[Pete Svarrior]

So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.

No, you didn't get it at all. Again with making shit up instead of observing. I'm gonna give you one more chance, but then I'll stop wasting my time with you. If you're genuinely more interested in what you think FET is than actually reading up on it, then so be it, although I have to say I don't understand why you'd come to this website then.

If you want to use the quantitative definition, then why don't you go one step further and calculate the opacity of the atmoplane and tell us at what distance the opacity becomes enough to cause the appearance of the horizon?

Presumably because I have no access to appropriate laboratory equipment, nor the funds to procure it. I dunno. It could also be because we already know that the horizon typically varies somewhere between 4 and 20 miles depending on atmolayer density at a given place thanks to empirical observation, so chemical testing is quite unnecessary.

You see, markjo, some of us don't like to waste time on performing laborious and expensive tasks which don't need doing, just for the heck of it.

[frisbee]

So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.

No, you didn't get it at all. Again with making shit up instead of observing. I'm gonna give you one more chance, but then I'll stop wasting my time with you. If you're genuinely more interested in what you think FET is than actually reading up on it, then so be it, although I have to say I don't understand why you'd come to this website then.

So you can't be troubled with experiments, and you can't be troubled to explain your FE model and you can't be bothered to provide a link where it is explained somewhere since surely I am not the first person to notice that a sun moving over the surface of the earth at an altitude of 3,000 miles is going to change apparent size to an observer at the surface. Why do you run this website?

[markjo]

If you want to use the quantitative definition, then why don't you go one step further and calculate the opacity of the atmoplane and tell us at what distance the opacity becomes enough to cause the appearance of the horizon?

Presumably because I have no access to appropriate laboratory equipment, nor the funds to procure it. I dunno. It could also be because we already know that the horizon typically varies somewhere between 4 and 20 miles depending on atmolayer density at a given place thanks to empirical observation, so chemical testing is quite unnecessary.

You see, markjo, some of us don't like to waste time on performing laborious and expensive tasks which don't need doing, just for the heck of it.

In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence.  Good to know.

[Pete Svarrior]

So you can't be troubled with experiments

I am, I'm still awaiting your results!

and you can't be troubled to explain your FE model and you can't be bothered to provide a link where it is explained somewhere since surely I am not the first person to notice that a sun moving over the surface of the earth at an altitude of 3,000 miles is going to change apparent size to an observer at the surface.

Yeah, we have a search function for a reason. I caved in once when, in your splendid genius, you failed to find an Announcements thread despite the fact that it was plastered right on the front page. You've used up your goo-goo-ga-ga-baby-hand-holding quota for the next couple of decades.

Why do you run this website?

...I don't.

Also, me thinking you're a waste of everyone's time (and thus treating you with very little patience) doesn't negate my contributions here. You just happen not to benefit much from them, largely due to your sense of entitlement and avoidance of doing any research whatsoever.

Also, that was your last chance, and yet again you responded to something that has nothing to do with what I originally said. Since you ignore my responses and make up your own, I'm gonna skip the middleman and stop responding to you until you've shown some willingness to discuss.

In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence.

I presented evidence. You're just butthurt because my evidence is empirical and doesn't require me to save up tens of thousands of dollars to perform. Your request is the equivalent of asking a guy to perform a series of chemical tests to prove that a wooden chair is not, in fact, made entirely of iron. My answer is the equivalent of grabbing a magnet, applying it to the chair and pointing out that it didn't stick to it. You then throw a tantrum and claim that evidence isn't evidence unless it follows your exact arbitrary demands.

Also, wow, you really need to work on your paraphrasing. How did you make it into your tender age without learning this simple skill?

[frisbee]

In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence.  Good to know.

Flat earthers mistakenly think that if they have collected data that is consistent with their hypothesis, then they have collected data that confirms their hypothesis. What they don't understand apparently is the idea of falsification. A sun that remains the same apparent size in the sky for all observers falsifies the flat earth model, end of story.

Making up hypothetical atmostuff which is unevidenced is the same thing as apologetics and is engaged in by those who make the mistake in their thinking of starting off with the conclusion and then shoehorning the data to force fit their preconceived world view. Since they started off with the answer they can never be moved from it.

[markjo]

In other words, you don't feel the need to support your assertions with evidence.

I presented evidence. You're just butthurt because my evidence is empirical and doesn't require me to save up tens of thousands of dollars to perform.

Why would you need tens of thousands of dollars to plug a few values into an equation that you found on Wikipedia?

Your request is the equivalent of asking a guy to perform a series of chemical tests to prove that a wooden chair is not, in fact, made entirely of iron.

Huh?  Where did you get that idea?

You then throw a tantrum and claim that evidence isn't evidence unless it follows your exact arbitrary demands.

Tantrum?  If you say so.

[geckothegeek]

IMHO the main problem with FE's is that the only authority on any subject is only themselves and they would never go to an observatory or some specialist in some field connected with the earth or space for answers. Those of thus in the real world aren't afraid to do so. That is why things keep running in the real RE world. We know where to go for help.

[Pete Svarrior]

A sun that remains the same apparent size in the sky for all observers falsifies the flat earth model, end of story.

lol

Making up hypothetical atmostuff which is unevidenced is the same thing as apologetics and is engaged in by those who make the mistake in their thinking of starting off with the conclusion and then shoehorning the data to force fit their preconceived world view. Since they started off with the answer they can never be moved from it.

This describes your entire posting career here thus far.

Why would you need tens of thousands of dollars to plug a few values into an equation that you found on Wikipedia?

To find the values so that I can plug them into the equation, for starters.

[geckothegeek]

So you have no explanation for why the apparent size of the sun in FE remains the same wherever it is above the flat earth. Got it. Thanks.

No, you didn't get it at all. Again with making shit up instead of observing. I'm gonna give you one more chance, but then I'll stop wasting my time with you. If you're genuinely more interested in what you think FET is than actually reading up on it, then so be it, although I have to say I don't understand why you'd come to this website then.

If you want to use the quantitative definition, then why don't you go one step further and calculate the opacity of the atmoplane and tell us at what distance the opacity becomes enough to cause the appearance of the horizon?

Presumably because I have no access to appropriate laboratory equipment, nor the funds to procure it. I dunno. It could also be because we already know that the horizon typically varies somewhere between 4 and 20 miles depending on atmolayer density at a given place thanks to empirical observation, so chemical testing is quite unnecessary.

You see, markjo, some of us don't like to waste time on performing laborious and expensive tasks which don't need doing, just for the heck of it.

One FE notion is that the horizon fades away at an infinite distance. Why do you say "It varies somewhere between 4 and 20 miles depending on atmolayer density at a given place thanks to empirical observation, so chemical testing is quite unnecessary."

Huh ? Where did you get that idea ?

This is sheer nonsense. The horizon is simply a well defined line where earth (or sea) meet the sky and the distance to the horizon can be determined by a simple formula depending on the height of the observer.

This topic seems to have gotten a little off the original subject: "The Sun Is A Spotlight" ?