We humans don't actually see a fixed length like that. It narrows or widens based on things like altitude and perspective.
Which just further demonstrates the dishonesty of your claim.
You know that when things are far away, they appear smaller.
So you have no basis for your insane claim that the sun should take up the entire sky.
Instead it is based upon wilfully ignoring that.
Yeah... so you are totally not discarding it when inconvenient when the size of the sun (based on distance) should in turn shrink the amount of light cast.
No, I am using when it is appropriate, and explaining why it isn't appropriate at other times.
Again, the fact that the sun keeps a roughly constant angular size demonstrate that it remains roughly the same distance away, so perspective (technically this aspect of it about how things change with distance which is really only a subset0 CANNOT explain why it sets.
Conversely, you simultaneously want to ignore it to pretend that the distance to the sun can change with the only affect being the sun appearing to sink, completely ignoring the other effects of it; you want to completely ignore it to pretend that for the RE the sun should appear massive in the sky; and then you want to apply it far too much (so incorrectly), to pretend the sun should just be a point in the sky.
Notice how you just ignore it when it demonstrates the FE is wrong, and then just make up whatever BS you want about it to pretend there is a problem with the RE?
Instead of just making up crap, why don't you provide all the math to determine what the angular size of the sun should be for an observer on Earth in the RE model?
In a FE model, the sun is typically modeled near the Earth. It also doesn't get closer or more distant. I've explained this before.
You mean you have appealed to this to deflect from the issue, being incredibly dishonest as you do so.
In most FE models today the sun is roughly 5000 km above Earth, and it remains that distance above Earth.
But that is the distance TO EARTH, not to the observer.
For the observer, the sun can be directly overhead. That is a distance of 5000 km.
But it is not always overhead, it can also be overhead a point some 10 000 km away, and still be visible.
For the OBSERVER (not Earth) that means the the sun is at a distance of sqrt(10000^2 + 5000^2) =~ 11 000 km.
Notice how the distance has changed from 5000 km to 11 000 km?
That means the distance has changed.
If you wish to have the distance to the observer remain the same, then that means it's apparent motion is due to relative motion, that when it appears to go down, it is actually going down (or the observer is rotating away or going up). And if that is true for all observers all over Earth, that means the size of Earth is insignificant compared to the distance to the sun, so the sun must be far away.
If instead you want to claim that it only appears to go down due to perspective; then that is saying it is going down because the distance to the sun is increasing.
That means it should also appear smaller.
So you ARE contradicting yourself.
This means you need a completely different mechanics to try explaining your BS.
And you have no explanation at all for why the sun should magically project onto a parabola, to magically result in the sun appearing the same angular size, and magically appearing exactly as you would expect for a RE.
Rather than just asserting such BS, try explaining how it would work.
because the physics of this would necessarily be insane.
Yes, the physics of what you claim would be entirely insane.
Which is why it is discarded as nonsense, especially given there is a functioning RE model which actually works to explain reality.
It is literally impossible for the sun to simultaneously be small enough at range to fit into only a small part of the sky, yet be big enough to blanket the entire Earth in light.
You sure do love your baseless claims and strawmen.
It doesn't blanket the entire Earth. It blankets roughly half of it. And this is very trivial to do.
Notice how you are just asserting pure garbage, with absolutely no justification at all.
Why should this be impossible?
You need a light source, and simple geometry.
The only time it gets a bit tricky is focusing on that "roughly" half part.
If you had a point light source, or a light source physically smaller and no atmosphere, it would always be slightly less than half.
If the light source is larger, then it will be slightly more than half.
And in addition, the atmosphere causes refraction which allows slightly more to be illuminated.
If you want, wait for a nice dark night. Go get a very powerful torch. Tie it up to a fence post shining roughly horizontal, and have a ball to expose to the torch. Now walk away from the torch, ensuring you hold the ball to your side so you can observe the torch still lighting it up.
Once you reach some distance away, look at the ball, and observe the ball is lit up by the torch, an entire half of the ball (roughly). Then turn to the torch, and observe how it appears small.
Or, just use the simple geometry (Note: Not to scale, as a scale diagram with Earth as a single px would have the distance to the sun be roughly 12 000 px):
The red shows the region illuminated by the sun, with a nice light blue on Earth.
The purple shows the angular size of the sun for an observer on Earth.
Making it to scale will result in roughly 50% of Earth being illuminated, and the angular size of the sun being roughly 0.5 degrees.
So no problem here.
It is likewise literally impossible for the Earth to move at high speed yet never be felt.
We have been over this dishonest BS of yours countless times. YOU DON'T FEEL SPEED!
So it is entirely possible for Earth to move at high speed yet not be felt, because you don't feel speed.
Therefore, you HAVEN'T eliminated the RE as impossible.
Instead, you just assert dishonest BS because you hate reality.
Sorry, NO. Such an angle would cast no light on the Earth.
WHY?
Stop just asserting pure BS, and start justifying it.
the angle is simply not right, as experiments from casting light, shadows, and rainbows have proven.
None of those experiments give you the angle.
The angle can be directly measured.
And guess what? When you do measure it, you get 0.5 degrees.
A simple way to measure it is a pinhole camera.
From sunrise to sunset, you can center the entire arc.
So what you are saying is that you can look towards the sun?
Guess what, even with your pentagon example, an observer off to the left can look directly towards the pentagon, and keep doing so as they move around, keeping it "Dead centre".
Yes yes, keep denying things that don't suit you.
You are the one denying things that don't suit you. Not me.
I am the one explaining why your BS doesn't work.