What you are doing however is exactly redefining things.
No, that is what YOU are trying to do.
We can see quite clearly that the lines are a different length, yet here you are lying to each other saying they are equal length, and then trying to save yourself saying you are aware they aren't.
To try to prop up your BS, you then say crap like this:
The plane in question is flying away while you look at it like so:
No, it isn't.
It is flying more like the bird you have drawn.
It is flying past the observer.
As this is at or approaching eye level, you will notice that these lines being *ahem* the same length, means that all points at a certain distance away are equidistant.
No, we wont, because we aren't morons.
We can see the line at the centre is much shorter than the distance from the observer to the green line at the middle is much shorter than at either side.
What you are trying to describe is a circle, centred on the observer.
That looks more like this:
That is what is required to keep it equidistant.
Lying wont change that.
Btw, in my very first geometry class, they taught us about equidistance.
And is that another class you failed?
If the bird is 25 ft in front of you, and has been moved 15 ft directly to the side, it is actually 25 ft plus the 15 ft, but your eyes don't accurately take that into account.
Pure BS.
You can only combine distances like that if you either have it all in a straight line, or you do the proper vector addition.
If it is 15 ft to the side and 25 ft to the front then it is sqrt(25^2+15^2) =~ 29 ft away.
And we see it as 25 ft away.
Your eyes are not the magic you want to pretend they are.
We see the object as it is 29 ft away.
Just how do you expect eyes to be so magical?
How do you expect them to magically know what way is "forwards" and what way is "sideways" to then magically change the angular size of the object from what it actually is?
Or do you think that turning your head will magically change the size of the object?
No, they are not lines of equal length, and no, your eyes will not treat them as that.
You are just so desperate and pathetic you need to resort to these quite obvious lies.
So anyway, this should look like lines of different lengths, and it should should appear to shrink
No, these ARE lines of different length, and as a result that means that if that model was correct, the sun MUST appear to shrink.
Just pathetically saying it doesn't, doesn't help you.
It just shows you know your model is pure BS and just aren't willing to admit it.
But in the same way as *ahem* your own RE works
No, it isn't.
As explained to you repeatedly.
For your delusional pile of garbage, you can have the sun 100 km above, or 100 km above a point 10 000 km away.
That is a massive change in distance.
If we take the 100 km as the baseline, that distance grows to 10 000 %.
That would result in a massive change in the apparent size of the sun.
For the RE model you instead have a change of less than 14 000 km (assuming you could see straight through Earth) out of 150 000 000 km, that is a change of 0.009%.
So no, the 2 models are fundamentally different.
Your pathetic model relies upon just dismissing reality because it so easily shows it is wrong; just lying to everyone by saying the distance is the same, or that it magically acts as if it is, even though you can't explain what magic causes that.
Our model instead has the fact that the distance does not change by a significant amount relative to the overall distance.
This means it actually should shift from the sun's position.
No, it wouldn't. Yet again you just assert crap with no justification.
Again, what matters is the change in distance relative to the distance.
Changing 10 000 km relative to 100 km is a massive change.
Changing 14 000 km relative to 150 000 000 km is not.
And what makes this line of BS even more pathetic is now you are appealing to an orbit.
Moving any distance along a circular orbit will not cause a change in distance.
Now, if you were intellectually honest (I've long since stopped expecting that!)
There you go projecting again.
If I'm being intellectually honest I admit what I have already said.
The relative (i.e. %) change in distance to the sun in the FE model is massive meaning the angular size should change, while the RE model has a negligible change so their should be a negligible change in angular size.
But then you're tricked into accepting that there is no reason the distance on FE should look different for the sun, given its much more reasonable size and distance values.
Thanks for admitting that rather than even attempting to be honest, you are just trying to trick people.
That you appeal to large numbers as if that should make the model wrong, rather than any actual problem with the model.
Have I proved beyond the shadow a doubt that FE is right?
No. You haven't come close.
Instead you have entirely failed to even show the FE is possible, with it still remaining refuted and incapable of matching reality; at the same time you have failed to show any fault with the RE model.
Instead you have just shown you need to rely upon tricking people into thinking the FE model is correct.
But it is clearly no less valid, by your own logic.
No, it isn't. And you have even attempted to show that.
Instead you have attempted to trick people.
Using our logic, you need to relative size.
e.g. as a simple rule of thumb for distant objects, if you double the distance to it the angular size gets cut in half.
But notice that that doesn't matter what the actual distances are?
You can have a distance of 1 cm get doubled to 2 cm. Or you can have a distance of 100 000 000 km get doubled to 200 000 000 km.
The absolute change is not what is important, the relative change is.
And you have repeatedly avoided that. Likely because you know that if you did use that to approach the problem honestly it would show no problem with the RE model and a massive problem for your pile of garbage.