index measurement required and the distance needed away from the observer.

Garbage.

On my daily calendar at work there is a quote

"No matter how convincing and true sounding the story, always hear the other side"

Something I observe all the round earthers like jackinoz fail to do. Too busy shilling for or simply too stupid and blinded by their small and dim world view.

So the other week I was walking at night and I knew there would be a full moon (or close to being full coming out shortly). Although I could not see it, the sky was not black and the clouds were lit up. This in turn helped to light the field I was walking across. If this were a globe I was on, the sky should still be dark as the side of the Earth I am on is obscured from the moon. Yet hours before it came to view, there was its light already seen.

You can see the same with the sun. The sky starts to change colour before the sun is in view.

On my daily calendar at work there is a quote

"No matter how convincing and true sounding the story, always hear the other side"

Something I observe all the round earthers like jackinoz fail to do. Too busy shilling for or simply too stupid and blinded by their small and dim world view.

So the other week I was walking at night and I knew there would be a full moon (or close to being full coming out shortly). Although I could not see it, the sky was not black and the clouds were lit up. This in turn helped to light the field I was walking across. If this were a globe I was on, the sky should still be dark as the side of the Earth I am on is obscured from the moon. Yet hours before it came to view, there was its light already seen.

You can see the same with the sun. The sky starts to change colour before the sun is in view.

Might have been twilight. Can be longer or shorter depending on your latitude and time of year same for the moon with the addition of where the sun is. Actually more evidence that they are large celestial bodies far away, the sun being really far away:

Quote from: Shifter on August 25, 2019, 05:48:48 PM

On my daily calendar at work there is a quote

"No matter how convincing and true sounding the story, always hear the other side"

Something I observe all the round earthers like jackinoz fail to do. Too busy shilling for or simply too stupid and blinded by their small and dim world view.

So the other week I was walking at night and I knew there would be a full moon (or close to being full coming out shortly). Although I could not see it, the sky was not black and the clouds were lit up. This in turn helped to light the field I was walking across. If this were a globe I was on, the sky should still be dark as the side of the Earth I am on is obscured from the moon. Yet hours before it came to view, there was its light already seen.

You can see the same with the sun. The sky starts to change colour before the sun is in view.

Might have been twilight. Can be longer or shorter depending on your latitude and time of year same for the moon with the addition of where the sun is. Actually more evidence that they are large celestial bodies far away, the sun being really far away:

It was well passed twighlight. The sun had gone hours before. When there is no moon (or 'new moon') I cant even see my feet on the ground. There is no street lighting and little in any way of light pollution (It's Canberra! Not like a major city in China or Korea which I have been to and barely able to see a single star or planet thanks to the eternal twilight from the city lights) The only difference is the moon. When its out, I see the effects of its lighting well before it 'rises'. The clouds are bright which in turn light up the ground enough for me to see where I'm walking.

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 25, 2019, 05:33:18 PM

Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.

The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time.  And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon.  The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.

Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do

Garbage experiment:

- What's the refractive index of the lens he is using?
- We don't live inside a glass of water
- Why does the candle get larger as it gets further away, we don't observe that in reality
- I thought flat earthers claimed that with enough magnification anything could be pulled back into view from over the horizon?
- Lastly, we're talking about a 3000 mile high sun. Demonstrate that 'setting' along with a refractive index measurement required and the distance needed away from the observer.

Garbage.

Of course the opposition will respond with ridicule, but now they know light can appear to go down as it moves away and yet stays the same height above the surface with just a simple science experiment.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2197868#msg2197868

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2019, 05:44:12 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 25, 2019, 05:33:18 PM

Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.

The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time.  And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon.  The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.

Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do

Garbage experiment:

- What's the refractive index of the lens he is using?
- We don't live inside a glass of water
- Why does the candle get larger as it gets further away, we don't observe that in reality
- I thought flat earthers claimed that with enough magnification anything could be pulled back into view from over the horizon?
- Lastly, we're talking about a 3000 mile high sun. Demonstrate that 'setting' along with a refractive index measurement required and the distance needed away from the observer.

Garbage.

Of course the opposition will respond with ridicule, but now they know light can appear to go down as it moves away and yet stays the same height above the surface with just a simple science experiment.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2197868#msg2197868

Instead of cowering away, why not address the problems?

Quote from: Stash on August 25, 2019, 05:44:12 PM

Quote from: Plat Terra on August 25, 2019, 05:33:18 PM

Members of the Globe community often ask “How do you explain the Sun going down over the horizon” and we say, it appears to go down because of refraction and perspective, they say “Prove it”.

The following experiments shows a light going down in appearance, but yet the light stays the same height above the surface at any time.  And remember, as the Sun moves from the median to the horizon, the viewer has no choice but to view the Sun through more and more atmosphere as it reaches the horizon.  The atmosphere acts like a lens and its appearance gets larger as it moves farther away.

Flat Earth Sunset Experiment Anyone Can Do

Garbage experiment:

- What's the refractive index of the lens he is using?
- We don't live inside a glass of water
- Why does the candle get larger as it gets further away, we don't observe that in reality
- I thought flat earthers claimed that with enough magnification anything could be pulled back into view from over the horizon?
- Lastly, we're talking about a 3000 mile high sun. Demonstrate that 'setting' along with a refractive index measurement required and the distance needed away from the observer.

Garbage.

Of course the opposition will respond with ridicule, but now they know light can appear to go down as it moves away and yet stays the same height above the surface with just a simple science experiment.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2197868#msg2197868

What we know is that we can take a 4 inch lit candle, place an artificial lens in front of it, one that doesn't represent atmospheric reality at all. Slide the candle a few inches away, it magnifies, again, not reality, then disappears from view. That's all that has been demonstrated. That does not even remotely tackle the reality of:

- What's the refractive index of the lens he is using?
- We don't live inside a glass of water
- Why does the candle get larger as it gets further away, we don't observe that in reality
- I thought flat earthers claimed that with enough magnification anything could be pulled back into view from over the horizon?
- Lastly, we're talking about a 3000 mile high sun. Demonstrate that 'setting' along with a refractive index measurement required and the distance needed away from the observer.

I would also like to ask, when the sun goes away "through more and more atmosphere" on a clear evening, how is it replaced by stars visible right down to the horizon?

I would also like to ask, when the sun goes away "through more and more atmosphere" on a clear evening, how is it replaced by stars visible right down to the horizon?

After the greater light goes away the stars can easily be seen.

Of course the opposition will respond with ridicule,

Why would "" not "" because the simulation IS ridiculous!

but now they know light can appear to go down as it moves away and yet stays the same height above the surface with just a simple science experiment.

Sure when you move a lens around!
But how does this magic lens keep the sun almost exactly same apparent size from sunrise to sunset apart from some distortion due to refraction when very close to the horizon?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=60834.msg2197868#msg2197868

Your flat earth seems to need more and more guesses and magic the deeper you go.

I prefer to keep it the everyday things we see simple thanks.