The increase in size is very gradual and takes hundreds or even thousands of years.
So you are saying a tiny sun, that goes into a massive amount of water each night is not significantly increased in size from that?
You were just repeating the globe's explanation of sunrise/sunset because you don't know how to refute my wonderful explanation involving aether.
You don't have an explanation.
You have a pile of vague crap, built upon nothing more than your hopes and dreams, where issues have already been pointed out.
You are yet to provide a coherent explanation which has any chance of working.
And what makes it more ridiculous is you now contradict it.
You previously had it just going under Earth, to rapidly fly to the other side.
But now you want it in water.
It's not magic, it's density.
No, it's pure magic. As you are yet to explain what causes this density, and what holds it there.
Why should water undergo nuclear fusion? Water marks the point at which the density and pressure of the aether begins to become low.
So you are saying when it sets the fusion stops. And then it suddenly starts again when it rises?
Again, you are just layering on more and more magic to have your fantasy do whatever is needed.
It is obvious that aether exists
No, it isn't.
It is obvious it doesn't exist, from the experimental results which are inherently contradictory under a model of aether.
There is no need to invoke it for any phenomenon.
Dismissal of it is an example of Occam's razor.
Look at all the magic you need to invoke to try to prop up your model. Magic you have no evidence for at all.
Vs the vastly simpler RE model with no magic aether at all.
And of course I can justify it, the radical variations in the Sun's orbit for example are necessary to explain the fact that the Sun rises in the east of the Earth shortly after setting in the west of the Earth.
That isn't justifying it. That is further demonstrating how your nonsense violates Occam's razor.
You have a massive problem with the sun setting on your flat Earth, so you need to invent more magical nonsense to try to prop it up.
That is not justifying your nonsense, it is showing your nonsense is likely wrong.
So no, you have nothing to justify it. You have a broken model which requires this nonsense to pretend it works. And even with it you still can't provide a coherent explanation.
The refraction and atmospheric phenomena of the flat Earth work as if the atmosphere were inverted
Considering there is nothing to indicate Earth is flat, and this is now appealing to even more nonsense to further complicate your model, Occam's razor says I should discard it.
And look at what you are doing, you still aren't providing anything to actually justify it.
You have taken the density of the atmosphere, and just multiplied it by 2.
WHY?
Why 2? Why not 1.1? Why not 100000000000000000000000000000000?
You have no basis for any of it.
You don't even have a relationship between the density of the aether and the refractive index of it. That could allow it to be multiplied by 0.000000000000001
And you have no experimental observation or model showing it has to be this number.
You are just baselessly asserting crap.
And to further complicate your crap, you even have your model still have aether as well as the air, which you are just ignoring.
It is a logical assumption
No, it isn't.
It is a completely illogical leap to try to prop up a failing model.
Even appealing to it, you still can't explain anything with it.
You just provide it as vague crap to pretend your model works.
Even your attempts to pretend to justify it rely on more baseless crap.
the Sun's natural speed is probably 20000 km/s
Why? Again, you just baselessly assert this, without any justification at all.
And no, saying it goes the entire diameter of Earth (which would normally be 40 000 km) in a second is not justification.
What magic is making it move? What magic is accelerating it?
How does it just accelerate instantaneously?
What about the distance going from above Earth to below?
The only number you are even close to being able to justify is the 1670 km/hr.
But that is just for the equinox when it is going along the equator, and is the speed of the subsolar point along Earth.
But going away from the equinox, this gets slower.
And this is also where your model falls apart.
You claim the diameter is 20 000 km. And the sun takes 24 hours to traverse above, over that distance.
But 24 hours, at 1670 km/hr is closer to 40 000 km. Where did the extra 20 000 km go?
This calculation is done to find the density of aether by taking the ratio between velocities and multiplying the ratio by the density of aether at sea level.
Which does not explain why.
Again, you are just asserting crap.
Why should the velocity squared be based upon the ratio of the densities?
Why are you using the velocity allegedly in its natural state which presumable would have no aether; but which you have now tried saying is actually water; along with the alleged density of the aether at sea level?
You aren't explaining anything, you aren't justifying anything. You are just providing more baseless crap.
*Your statement about the apparent position of the Sun does not hold up given the fact that beyond the first firmament we have a layer of aether with a density of 4551872770,51 kg/m^3 that refracts light radically.
i.e. your model is wrong so you will assert more nonsense to pretend it isn't.
Again, Occam's razor says all that shuold be discarded.