He rightly understands that attacking people because their life is supposedly a failure is a sure sign that you are looking around for someone whose life sucks worse than yours. He does however mention him in this video. "He's not really a professor. Cool story, though, bro." I also like when he says Dave is "uniquely well qualified in the subject" of sucking.
And then proceeds to attack people. Great example.
See this is why having honest discussion with round Earthers never gets anywhere. This is what's called "moving the goalposts."
So honest discussions with round Earthers never get anywhere because FEers move the goalposts.
Quite understandable given they cannot address the issue being raised, so the deflect to something they find simpler.
Just what do you think you explained?
There a few quite key attributes to seasons.
The most common key parts is how summer is hot and has more than 12 hours of daylight while winter is cold and has less than 12 hours; and the further away you go from the equator, the more that difference from 12. i.e. the further away from the equator the more extreme the seasons.
So those attributes you flee from are key to explaining seasons.
If you don't address them you are not explaining seasons.
Instead you providing vague handwavy BS which explains NOTHING.
You not caring about it doesn't mean you have explained seasons.
So can you explain seasons? NO!
Perspective can't make something sink without making it shrink.
Uhhh, yeah? It can?
No, it can't, because the 2 are intrinsically tied together.
The simplest way to understand perspective is that everything gets scaled down.
This causes the object to appear to shrink, but it also causes the distance between the object and level to appear to shrink making it appear to sink.
This can even be shown geometrically, with either the equations or a simple diagram, which has already been provided to you.
If you want to say no, you need more than just your assertion.
But viewing the same plane fly across the sky as you face straight ahead, rather than staring at it, it will appear to rise and fall instead of growing and shrinking.
So you mean as it flies roughly perpendicular to the line from it to you? Where it is changing angle, NOT based upon perspective but based upon changing position?
Even then, because it isn't flying perfectly perpendicular, it still grows and shrinks, just less.
Do you have any pictures or videos to support your claim?
More importantly, how does this help you at all, given the sun sets when in your model you are basically looking at it as it moves away rather than it going overhead.
You've been asking it over and over again. "Why can't this work?" It's beginning to feel less like an honest question, and more like a cry of frustration.
In the other thread, for a different issue.
Here instead you were asked to explain how it works for a FE model, and instead you deflect to lying about the RE model to pretend the RE model can't.
On the obverse side of where the three lights hit, each time, there is a light of the opposite color.
Which is from the 2 other lights.
Again, you get the exact same result without that obstruction just by turning off the light.
This is NOT a magical colour inversion.
Try it with just a single red light, it doesn't work.
As I explained before, you don't see the cyan because the shadow magically inverts the red light. You see the cyan because the blue and green lights are still shining into the shadow of the red light.
Again, you are setting up a complete strawman, lying to everyone, to pretend the RE can't work, with such trivial BS it isn't funny.
So I'll ask you again, in the RE model, what are these 3 lights meant to be?
Clearly describe each of them.
See if you can honestly answer that direct question.
Or see if you can actually be honest for once in your life and admit your argument was pure BS based upon a wilful misrepresentation of the RE model.
Your eclipse should have all kinds of light distortions on the hemisphere opposite the eclipse (there are two lights, not one; the sun and the other one eclipsing it)
No, that would be YOUR model.
YOU are the one claiming the moon is magically its own light.
In reality, the moon is NOT a light.
Instead, it merely reflects the light of the sun (unless you want to try looking at it in the IR region).
So that would be what we would expect in YOUR BS.
But even then, it still doesn't match. Instead of having 3 lights off at angles, you have 2 lights, in line with each other.
but there are not. In other words...
you are spouting pure BS, setting up pathetic strawmen to pretend the RE model doesn't work, because you cannot explain how it works in the FE model, and can't show any actual fault with the RE model.
And if the sky is red at sunset, in the opposite hemisphere, it should be green.
Repeating the same BS wont help you.
Again, WHERE ARE THE BLUE AND GREEN LIGHTS?
NO WHERE!
Instead, what you have is the sun appear red because the blue light gets scattered away.
You also don't even bother looking at what your actual picture shows, and instead appeal to a crappy colour which doesn't match.
Do you understand the difference between additive and subtractive colour mixing?
You are a known conman.
Really?
Because there have already been plenty of times where I have demonstrated your prophet is lying, yet you can't show a single instance from me.
Regardless, the point remains. Your lying conman saying something is worthless.
Yes. Because I have never seen the sort of color inversion described by the three lights, I can safely conclude that I instead seeing light hit a flat plane.
And if you were capable of reasoning, you would instead recognise that this means we are not illuminated by three different coloured lights.
But thanks for once again showing you either are incapable of reasoning, or just choose not to reason.
This BS does NOTHING to show it can't happen on a RE.
And I find it quite hard to believe that you could actually be stupid enough to believe the BS you are saying could actually represent a RE.
Again, WHAT ARE THE THREE LIGHTS?
Can you honestly answer that? If not, can honestly admit your argument is pure BS that does nothing to show any fault with the RE?
If not, you are just lying to everyone, and you demonstrate you are knowingly and wilfully lying.
But of course, your reasons that Earth is a sphere are perfectly thought out, and leave no doubt in the minds of others.
No. There will always be people like you that will reject reality and have doubts.
But the RE model is vastly more fleshed out than your nonsense, and is actually capable of explaining things, including the exact location of the shadows during the eclipse and the path it takes; and things like seasons with the different length in daylight hours; as well as things like the expected location of the sun in the sky from the model and simple geometry.