Pics of Another Sunrise Impossible on Flat Earth

Dont'cha mean dishonestly?

Cropped nothing.
[/quote]


Anyway my camera was able to get a better view then.

Read what was actually posted.  And added a screen shot of your BS

Desperate enough that you're bumping your own pathetic thread?

From the looks of this, you're the only person that cares about this.

Far from conclusive proof, you haven't even caught my interest.



The parabola works.

What is that.  You passed the light right over the dome.  And you got it cropped to take out reflections.




🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Let’s do it more honestly which has been posted before.

For me the sun doesn’t pass over head in the winter…. Where I do pass the light directly over the dome at the end and get 4 reflections of the light moving at odd angles to the light passing over head.





Where the dome doesn’t even act like you need it to.

Where you can’t answer how clouds act beyond your parabola, clouds that straddle your parabola.

Where you claim your eye can only perceive three miles out?  So clouds should come into view as little slivers and grow as they get closer.

Where after three miles in altitude, because of your claimed cone of perception, any increase in height should cause the visible area of earth below to shrink.

Your parabola is meaningless.

Desperate enough

That you have to completely ignore what this thread is about.

This is absolute proof the sun doesn’t change apparent size to the unaided eye throughout the day which is what happens in a heliocentric solar system. 

In your flat earth model the sun would have to change considerable distance throughout the day for an observer kicking around town.  So, the apparent size of the sun should grow and shrink through the day.  The sun really needs to shrink in apparent size all afternoon if you want to invoke vanishing point for sunset.  But the sun doesn’t shrink in apparent size to even think about vanishing point.  Using vanishing point for why the sun sets is literally a falsehood based upon zero evidence with the sun documented working in the wrong way.  Your FE view is based on a provable falsehood. 

Anyway my camera was able to get a better view then.

Read what was actually posted.  And added a screen shot of your BS

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 09, 2025, 07:08:48 AM

Desperate enough that you're bumping your own pathetic thread?

From the looks of this, you're the only person that cares about this.

Far from conclusive proof, you haven't even caught my interest.



The parabola works.

What is that.  You passed the light right over the dome.  And you got it cropped to take out reflections.

Honesty means you don't adjust anything about second  light that trails (btw, this is a real phenomenon know as lens flare, from cameras seemingly picking it up... but when it is seen by the human eye, it is known as glare).




This is normal. What is not normal is light splitting four directions, which appears to the result of refraction.


Okay, lemme explain something to you. My first video wound up sideways and sorta upside down. To get it working east to west, I had to crop (because there was black space). When I went to an online GIF maker, one picture was below the other animation, so it cropped again. The picture in question moves in a proper arc, then the last frame does break up in terms of light but none of this moving away nonsense that comes of tilting a flashlight so it refracts. You can see the last frame to the far left of the animation. No I'm not hiding anything, this was an overzealous cropping from the online GIFer.

Let’s do it more honestly which has been posted before.

For me the sun doesn’t pass over head in the winter…. Where I do pass the light directly over the dome at the end and get 4 reflections of the light moving at odd angles to the light passing over head.

As I told you before, you are holding the flashlight sloppily. And it appears you are deliberately doing so to create a strawman.

Again, the flashlight is pointed face down, it moves through the dome, maybe leaving a afterimage, but certainly not a four way split.

At what point was this more honest than before? Same picture, same problem.


Angled light refracts. Instead of pointing light at the dome sides, I pointed it straight down.

https://old.bitchute.com/video/MMYJfoWbFlwj/

This is my video, if you actually want to care about honesty. I did this four times, and never once did the light split four ways like you claim happens. It rises up the arc of the dome then heads down.

Honesty

Your parabola is a made up delusion that doesn’t explain anything.

Read what is posted.

Anyway my camera was able to get a better view then.

Read what was actually posted.  And added a screen shot of your BS

Desperate enough that you're bumping your own pathetic thread?

From the looks of this, you're the only person that cares about this.

Far from conclusive proof, you haven't even caught my interest.



The parabola works.

What is that.  You passed the light right over the dome.  And you got it cropped to take out reflections.




🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Let’s do it more honestly which has been posted before.

For me the sun doesn’t pass over head in the winter…. Where I do pass the light directly over the dome at the end and get 4 reflections of the light moving at odd angles to the light passing over head.





Where the dome doesn’t even act like you need it to.

Where you can’t answer how clouds act beyond your parabola, clouds that straddle your parabola.

Where you claim your eye can only perceive three miles out?  So clouds should come into view as little slivers and grow as they get closer.

Where after three miles in altitude, because of your claimed cone of perception, any increase in height should cause the visible area of earth below to shrink.

Your parabola is meaningless.

Desperate enough

That you have to completely ignore what this thread is about.

This is absolute proof the sun doesn’t change apparent size to the unaided eye throughout the day which is what happens in a heliocentric solar system. 

In your flat earth model the sun would have to change considerable distance throughout the day for an observer kicking around town.  So, the apparent size of the sun should grow and shrink through the day.  The sun really needs to shrink in apparent size all afternoon if you want to invoke vanishing point for sunset.  But the sun doesn’t shrink in apparent size to even think about vanishing point.  Using vanishing point for why the sun sets is literally a falsehood based upon zero evidence with the sun documented working in the wrong way.  Your FE view is based on a provable falsehood. 

Honesty

That your made up pictures are meaningless.



Where you and flat earth fail to predict what is actually witnessed.

This is absolute proof the sun doesn’t change apparent size to the unaided eye throughout the day which is what happens in a heliocentric solar system.

In your flat earth model the sun would have to change considerable distance throughout the day for an observer kicking around town.  So, the apparent size of the sun should grow and shrink through the day.  The sun really needs to shrink in apparent size all afternoon if you want to invoke vanishing point for sunset.  But the sun doesn’t shrink in apparent size to even think about vanishing point.  Using vanishing point for why the sun sets is literally a falsehood based upon zero evidence with the sun documented working in the wrong way.  Your FE view is based on a provable falsehood.

 Eric Dubay himself has a picture of the sun shrinking in places like the desert.

Again.  That’s not what happens when you property filter the sun. 



Where Bulma, the sun most definitely does disappear bottom.  And doesn’t shrink down in apparent size to invoke vanishing point at sunset.  Things not “fixed” by your parabola which is made up BS. 


Unfortunately, last night the clouds built up too much to use a solar filter and still capture the sun. 

But the disc of the sun was apparent with the clouds in the west knocking some of the sun flare down.

Anyway. Zooming in and out with my  cellphone didn’t change how much of the sun’s visible disc was covered by the horizon.



What zooming with a digital camera does do without a proper filter to capture the disc of the sun.  Does change how the camera is metering for light.  And how much of the sensor is being flooded with light.  Resulting increasing the flare around the sun and flooding the sensor with light changing how it images the actual disc of the sun. And how much sun flare is flooding the part of the sensor picking up the horizon at the point the sun is setting behind the dip of the horizon. 



[/quote]

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 06:32:20 AM

Is the sun in front of the leaves and limbs?



Is the sun on my finger?



Is it in front of the power lines?


In front of the power poles?




Sad bulmabriefs144 you literally fall for flat earth illusions and propaganda. 

Now the matter you’re so desperately trying to avoid.

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

[/quote]

Where zooming isn’t changing how much of the disc is physically blocked from view by earth’s curvature. 

So…

Why would looking through the telescope make something magically jump up from its position by the unaided eye?




I have a red dot pointer on the side of my telescope.  I don’t use it for sighting the sun.  But do use it for the moon and planets.  Once set where the red dot scope doesn’t magnify, it is used to directly sight in the telescope on the moon and planets. 

Btw, I view the sunrise and sunset from both the north and south (usually from the north). When I wake up, it's to the south of me. When I head to breakfast and for most of the day it's north of me, so time lapses that show sun path felt to right looks very confusing.  This is path of why I know the sky is a dome. Only in a dome can you turn around and see the same object.

The is why the parabola video  has it going left to right. Because that is what I see every day when the sun rises and sets. But if I were to stay upstairs I'd be weirded out by the sun appearing to move backwards.

If you wanted to kid yourself that there is no parabola dome, you have a very profound disproof of that staring you in the face.

Btw, I view the sunrise and sunset

Ok.

I don’t have to lie where I documented what I actually seen.

 Now address what was actually posted. 

Where Bulma, the sun most definitely does disappear bottom.  And doesn’t shrink down in apparent size to invoke vanishing point at sunset.  Things not “fixed” by your parabola which is made up BS.

You lie constantly.

As of right this moment, the sun is just slightly to the east of me still. Since I have a north facing window, this means over to my right. Though since it is getting toward noon, that's heading toward the center.

As I am used to this northern view, I always draw the sun going right to left. As any decent American should do. All of you globalist pinko commies with your southern facing sunrise and sunset (yes, I've succeeded in making the direction of the sun a political right vs left thing  ) show me these pictures and say "Flat Earth can't predict the sun's path." Dude, I can predict the sun's path in two different directions.



The left one is south facing, the right one is north facing.

You've already been told repeatedly why the sun doesn't appear to shrink.

Including from your own flatearth.ws picture. The sun moves overhead, changing angle, not distance.

You can look up Eric Dubay's explanation of sunrise and sunset, or Phuketword's "Should the Sun Appear to Shrink?" You can understand that the parabola dome is not the firmament (the entire sky) but a very regional dome. Or you can continue to double down on this. In most of my parabola drawings or animations, the sun's bottom does disappear. 
You can even (again) look at my BitChute video.

If none of these convince you, then I cannot help you.

So here's a different video.


The sun is a disc pointing straight down, same elevation all day long. Realizing this will help your understanding greatly.

You do not have a model of the Earth's shape. You have a sky model, which instead of understanding angles and points make up a dome, you've decided this makes the ground round.

Will Duffy: Curvature does not need to be measurable to exist
Also Will Duffy: Flat Earth will never be able to model the exact path of totality for an eclipse, because it doesn't exist, and the only way to do that is if you're dealing with something that does exist.

You've already been told repeatedly why the sun doesn't appear to shrink.

Including from your own flatearth.ws picture. The sun moves overhead, changing angle, not distance.

That’s more like the heliocentric solar system where the sun stays a constant distance from earth as the center of the solar system.

In the flat earth model, the sun has to change distance for me living in the Midwest as it circles above the earth.  Where the sun would have to circle in a similar pattern to me as if I watched a race car near the edge of the infield going around a circular track. 



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/SunAnimation.gif


Anyway?

The sun indeed does change in size some, but over 12 hours, it appears to only move with a small area because of perspective.

?



This



Vs



Anyway..

For the 1100th time, the parabola represents the narrowing perspective of vanishing point.

For you to invoke vanishing point for a sunset, the sun actually has to shrink in size all afternoon.   Where, for me in the Midwest, the sun would have to change distance to me all afternoon on a FE.

Bulma, flat earth requires the sun to change apparent size.  And the sun does not change apparent size to any noticeable degree. 

Your parabola doesn’t help you in addressing the sun does not shrink in apparent size, and gets physically blocked from view bottom up at sunset.


Where…

 Eric Dubay himself has a picture of the sun shrinking in places like the desert.

Again.  That’s not what happens when you property filter the sun. 



Where Bulma, the sun most definitely does disappear bottom.  And doesn’t shrink down in apparent size to invoke vanishing point at sunset.  Things not “fixed” by your parabola which is made up BS. 


Unfortunately, last night the clouds built up too much to use a solar filter and still capture the sun. 

But the disc of the sun was apparent with the clouds in the west knocking some of the sun flare down.

Anyway. Zooming in and out with my  cellphone didn’t change how much of the sun’s visible disc was covered by the horizon.



What zooming with a digital camera does do without a proper filter to capture the disc of the sun.  Does change how the camera is metering for light.  And how much of the sensor is being flooded with light.  Resulting increasing the flare around the sun and flooding the sensor with light changing how it images the actual disc of the sun. And how much sun flare is flooding the part of the sensor picking up the horizon at the point the sun is setting behind the dip of the horizon. 



[/quote]

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on August 30, 2023, 06:32:20 AM

Is the sun in front of the leaves and limbs?



Is the sun on my finger?



Is it in front of the power lines?


In front of the power poles?




Sad bulmabriefs144 you literally fall for flat earth illusions and propaganda. 

Now the matter you’re so desperately trying to avoid.

You still have provided no means how the sun, the brightest object in our solar, becomes physically blocked from view in your delusion.  With no evidence in that the sun, which stays the same size as it travels the sky, would have to get father and father away at sunset in your delusion.  And the sun would get smaller and smaller.  And the sun’s approach to the horizon would get slower and slower.  With the sun not quite reaching the horizon.

[/quote]

Where zooming isn’t changing how much of the disc is physically blocked from view by earth’s curvature. 

So…

Why would looking through the telescope make something magically jump up from its position by the unaided eye?




I have a red dot pointer on the side of my telescope.  I don’t use it for sighting the sun.  But do use it for the moon and planets.  Once set where the red dot scope doesn’t magnify, it is used to directly sight in the telescope on the moon and planets.

You lie constantly.

You were still debunked in this thread..

Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=92080.msg2411888#msg2411888

Flat Earth Sunsets - Should the Sun Shrink?




Not sure what this is all about?



Paraphrase from the video, “When we see parallel lines side on we don’t see any apparent change in distance?  “

All one has to do is watch the sun rise, arc over the sky, and sink bellow the horizon.  It’s pretty obvious the sun is a set distance above a rotating earth.  It’s not coming in a straight line at a fixed altitude of 3000 miles then passing over head to go away from you.

Besides.  Many models show the sun wouldn’t set on a flat planet of earth’s dimensions.

The bases of the video seems to be the sun gets cut off by the horizon before we can see it change size.  The problem with FE is, the sun would be coming at you after sunrise, it’s changing distance. There is no “cut off” of the sun that would prevent seeing a change in size because on a FE the sun would be constantly changing the distance from the viewer the entire day.


So the video is based on a falsehood.  The video is wrong.

If none of these convince you,

Because there is no parabola.  It’s a made up delusion.

Desperate enough that you're bumping your own pathetic thread?

From the looks of this, you're the only person that cares about this.

Far from conclusive proof, you haven't even caught my interest.



The parabola works.

What is that.  You passed the light right over the dome.  And you got it cropped to take out reflections.




🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Let’s do it more honestly which has been posted before.

For me the sun doesn’t pass over head in the winter…. Where I do pass the light directly over the dome at the end and get 4 reflections of the light moving at odd angles to the light passing over head.





Where the dome doesn’t even act like you need it to.

Where you can’t answer how clouds act beyond your parabola, clouds that straddle your parabola.

Where you claim your eye can only perceive three miles out?  So clouds should come into view as little slivers and grow as they get closer.

Where after three miles in altitude, because of your claimed cone of perception, any increase in height should cause the visible area of earth below to shrink.

Your parabola is meaningless.

Seems simple enough.

?

What happens when a cloud bank is large enough to straddle both ends of the parabola.



Added.  Where the sun still isn’t illuminating the clouds bottom up like this picture.

Especially for the below with clouds all the way to the east horizon for sunrise.  With no evidence the sunlight is reflecting off the ground.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on March 21, 2023, 05:45:20 AM

Funny you should mention that. Let's watch a video together. ❤

Meanwhile.

Another impossible flat earth sunrise you have to ignore. Run away like a coward.  You have no explanation, you change the subject from the opening post, lie, use BS, and go into delusion rants, and try to derail another thread…







Clouds illuminated bottom up before sunrise is a property of spherical earth.  Not explained by FE without lies, BS, delusion

The clouds would have to do bendy crap like this, climbing up then turning overhead.



Where these low altitude clouds, maybe 1000 feet altitude.


Are just a going away from the camera, like this ball down the hallway.



Which is nothing like the motion of the setting sun.



Where “zooming” in from the original didn’t visually uncompress anything. 

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.

You lie constantly.

No.  Your parabola is stupid.  It doesn’t actually fix anything.  Ignores that clouds should come into the parabola as vertical slivers.

It’s still doesn’t explain how it blocks light.

For Flat Earth, the sun is still literally in the line of sight.



There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.


Where light doesn’t die as required by your delusion.  As in a telescope can bring into view the moons of Jupiter too faint to be seen with the unaided eye.  But can’t bring a set sun back into view.

In addition to a visual horizon, it doesn’t address radio and radar horizon.  Why over the horizon radar works and provides a tactical advantage.  Why shortwave radio can overcome the radio horizon by bouncing radio waves off the ionosphere or the moon. And how radar would even be accurate and reliable with your parabola delusion.

Where after gaining three miles in altitude above the earth, because of your cone of visibility, anny increase in altitude should cause the amount of visible earth below to shrink. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 10, 2025, 09:51:35 AM

You lie constantly.

You were still debunked in this thread..

Video. Should we see the sun Shrink.
(Moved to below)

Not sure what this is all about?



Paraphrase from the video, “When we see parallel lines side on we don’t see any apparent change in distance?“

So the video is based on a falsehood.  The video is wrong.

It's a two parter.

Part 1 (How Vanishing Point Works)


Part 2 (How the Sun May Or May Not Shrink)


The sun does shrink, but not always, as you yourself probably "proved" with your Seeing No Shrinkage This Week thread.

I believe that I told you that there is a significant difference between parallel (||) lines and intersecting (/ \) lines. As usual, you didn't listen. Straight across the horizon any objects the move parallel to the horizon are moving on parallel lines. The vanishing point to the horizon from the sky or sea/land is convergence of intersecting lines.

Atmosphere affects the extend that it shrinks or does not shrink, and it's no a profound shrink in anywhere with atmosphere. Go to a desert, and the shrink is more profound. And probably might be pretty good shrink at high altitudes, because focal length determines how far before it gets cut off.

You think this is some kind of incredible proof, but since it's something that depends on variable factors and doesn't always happen, it's not really much of a proof of anything. Something that should be a solid debunk ought to always happen.

There is nothing blocking the sun from view.  Your parabola is stupid.

For example, the sun always travels in an arc, rising and setting. This is true whether you face north or south. The stars are in distinct constellation patterns whether you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. These are constants. And because they are constants, they are a very solid disproof of RE heliocentrism. If the Earth is not in the same position over the course of the year due to corkscrewing

then as I've said before, the arc of the sun, the location and formation of the constellations, and several other things should be highly inconsistent.

It was a fairly easy matter for me to make this happen.



In order to prove that the Earth does even one of the motions you speak of, have an assistant hold a flashlight perfectly steady, while you set a Kindle to record, then mimic the orbit, rotation, spiral, and wobble you claim is RE theology. And show me the arc that this motion creates.

No? Gosh, I wonder why not? Could it be that your lie will immediately be revealed when you attempt this?

My parabola may be stupid... but it works. Your model will not consistently create a sunrise and sunset.

The sun does shrink, but not always, as you yourself probably "proved" with your Seeing No Shrinkage This Week thread.

You’re breaking the FE model with your incoherent babbling. 

I posted this some time ago.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 21, 2024, 07:21:33 PM

Yes, what is seen.

                           

This is interesting.  The position of the sun during the equinox on March 20 - 21.

Where the sun rises due east and sets due west for a majority of the world.










If you try to map it out on a flat earth, the sun has to rise other than due east and set due west for large areas. 





  Bulma.  The FE fails to explain how the sun rises due east and sets due west for a majority of the world on the equinox. The heliocentric model explains it quite well and results in accurate predictions.  For FE, the sun would have to rise south to north for the USA.  Flat earth is a useless model and repeatedly debunked. 

And I posted this which you didn’t answer in anyway.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 10, 2025, 09:51:35 AM

You've already been told repeatedly why the sun doesn't appear to shrink.

Including from your own flatearth.ws picture. The sun moves overhead, changing angle, not distance.

That’s more like the heliocentric solar system where the sun stays a constant distance from earth as the center of the solar system.

In the flat earth model, the sun has to change distance for me living in the Midwest as it circles above the earth.  Where the sun would have to circle in a similar pattern to me as if I watched a race car near the edge of the infield going around a circular track. 



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/SunAnimation.gif


Anyway?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 19, 2025, 02:58:30 PM

The sun indeed does change in size some, but over 12 hours, it appears to only move with a small area because of perspective.

?



This



Vs

If you think this for flat earth..

You've already been told repeatedly why the sun doesn't appear to shrink.

Including from your own flatearth.ws picture. The sun moves overhead, changing angle, not distance.

Which is really the heliocentric model, and would only be true for a person at the North Pole in the flat earth delusion.


Bulma.  Say a live in Norther Ohio.

Draw an overhead flat earth map showing the relative location of Ohio and draw the path of the sun over that flat earth map for march 20th 2025.

2. You will be hit by an oncoming car, and either die or lose your memory, ending discussion.

How typical. Can't justify your BS so you just want me dead.

Again, I understand it quite well. It is quite simple geometry.

When the distance to the object remains roughly the same, as it is going directly perpendicular to the line connecting you to the object, then the angular size remains roughly the same.

But if it is doing that all the time, that means it is circling you.

Parallel lines are something entirely different from vanishing point.
These are parallel lines. Parallel lines are not vanishing point, because parallel lines never intersect or converge. Vanishing point is built on converging lines.

Do you truly have no idea at all what you are talking about? Or are you just intentionally just lying to everyone?

Vanishing point is built upon the idea of parallel lines appearing to converge and meet.
Because as they go off into the distance, the angular size of the gap between the lines gets smaller.

As a reminder, here is what you have already appealed to:

Quote from: AssistAI

The vanishing point is a specific point on the horizon line where parallel lines appear to converge in perspective drawing

But now because this shows you are lying to everyone, you yet again need to come up with more BS to pretend you aren't wrong.

Sigh... you always quote geometry for me, when it is clear you did poorly in the class.

If I did so poorly why am I repeatedly correcting you and explaining why you are wrong?

I can literally superimpose a protractor at a line at the horizon. This is what I mean by parabola. It is the perspective primarily by angle rather than by distance.

Which directly contradicts your idea of the sun magically projecting onto a point on that parabola.

That protractor is simply an angle based upon the line of sight.

Now try drawing it the same elevation and distance

Again, if you want the sun to remain the same distance, that means it is circling us, and that cannot possibly explain why it appears to set.

With this you are basically just saying your FE BS is wrong and the RE model is right.

Tell me what you see happening when just angle changes.

You have the RE model and not your delusional FE BS.

In terms of elevation above us, the distance never changes.

And that is entirely irrelevant.
What matters is the distance TO the object.
Splitting that distance up into components and then having 1 of those components remain the same doesn't magically stop the angular size changing.

The way our vision works, we either see an object or we don't because of its angle. This means the vision of the sun is only a span of 3 to 100 miles ... you ought to be aware that something strange is going on. It's taking 12(ish) hours from the sun to move 3 miles away when Earth's diameter is 7000 miles

Yet again you try to insert your own delusional BS into a model where it has no place.

This shows a massive problem with YOUR model, with all your delusional claims.

The RE model is based upon the angle to the sun, based upon line of sight. Our vision of the sun is not a magical 3 to 100 mile span.
We simply see it when Earth isn't blocking the view.

Meanwhile, in your steaming pile of garbage, with a magical vision distance limit of 3 miles, with the sun on the equinox needing to trace half a circle with that circle having a radius of 10 000 km, shows something is very very wrong.
Yet you ignore all these problems with your garbage to keep asserting the same BS.

Again, the RE model works, your garbage does not.

I like how you cut the part

I like the part where you entirely ignored that I said based upon your model.
It doesn't take a genius to watch the sun rise one day and then predict it will rise at a similar time and direction the next day.
What you can't do is use your model to predict it.

It woefully does not.

You keep saying this, but you can't show a single fault.

Instead of a perfect arc, you would have something more akin to this.

Why?
Stop just asserting pathetic BS.
Try justifying it.

You can't translate this spiraling motion into anything resembling the sunrise/sunset we see.

Yes, we can, quite easily.
Firstly, it is not a spiral, it's a helix.
Secondly, as what matters is the relative position, you can entirely remove that translation around the galaxy, which then entirely removes that helix you are appealing to.

Meanwhile, I believe I have made a model overhead of the angles

You haven't.
You have drawn a crappy picture which does not allow any determination of the angles.
If you think you have, then provide, with the math required to predict an angle.

Watch the video. Watch the birds fly past. I despise having to explain things to people who don't put in the effort.

You are the one not putting in any effort.

I have seen plenty of birds fly past.
They appear quite small initially, and then appear to grow in size as they get closer, and pass overhead before appearing to shrink.
And the angle to them is based upon simple line of sight.

It doesn't match your delusional BS.

If you want to learn how the parabola works, I recommend you learn how to learn first.

I know how to learn.
It isn't just accepting delusional BS a lying conman spouts.
I use critical thinking to reject it.

Why should anyone believe a word you say when you refuse to explain and deflect so often it isn't funny?
Why should anyone believe a word you say when you demonstrate such a complete lack of understanding of perspective and vanishing point?

 

Could it be that your lie

No.  I did it more honestly with my phone set on wide angle under the glass dome I used.

Read what was posted.

Let’s do it more honestly which has been posted before.

For me the sun doesn’t pass over head in the winter…. Where I do pass the light directly over the dome at the end and get 4 reflections of the light moving at odd angles to the light passing over head.

I live in the Midwest.  Where on earth is the sun directly overhead for RE VS FE on Dec 21.  It’s not overhead for me in the Midwest.

The vanishing point lines are not even drawn right.

You keep asserting this, using the same BS circular reasoning.
The vanishing point is drawn in correctly, and it is NOT the horizon.
Just telling everyone it is wrong because it isn't the horizon is just rejecting reality because you don't like it.
It does nothing to magically bring the vanishing point back to the horizon.

Ask any artist and they will tell you that the vanishing point is where parallel lines appear to meet.
They will also tell you it can be in any direction, not just magically tied to the horizon.

e.g. if you are looking up in a city full of skyscrapers with those sky scrapers vertical, the vanishing point is directly above you.

This "photography" is akin to going downstairs from a tall building and taking a shot from lower level, then cutting the building at higher level.

You keep asserting this, but you have no basis for it at all.

Stop just repeating the same pathetic claims.
There are plenty of examples of this, and you can go test it yourself if you had a shred of integrity.

This book might as well be a fairy tale.

Why? Because it shows you are wrong?

Quote

Surveyors, engineers and architects are never required to factor the supposed curvature of the Earth

Again you demonstrate a complete lack of critical thinking, where you just blindly accept the lies of your lying cult leader.
It has been shown repeatedly that they do when it is actually needed.

They're called sea charts.

You mean things which use latitude and longitude based on a sphere?
Again, you are asserting pure BS.

Had you watched the video, you'd know this.

Wrong again.
If I had watched the video and just mindlessly accepted the baseless claims of a known lying conman, I would foolishly believe that BS.
But if I used critical thinking I would reject it as the crap it is.

Did you listen to what you just said?

And did you make any attempt to understand it? No.
You just saw one part and decided to focus on that with no understanding at all to pretend reality is wrong.

Doesn't it seem odd to you you that radar, traveling outward in relatively straight wave, dips around a sphere, or climbs it like a hill?

Because I understand things like reflection, diffraction and refraction, no.

e.g. I understand how you can use a mirror to look around a corner.
I understand how radio waves can reflect off the ionosphere to allow you to look around a corner.

it must bounce signals off the atmosphere. Yet these signals magically shut off when wanting to talk to the moon.

And again you demonstrate a complete lack of any form of critical thinking.

Frequency matters.
Angle matters.

We can even see how angles matter when looking at water.
If you are in water and look straight up, you can see out just fine.
But if you look at a much shallower angle, you can't see out and instead the interface between the water and air reflects.

Likewise, we can see how frequency matters with plenty of things.
For example, you can still get a wifi signal, even with a solid wall between you and the wifi router, so you can't see it.
You can even put the router inside a cardboard box, and you still can't see it but do get wifi signal.

But then you can switch it up and put it in a simple faraday cage and the signal is blocked but then you can see it.
Different frequencies interact with different bits of matter in different ways.

If you applied just a tiny bit of critical thinking, you would understand this.
But you don't, because you don't want to. You just want a pathetic excuse to reject reality.

Or... (true to Occam's Razor)

we understand the horizon is Earth physically blocking the view because Earth is round; which also directly explains countless other things, like the sky at night and the sun and the moon and how we see them from various places on Earth, and so on.
We understand the moon landings were real and there isn't a massive global conspiracy.


Occam's razor doesn't help you at all.
The very topic of this thread is a clear example of that.
You have to appeal to so much convoluted BS just to pretend the sun can set in your fantasy.
While the RE has the sun set because Earth blocks it from view.

We are told this radar pitches upward, but since we can't see that, we have to take it on faith.

Or to put it more honestly, you have absolutely no idea how it works, so you just dishonestly appeal to it to pretend it shows Earth is flat.
If Earth was flat, all radar would be "over the horizon radar". There wouldn't be any need for a special separate system.

I don't even take religion on faith.

You take plenty on faith.
Your entire FE belief is on faith or lies of conmen which you have taken on faith.

I respond alot better to honest requests than duplicity.

Except you clearly don't.
You appear to absolutely hate honesty and homeset requests and do whatever you can to avoid them; while you eat up duplicity from your lying cult leader like you love it.

being vertically curved means that I have to sail uphill then downhill.

Except you have had that BS refuted countless times.

Again.

Again, you demonstrate how you happily accept the lies of a known conman with no critical thinking at all.
You demonstrate how your FE belief is based entirely upon faith and a complete lack of any evidence.
You have shown how you reject honest attempts to show that evidence.

Flat Earth is certainly not useless to you.

I am yet to see a single use for it, while the RE works vastly better.

Turns out that it is far more effective to have a radar that can continue quite a ways versus one that has to wrap around a curve.

Radars being easier to make on a FE doesn't mean a FE helps in reality.
Saying FE sounds better doesn't mean it helps with reality.
You may as well just be saying sicknesses don't exist, because it would be a lot better without them; while ignoring the countless people that are sick.
And you can say the same for forest fires, floods, hurricanes and so on.

In order to be useful it needs to provide a use in reality; not simply be a happy little fantasy.

You're confusing what is taught in school and what people tell you is true, for what actually is.

No, you are confusing what a known lying conman tells you, with what actually is.

Those maps the sailors use are based upon a projection of a sphere.
With the complex trigonometry already done so you can determine a bearing you can follow to reach a destination based upon a straight line.

A sailor heads from 34W 80 N to 32W 85 N

I.e. they use a system to represent positions, based entirely on a sphere.
A system which makes absolutely no sense in your delusional fantasy.

If the Earth was a sphere, a waterproof globe and dry erase markers would be the best tools imaginable.

No, they wouldn't.
You would need a very large globe to get the same resolution as those maps.
That would make it entirely impractical.

In fact, Eric Dubay

I don't care about your lying conmen telling you a bunch of pure BS which just gobble up because you lack the ability to think critically and are desperate to prop up your fantasy so you take anything which does so on faith.

if you were using a globe, it should literally look like a parentheses as you go from an arc north of the equator to south of it.

Why?
Again, you assert pure BS with no justification.

If your proof was anything substantial, I would bother debating it.

More pure BS.

You have been provided plenty which you just ignore, dismiss or outright lie about because it shows your delusional fantasy is wrong.

You, like many Round Earthers, project your own arrogance to Flat Earthers.

No, quite the opposite. You are the one who continually projects your own arrogance onto REers.

You continually spout pure BS as if it must be true, yet you cannot justify it at all.
That is you acting like you know better, with no justification at all.

Actually, the Round Earthers from my experience are so smug that they will never consider that they might be wrong.

Again, quite the opposite.
Plenty of round Earthers consider that possibility.
They are just yet to see anything that shows they are wrong.

Meanwhile, you repeatedly demonstrate that you will never consider that you might be wrong.
e.g. look at your BS about the vanishing point, you never consider the possibility that you could be wrong with the location of the vanishing point relative to the horizon.
Instead you use your arrogance to boldly claim the picture must be fake because it doesn't show what you want it to.

That is YOU being arrogant.
That is YOU refusing to consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Instead, you act like because you have rejected the RE (without reason), you must be right and must know better than all those "fools" still believing the RE.
Even though you cannot justify any of your BS.

submitted it to testing, and had to admit they were wrong.

Except that has never been the case.
You either entirely failed to understand it and attacked a strawman (like you repeatedly do here), or just rejected on nothing more than faith or not liking reality.
This also demonstrates you never really understood and had no real attachment to the RE, so there is no problem with discarding it and it is nothing like admitting you were wrong because you are really just saying what the teacher taught you was wrong.
Meanwhile you have now grown so attached to the FE it is a critical part of your identity and you cannot bring yourself to honestly and rationally question and test it, nor admit it is wrong.

You are yet to provide a single test of the RE which has failed.
While we have provided countless tests of the FE which have failed.

This is the video that I was talking about.

And did you bother watching it?

Your lying cult leaders provides all this crap with no evidence or justification.
It is just a collection of baseless claims; which you take entirely on faith to cling to your delusional fantasy.

You don't need to be one to ask one. I asked a surveyor. He thought the Earth was round, but knew that anywhere on Earth, it appears locally flat.

So he knows Earth is round, but in your extreme arrogance you think you know better.

I will tell you that the whole thing is crap.

And you will just demonstrate a complete lack of understanding.
You are yet to even explain just what you are expecting to see.

The parabola works.

Yet you cannot provide any explanation of how, nor can you address the mountains of issues with it.

Notice how you aren't showing the horizon at all in your useless gif?
Not all the extra reflections?

And the exposure is so bad, we don't really see the light directly, we more see a massive amount of glare.

This is not showing your parabola working.
This is showing a glass dome distorting the sun.

And your second animation, despite me telling you a couple of times that this is a straight down beam of light

i.e. the very thing I have repeatedly explains destroys your model.
The very thing you appealed to to pretend the RE model can't work, while it in fact shows YOUR model can't work.

Remember these diagrams I showed you ages ago which you were completely incapable of responding to?


This is what is required to match your claim.
You have the sun a tiny point of light shining down onto the tiny parabola, a parabola which has a radius of 3 miles.
That means someone 4 miles away from the subsolar point will not see the sun.
This means the vast majority of Earth will be in darkness.
The only locations that will see the sun on a given day are a narrow band following the subsolar point, with any location only seeing the sun for no more than a few minutes.

In order to illuminate half of Earth at once, you instead need something more like this:


But that would make the sun cover the entire sky except during sunrise and sunset.
So that clearly doesn't work either.

Instead, to have it match what is actually observed in reality, you need something more like this:

Where for the most part the sun does hit at an angle, magically going through the other parabolas to get there.

One of us understand how the model works, the other is angling it.

And it clearly isn't you, because if you did you would realise that it has no chance of matching reality.

Angled light refracts.

And the important part for that is the angle at the surface.
Not just relative to some magical universal down.

To avoid that refraction, you need to have the light coming from perpendicular to the surface of the dome.

When I wake up, it's to the south of me. When I head to breakfast and for most of the day it's north of me

Which shows a massive problem for your fantasy.
Try drawing out where the sun would need to be over your FE fantasy to have that happen.

But again, this is just a baseless assertion. Are you sure you have your directions right?
I have never seen any part of the sun's path which would not work on a RE.

And that claim of yours certainly doesn't help you as you have done nothing to explain how you get that observation.
Again, you just appeal to vague crap.

Dude, I can predict the sun's path in two different directions.

No, you have drawn 2 crappy images without predicting anything.
Do you understand what prediction is?

Here is an example based upon a RE:
https://www.suncalc.org/
For any time and location, you can predict the direction to the sun.
For any location you can predict the time and direction to the sun for sunrise and sunset.

All based upon math based upon a round Earth.

You have nothing like that.

You've already been told repeatedly why the sun doesn't appear to shrink.

You mean you have repeatedly contradicted yourself, where you make a statement which directly contradicts your own model?

Again, if the distance remains roughly the same, that means it is not circling overhead and close.
It means it is very far away.

And it means you don't have any chance at all of using a changing distance to explain it setting.
That also means it can't just be moving overhead.
If you want it to change angle while keeping the same distance, with it going down, it must be going down.

You can look up Eric Dubay's explanation of sunrise and sunset, or Phuketword's "Should the Sun Appear to Shrink?"

And we can explain why they are wrong.

The sun is a disc pointing straight down, same elevation all day long.

With the distance to it changing, and the angular size changing. And then for a bonus, as it is a disc pointing down, it changes from a circle when viewed directly under it to an ellipse when viewed from the side.

This does not match reality, so it does not help explain how the sun sets.
It just further demonstrates how the FE model is wrong and you refuse to think critically or just can't.

Will Duffy: Curvature does not need to be measurable to exist

And another pathetic lie from you.
Your inability to measure curvature in your bathtub doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Curvature does exist and is measurable, such as the measurable angle of dip to the horizon and how this varies with altitude.
Or the accurate surveying equipment that can and does measure for it.

The sun does shrink

Really?
Because that video doesn't show it.
Instead, it shows the sun remains the same width, clearly showing no shrinkage.
In fact, just look at what he says:
"It is the same size as the previous circle, and it has gotten smaller".
If it is the same size, how did it get smaller?

Atmosphere affects the extend that it shrinks or does not shrink, and it's no a profound shrink in anywhere with atmosphere.

Yet not that long ago you were appealing to a picture of boats shrinking.
Yet again, you are just whatever crap you can think of, with no evidence or justification at all, to pretend your delusional fantasy is true.

For example, the sun always travels in an arc, rising and setting. This is true whether you face north or south. The stars are in distinct constellation patterns whether you are in the northern or southern hemisphere. These are constants.

Yes, "constants" which show the FE fantasy is wrong, because there is no way for that to be possible on a flat Earth with these so close.
The fact they are constant means everyone that can see them is looking at them from the same direction.
So the only way they can appear in such drastically different places relative to Earth's surface is if Earth's surface is at a different orientation, i.e. Earth is round.

then as I've said before

You mean as you have baselessly asserted before.

Again, DISTANCE MATTERS!
The change in position you are appealing to is insignificant compared to the distance to those objects.
So no, you haven't shown any problem.

In order to prove that the Earth does even one of the motions you speak of, have an assistant hold a flashlight perfectly steady, while you set a Kindle to record, then mimic the orbit, rotation, spiral, and wobble you claim is RE theology. And show me the arc that this motion creates.

So to appeal to the arc of the sun, you want the sun fixed in place while Earth moves along the helix; with you completely ignoring the motion of the sun, which when combined with Earth and viewed from the reference frame of the sun, would result in Earth just circling it?

Again, you appeal to dishonest garbage, setting up a pathetic strawman to attack.

My parabola may be stupid

And not only is it so utterly stupid, it entirely fails to work.

When you say distance matters, which distance do you mean?

Meanwhile... (I'm not bothering to look up the correct spelling for these names)
    Copernicus: 3,391,200 miles away to the sun
    Johannes Kepler: 12,376,800 miles
    Isaac Newton: "It matters not whether we say 28 or 54 million..." 
    Benjamin Martin: 81 to 82 million miles
    Thomas Dillworth: 93,726,900 miles
    John Heinz: 95,298,260 miles
    Benjamin Gould: more than 96 million miles
    Christian Mayer: more than 104 million miles
    Most modern astronomers: 93 million miles (except I've heard 96 million miles too on occasion online)

Isaac Newton: "It matters not whether we say 28 or 54 million..."

Distance matters? Isn't your revered discoverer of gravity on record for saying that "it matters not" what the distance is?

When you say distance matters, which distance do you mean?

The sun does shrink, but not always, as you yourself probably "proved" with your Seeing No Shrinkage This Week thread.

Evidently I was asking you to map out the sun’s path over the FE and the distance it would change throughout the day from me if I lived in northern Ohio. 

You’re breaking the FE model with your incoherent babbling. 

I posted this some time ago.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on December 21, 2024, 07:21:33 PM

Yes, what is seen.

                           

This is interesting.  The position of the sun during the equinox on March 20 - 21.

Where the sun rises due east and sets due west for a majority of the world.










If you try to map it out on a flat earth, the sun has to rise other than due east and set due west for large areas. 





  Bulma.  The FE fails to explain how the sun rises due east and sets due west for a majority of the world on the equinox. The heliocentric model explains it quite well and results in accurate predictions.  For FE, the sun would have to rise south to north for the USA.  Flat earth is a useless model and repeatedly debunked. 

And I posted this which you didn’t answer in anyway.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on May 10, 2025, 09:51:35 AM

You've already been told repeatedly why the sun doesn't appear to shrink.

Including from your own flatearth.ws picture. The sun moves overhead, changing angle, not distance.

That’s more like the heliocentric solar system where the sun stays a constant distance from earth as the center of the solar system.

In the flat earth model, the sun has to change distance for me living in the Midwest as it circles above the earth.  Where the sun would have to circle in a similar pattern to me as if I watched a race car near the edge of the infield going around a circular track. 



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/SunAnimation.gif


Anyway?

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on April 19, 2025, 02:58:30 PM

The sun indeed does change in size some, but over 12 hours, it appears to only move with a small area because of perspective.

?



This



Vs

If you think this for flat earth..

You've already been told repeatedly why the sun doesn't appear to shrink.

Including from your own flatearth.ws picture. The sun moves overhead, changing angle, not distance.

Which is really the heliocentric model, and would only be true for a person at the North Pole in the flat earth delusion.


Bulma.  Say a live in Norther Ohio.

Draw an overhead flat earth map showing the relative location of Ohio and draw the path of the sun over that flat earth map for march 20th 2025.

When you say distance matters, which distance do you mean?

The distances involved. Importantly the distance to the object, and the distance you are moving.

"It matters not whether we say 28 or 54 million..."

Your baseless assertion you provide no reference for? I can't find where this was allegedly said. It is just repeated by FEers.

But even now with all this BS you are appealing to, you are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding.

Do you know why it doesn't matter? Because compared to that distance, the size of Earth is nothing.

With Earth's diameter of roughly 8000 archaic units, even that 28 million miles makes it a mere 1 part in 3 500.
The change in angle to the sun from one side of Earth to the other is a mere 0.016 degrees if it was at that distance.
This is basically nothing.
So for the precision they had, it doesn't matter if it is 28 million or 54 million miles away.
The distance to it is not going to change significantly as you move around Earth. The angle you view it from is not going to change significantly as you move around Earth.

And notice how he is not simply saying the distance does not matter? Instead, he is saying it doesn't matter between these 2 massive values (compared to the size of Earth).

Likewise, it doesn't matter exactly what the distance is to the stars.
What matters is that that distance is massive when compared to the motion you are appealing to; yet you dishonestly act like the stars are basically 1 m away.

The distance mattering does not mean you need to know the exact distance.

So no, you are spouting pure BS. Isaac Newton did not say distance doesn't matter. Nor did he said it doesn't matter if it is 1 or 100 miles.
Instead, he (if your meme is to be trusted) said it doesn't matter if it is 28 or 54 miles.


But do you know where distance really does matter? Your parabola BS, which fails because you should only be able to see the sun if it is above a point within 3 miles.
And what makes your position so truly pathetic, is that your attempt at an argument against the RE is actually a great argument against your BS.
The sun illuminates an area with a radius of roughly 10 000 km, yet your pathetic parabola BS requires the sun to be above a point a mere 3 miles away.
So you either only get to see the sun for a few minutes a day, only in a very narrow band on Earth, or the sun should take up the entire sky; or as you point out, that model is pure BS and it has nothing to do with distance, nothing to do with a magical parabola which magically limits your vision, but instead is to do with angle, and you can't see the sun after it sets because the angle to it passes through Earth with Earth blocking the view, because Earth is round.

We get it. You live in Northern Ohio.


Thing is, like most woke globalists, you accuse other people of being backward hicks when they've done the exploring.  The only places you ppl go to besides their gated communities or big cities is the occasional island resort where they see the tourist stuff and then head back.

So with your limited experiences, you then claim to be an expert.

Yet, I have to explain things over and over to you, because you simply don't get it.

For one thing, that series of maps you showed? Wrong season entirely. The sun moves from Tropic of Capricorn to Cancer and back again, so from spring to summer, that model isn't even the right latitude. Second, it's more like a series of widening circles. with the most sunlight around the center, then midlight, then faint light. Third, you've never learned was east and west are on a FE map so you continue to draw lines that go across instead of across latitude. Lastly, nobody cares about Ohio. I'm not redrawing a map for a woke globalist to get representation on their northern Ohio town.

Maybe the sun's path is elliptical rather than a perfect circle. That doesn't prove the opposite, that Earth is really traveling that path. It doesn't prove anything, but that you are an entitled sheltered woke globalist who tries to bully other people into accepting your theory.
I don't have to. I can believe what I want, and I only care about explaining my own theory. When people don't get even simple explanations, and it shows from their responses, I get that headache coming on. You know, the one where you're teaching a class to read or do math, and they all turn out to be autistic? Yeah that.

Thing is, like most woke globalists,

Which has nothing to do with…

The sun does shrink, but not always, as you yourself probably "proved" with your Seeing No Shrinkage This Week thread.

If you think the above, then you need too…



Bulma.  Say a live in Norther Ohio.

Draw an overhead flat earth map showing the relative location of Ohio and draw the path of the sun over that flat earth map for march 20th 2025.
[/quote]

Bulma, writing checks they can’t cash.

Third, you've never learned was east and west are on a FE map

Because it doesn’t work on flat earth for what is actually east and west and how those directions are relative to actual land masses. 



The pink arrow on the map off the US East coast should point east to where the sun rises on the equinox.  The relative direction of the pink arrow should point to the coast of Portugal/Spain.  Going the general direction of the pink arrow doesn’t take you to south.  If the earth was flat, traveling any direction would eventually take you to the supposed ice wall. Traveling due east or due west for much of the world does not lead to the Arctic or to the Antarctic.  FE fails at relative direction of land masses to each other as they are known.


  Where the sun on a flat earth would have to rise north / south for large areas of the world where in the equinox the sun rises due east and sets due west.

Yet, I have to explain things over and over to you, because you simply don't get it.

No, you pretend to, because you don't actually explain anything.
Instead, you just keep going back and forth contradicting yourself because your BS doesn't work and you can't use it to explain anything.
Just look at the clear and simple refutation of your parabola which you just entirely ignore because you know you can't refute it and any attempt to address it honestly leaves your parabola being a pile of garbage.

For one thing, that series of maps you showed? Wrong season entirely.

So you are saying that season just doesn't exist?
Yet again, you just reject reality because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy.

The problem shown is that there is no way for the distance on a FE to be a determining factor in seeing the sun, nor anything related to that.
Because in the FE fantasy, regardless of how you are trying to set it up, there are always going to be pairs of locations where the location which is further from the sun can see the sun while the location which is closer cannot.

The simplest example for your broken model with the north pole at the centre, is pretty much any 2 locations with the same longitude, south of the tropics, during the southern summer.

There is no way out of this for a FE.
The best you get is pushing the problem around.
But it works directly without any special pleading or convoluted BS for the RE.

so you continue to draw lines that go across instead of across latitude.

They are drawing straight lines, showing distance and direction.
Are you saying the sun magically knows what east and west is and magically has the light it sends out magically follow that?
If so, you are truly delusional and desperate.

Maybe the sun's path is elliptical rather than a perfect circle.

Still wont help you, and gets you even further from reality.

That doesn't prove the opposite, that Earth is really traveling that path. It doesn't prove anything

It proves your model is wrong.
And again, this is not about which is moving, it is about if Earth is round or flat.
A flat Earth doesn't work. A RE does.

who tries to bully other people into accepting your theory.

Calling out your BS is not bullying you.
If you don't want people to call out your BS, then stop saying it.

I can believe what I want

And we can call it out as the BS that it is.

I only care about explaining my own theory.

No, you don't.
You repeatedly refuse to explain your own delusional BS. And no, it isn't a theory no matter how much you want to pretend it is.

When people don't get even simple explanations

People like you?

Your explanations are not simple.

They rely on special pleading.

No, you pretend to, because you don't actually explain anything.

You literally don't understand my explanations, hence pictures where you talk about how the sun is still in line of sight.

I repeatedly explain what this parabola does, how it's expression of a flat Earth and a sky that is domed because of perspective. You throw around fake pictures of a lowered horizon. I talk about how light works or buoyancy works, and you throw in a bunch or requirements that were literally introduced with Newton. You throw around pictures where the light of the sun goes all "east" and it just feels like I'm talking to a bunch of AI without that deep learning.

Yet, I have to explain things over and over to you, because you simply don't get it.

spectacular

It is spectacular.

I bet that I could walk down the street, and ask a person to track the sun's relative angle from the onlooker from its rise to noon to set, and draw lines outward from a person to the sun, and then draw a semicircle connecting these lines. They would come up with the exact same idea as proposed in the parabola. 
But you, who have delusion showed so far up your ass that it reaches your brain, take a look at that, decide that not the sky but the Earth must be round (and not only round but a sphere!) and the sun cannot simply by passing in and out of sight overhead due to a change in angles, but instead is sitting still while the Earth is spinning around. Yet we have no evidence of this motion and can even stack stones up and expect them the next day to stay put, barring a major wind or rain storm.

Amazing.

no
no one shows this parabloa because you yourself can't draw it.




and buddy, you say "explain over an dover" yet when we say "circle and center", for some reason you add a hump to it and add a universal down that's outside the circle.
that's the sepctacular part
24hour rotation.
angularmoment changing at a rate of 24hours.
say it with me -
at
    a
        rate
             of
                  24
                        hooooooooooooooooours




let's do an experiment
take a lazy susy.
put two stones stacked on top of each other.
spin the lazy susy at a rate of 0.5degree per second.
let me know if the stones tumble over.





moron.