Strawberry moon occurs about 49 years period. Astronoms say that it is occuring by 70 years period.
The last Strawberry moon occured on 21 June 2016
Before one Strawberry moon occurred on 21 June 1967, it means 49 years.
Popular scies calculating the next strawberry moon will occur on 21 june 2062. it means 46 years.
They are calculating and saying a date that wrong.
Therewithal popular scies can't explain why the strawberry moon occurs. They just calculating the time just by looking the occuring time periods. Popular science has no any real reason for strawberry moon occurs.
So the orbit of the moon is wrong. because the orbital system is completely wrong and fake. The scientists are liar and cheater.
This cracks me up, because I came to TFES this morning to present the Strawberry Moon as evidence FOR the round earth! And to share the below photo, which I found at space.com (of course) It's a shame Intikam won't see it, it's some eye candy!I reduced you picture size otherwise my little bit might be overshadowed by you beautiful picture - and we can't have that!(http://www.space.com/images/i/000/056/377/original/fullmoonmultiple.JPG?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:1400)
First, notice how crisp the detail is across the moon's disk. How un-glare-like it is. This goes against one of Tom Bishop's favorite optical theories, how "glare" can supposedly explain the apparent size of sun and moon remaining the same despite large differences in distance between object and observer.
Second, notice the distortion of the moon's shape as it nears the horizon. It flattens out slightly. This is in opposition to another FE optical theory which is meant to explain how the sun and moon 'appear' to set while actually remaining some 3000 miles above the flat earth. We are told that as the light's path length increases, the light bends, appearing to emanate from a location lower than the true location, until finally that light hits the ground instead of reaching our eyes and viola, sunset! While RE acknowledge that refraction is a real thing (and indeed, explains the flattening effect seen here) we do not agree that it can do what FE claims it can. This photo, and uncounted others online, show why: in the FE bendy light optical model, light bends not at all (or at least very little) when coming straight down, and bends up (making the object appear lower) by more and more as the angle approaches the horizontal. From this it follows that as the object appears to near the horizon, the bendy light effect gets stronger and stronger. If a differential of this effect can be seen in a small angular span, such as the diameter of the moon's disc, then the moon's disk would show a stretching top to bottom of the moon's apparent shape instead of the compression we see here.
Are you saying astronomers are lying and not lying at the same time?
They are accurately predicting when the next will occur, but lying how often it happens?
How are they predicting when it happens? There seems to be a 3 year difference in what you pointed out. How are they aware of that difference in advance without a working model?
I also assume you know about what an average is. So if we have an event that happens on a average of every 70 years does not mean it happens every 70 years. There will be times when the duration between the event occurring will be shorter or longer than that.
This cracks me up, because I came to TFES this morning to present the Strawberry Moon as evidence FOR the round earth! And to share the below photo, which I found at space.com (of course) It's a shame Intikam won't see it, it's some eye candy!That surely is a beautiful photo Rounder.
(http://www.space.com/images/i/000/056/377/original/fullmoonmultiple.JPG?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:400)
I thought I carefully explained it in: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon ! « Reply #3 on: June 22, 2016, 01:03:47 PM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5128.msg99501#msg99501).Are you saying astronomers are lying and not lying at the same time?
They are accurately predicting when the next will occur, but lying how often it happens?
How are they predicting when it happens? There seems to be a 3 year difference in what you pointed out. How are they aware of that difference in advance without a working model?
I also assume you know about what an average is. So if we have an event that happens on a average of every 70 years does not mean it happens every 70 years. There will be times when the duration between the event occurring will be shorter or longer than that.
If is it a right model, then It should not be surprises like this. If astronomers are saying 70 years period, then it must be 70; if astronomers are saying 49 years, then it must be 49 years. this is how science. This is not science , it's a fallacy . such as coffee fortune .
I thought I carefully explained it in: Round Earth Debunk: Strawberry moon ! « Reply #3 on: June 22, 2016, 01:03:47 PM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5128.msg99501#msg99501).Are you saying astronomers are lying and not lying at the same time?
They are accurately predicting when the next will occur, but lying how often it happens?
How are they predicting when it happens? There seems to be a 3 year difference in what you pointed out. How are they aware of that difference in advance without a working model?
I also assume you know about what an average is. So if we have an event that happens on a average of every 70 years does not mean it happens every 70 years. There will be times when the duration between the event occurring will be shorter or longer than that.
If is it a right model, then It should not be surprises like this. If astronomers are saying 70 years period, then it must be 70; if astronomers are saying 49 years, then it must be 49 years. this is how science. This is not science , it's a fallacy . such as coffee fortune .
Don't blame if you won't read it and so make a fool of yourself!
While we are on the topic, please explain how you predict "Strawberry or even Blood" moons in your "Flat Earth Astronomy"?
If you can't do that you are a hypocrite and have no right to criticise.
But, you have not yet shown where these astronomers have claimed a 70 years period. In fact it is meaningless to claim a fixed period because some countries can have this "Strawberry moon", while other do not.But it is useless correcting İntikam,he never accepts correction. But I am quite happy if TFES swallow all this rubbish.
It will guarantee that the Flat Earth idea never get wide acceptance.
Strawberry moon occurs about 49 years period. Astronoms say that it is occuring by 70 years period.
The last Strawberry moon occured on 21 June 2016
Before one Strawberry moon occurred on 21 June 1967, it means 49 years.
Popular scies calculating the next strawberry moon will occur on 21 june 2062. it means 46 years.
They are calculating and saying a date that wrong.
Therewithal popular scies can't explain why the strawberry moon occurs. They just calculating the time just by looking the occuring time periods. Popular science has no any real reason for strawberry moon occurs.
So the orbit of the moon is wrong. because the orbital system is completely wrong and fake. The scientists are liar and cheater.
Strawberry moon occurs about 49 years period. Astronoms say that it is occuring by 70 years period.
The last Strawberry moon occured on 21 June 2016
Before one Strawberry moon occurred on 21 June 1967, it means 49 years.
Popular scies calculating the next strawberry moon will occur on 21 june 2062. it means 46 years.
They are calculating and saying a date that wrong.
Therewithal popular scies can't explain why the strawberry moon occurs. They just calculating the time just by looking the occuring time periods. Popular science has no any real reason for strawberry moon occurs.
So the orbit of the moon is wrong. because the orbital system is completely wrong and fake. The scientists are liar and cheater.
And as usual blaming "popular science".Strawberry moon occurs about 49 years period. Astronoms say that it is occuring by 70 years period.
The last Strawberry moon occured on 21 June 2016
Before one Strawberry moon occurred on 21 June 1967, it means 49 years.
Popular scies calculating the next strawberry moon will occur on 21 june 2062. it means 46 years.
They are calculating and saying a date that wrong.
Therewithal popular scies can't explain why the strawberry moon occurs. They just calculating the time just by looking the occuring time periods. Popular science has no any real reason for strawberry moon occurs.
So the orbit of the moon is wrong. because the orbital system is completely wrong and fake. The scientists are liar and cheater.
The full moon (regardless of arbitrary cultural name such as strawberry moon) and the summer solstice coincide approximately every 70 years.
You are the liar and cheater in that you are attempting to twist what you've read and make it fit your argument.
This cracks me up, because I came to TFES this morning to present the Strawberry Moon as evidence FOR the round earth! And to share the below photo, which I found at space.com (of course) It's a shame Intikam won't see it, it's some eye candy!That surely is a beautiful photo Rounder.
(http://www.space.com/images/i/000/056/377/original/fullmoonmultiple.JPG?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:400)
Really makes you wonder how on a flat earth the moon can stay so well defined as it moves around in a circular path about the north pole.
Certainly the moon would never "set" as a near perfect circle, but appear more of an elipse.
This cracks me up, because I came to TFES this morning to present the Strawberry Moon as evidence FOR the round earth! And to share the below photo, which I found at space.com (of course) It's a shame Intikam won't see it, it's some eye candy!That surely is a beautiful photo Rounder.
(http://www.space.com/images/i/000/056/377/original/fullmoonmultiple.JPG?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=*:400)
Really makes you wonder how on a flat earth the moon can stay so well defined as it moves around in a circular path about the north pole.
Certainly the moon would never "set" as a near perfect circle, but appear more of an elipse.
Interesting how it clearly changes shape and size though
(http://i.imgur.com/vwbkfie.jpg)
I don't know, I'd say, about this much.
Ah, refraction. The answer to all life's mysteries.
(http://i.imgur.com/vwbkfie.jpg)
I don't know, I'd say, about this much.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/0%20-%2020160522%2017.43%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%202.3deg%20Az%20107.5deg%20%20size%20%200.56deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpslpzftoem.jpg) (0) Date: May 22, 2016 at 17:43 EAST Moon at Alt 2.3°, Az 107.5°, size 0.56° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/1%20-%2020160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%206.3deg%20Az%20107.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zps8g34x270.jpg) (1) Date: May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST Moon at Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°, size 0.52° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/2%20-%2020160524%2020.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2014.5deg%20Az%20103.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpssss1ohoj.jpg) (2) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:16 EAST Moon at Alt 14.5°, Az 103.6°, size 0.52° |
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/3%20-%2020160524%2020.57%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2023.1deg%20Az%20%2099.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpshbqyfysf.jpg) (3) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST Moon at Alt 23.1°, Az 99.6°, size 0.52° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/4%20-%2020160525%2006.46%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2026.5deg%20Az%20%20262.1deg%20%20size%20%200.50deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsy5uinntn.jpg) (4) Date: May 25, 2016 at 06:46 EAST Moon at Alt 26.5°, Az 262.1°, size 0.50° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/5%20-%2020160524%2022.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2037.8deg%20Az%20%2092.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsvmxdyqpf.jpg) (5) Date: May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST Moon at Alt 37.8°, Az 92.7°, size 0.52° |
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/6%20-%2020160621%2023.12%20-%20Strawberry%20Moon1%20-%20at%20Alt%2067.1deg%20Azm%2070.8deg%20%20size%20%200.53deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpslc6ljuso.jpg) (6)Date: June 21, 2016 at 23:12 EAST Strawberry Moon+1 at Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°, size 0.53° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/7%20-%2020160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpspbya911q.jpg) (7) Date: May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°, size 0.52° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/8%20-%2020160620%2023.38%20-%20Strawberry%20Full%20Moon%20-%20at%20Alt%2080.2deg%20Azm%2023.4deg%20%20size%20%200.52xdeg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsqs5mb5gp.jpg) (8)Date: June 20, 2016 at 23:38 EAST Strawberry Full Moon - at Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°, size 0.52x° |
The truth is on here's measurements is a really good demonstration of the FE method in practice.
Made a very imprecise measurement.
Someone demonstrates a more precise method and shows where the method used by the FE'er is flawed.
More precise method show the size does not appear to change.
The one image that does appear to change size fits with what is known about refraction.
Rebuttal is to question something very well known and documented and not acknowledge the moon in the picture does not appear to change size.
This is how a person continues to believe the Earth is flat.
(http://i.imgur.com/vwbkfie.jpg)
I don't know, I'd say, about this much.
First of all, you were super imprecise with your "outline" of the lower moon.
1. Use a thinner line, so you can be more precise.
2. Don't fill it in with a green color. The filled in color just hides the lack of precision.
Second of all, you chose a moon that was partially behind the horizon. A significant chunk of the bottom is being obscured. And yet you still outlined it with an ellipse...
I cut out the bottom moon and overlayed it directly over the top one. This shows how imprecise you were.
(http://i.imgur.com/pzh9D4C.png)
Notice several discrepancies between the overlay and the moon below it:
1. Bottom: The moon is partially obscured by the horizon, obviously.
2. Top right: The moon is partially obscured by the moon above it, obviously.
3. Bottom right: Here is where the shape does actually change slightly. This is an expected result of refraction very near to the horizon.
Or, if you prefer a table of measurements:
I labelled the moons 1 (bottom) to 8 (top). If there is a dash (-), it means that diameter was partially obscured, so I couldn't measure it.
moon horizontal diameter vertical diameter
1 - -
2 59 pixels -
3 59 pixels 53 pixels
4 59 pixels 55 pixels
5 60 pixels 55 pixels
6 59 pixels 56 pixels
7 59 pixels 55 pixels
8 59 pixels -
Remarkably consistent! The only outlier is #3. It's vertical diameter is slightly less than the others. This is consistent with what we expect from refraction: the size in the vertical direction will appear slightly smaller. (i.e. it will appear slightly squashed). #2 would also probably have a smaller vertical diameter, but since it is partially behind the horizon, we can't precisely measure it.
The truth is on here's measurements is a really good demonstration of the FE method in practice.
Made a very imprecise measurement.
Someone demonstrates a more precise method and shows where the method used by the FE'er is flawed.
More precise method show the size does not appear to change.
The one image that does appear to change size fits with what is known about refraction.
Rebuttal is to question something very well known and documented and not acknowledge the moon in the picture does not appear to change size.
This is how a person continues to believe the Earth is flat.
Are you fucking kidding me? It wasn't intended to be a "precise" measurement because, quite literally, you can see without it that the moon appears flattened closer to the horizon.
That is an apparent change in size.
My measurement wasn't intended to be precise, nor was it imprecise, just because CertainlyARepshillian projected disingenuous doubt on my method you willfully surrender all of your own logical faculties and agree with him.
I swear some of you are the embodiment of see no evil.
Can't you ever accept a plain simple fact!
Are we to assume that the moon is actually flat where it meets the horizon? Is that what you're saying, that it was illogical to project the ellipse to the part obscured by the horizon? Anyone can do it themselves, in photoshop. My measurement wasn't imprecise, it was a simple illustration meant to draw attention to something that no one was acknowledging. The moon changed in apparent size through the night.
I didn't think appropriate to spam the forum with endless tables and rows of numbers as those who wish to obfuscate do. You can clearly see that the vertical and the horizontal are distorted, disproportionately, when the moon is in different positions in the sky. You can feign ignorance if you'd like but I'm amazed at how well you have been convincing people to doubt their own eyes and minds.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/0%20-%2020160522%2017.43%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%202.3deg%20Az%20107.5deg%20%20size%20%200.56deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpslpzftoem.jpg) (0) Date: May 22, 2016 at 17:43 EAST Moon at Alt 2.3°, Az 107.5°, size 0.56° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/1%20-%2020160524%2019.36%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%206.3deg%20Az%20107.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zps8g34x270.jpg) (1) Date: May 24, 2016 19:36 EAST Moon at Alt 6.3°, Az 107.7°, size 0.52° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/2%20-%2020160524%2020.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2014.5deg%20Az%20103.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpssss1ohoj.jpg) (2) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:16 EAST Moon at Alt 14.5°, Az 103.6°, size 0.52° |
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/3%20-%2020160524%2020.57%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2023.1deg%20Az%20%2099.6deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpshbqyfysf.jpg) (3) Date: May 24, 2016 at 20:57 EAST Moon at Alt 23.1°, Az 99.6°, size 0.52° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/4%20-%2020160525%2006.46%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2026.5deg%20Az%20%20262.1deg%20%20size%20%200.50deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsy5uinntn.jpg) (4) Date: May 25, 2016 at 06:46 EAST Moon at Alt 26.5°, Az 262.1°, size 0.50° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/5%20-%2020160524%2022.16%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2037.8deg%20Az%20%2092.7deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsvmxdyqpf.jpg) (5) Date: May 24, 2016 at 22:16 EAST Moon at Alt 37.8°, Az 92.7°, size 0.52° |
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/6%20-%2020160621%2023.12%20-%20Strawberry%20Moon1%20-%20at%20Alt%2067.1deg%20Azm%2070.8deg%20%20size%20%200.53deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpslc6ljuso.jpg) (6)Date: June 21, 2016 at 23:12 EAST Strawberry Moon+1 at Alt 67.1°, Azm 70.8°, size 0.53° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/7%20-%2020160519%2022-08%20-%20Moon%20at%20Alt%2071.5deg%20Azm%200.1deg%20%20size%20%200.52deg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpspbya911q.jpg) (7) Date: May 19, 2016 at 22:08 EAST Moon at Alt 71.5°, Azm 0.1°, size 0.52° | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Moon%20Size/8%20-%2020160620%2023.38%20-%20Strawberry%20Full%20Moon%20-%20at%20Alt%2080.2deg%20Azm%2023.4deg%20%20size%20%200.52xdeg%20at%20-%201600mm_zpsqs5mb5gp.jpg) (8)Date: June 20, 2016 at 23:38 EAST Strawberry Full Moon - at Alt 80.2°, Azm 23.4°, size 0.52x° |
Does the moon change apparent size and shape or not. That's the only question. That's the only thing we're debating right now.
Does it, or doesn't it. Not whether or not it is a neglible amount or not. I didn't pull no tricks woody. I made an ellipse same size as the moon appearing mostly over the horizon, then duplicated that ellipse to the furthest away, mostly complete moon. Feel free to do it yourself. Be careful to pick 1px stroke instead of 2px though, unless you want to be called a hack lol...
So, does it, or doesn't it appear smaller and distorted near the horizon?
Ah, refraction. The answer to all life's mysteries.It is pretty obvious. Notice the shoreline structures and landslide
Measuring pixels in Photoshop is far from scientific. Slight != Non existent.
You said the moon appears bigger at the horizon. This photograph proves otherwise. One is an optical illusion and, if this photo is authentic, one is reality.
I'm not trying to argue. But don't yall say something doesn't appear to change in size then when proven it does, back track into a flurry of extra curricular bullshit
Does the moon change apparent size and shape or not. That's the only question. That's the only thing we're debating right now.
Does it, or doesn't it. Not whether or not it is a neglible amount or not. I didn't pull no tricks woody. I made an ellipse same size as the moon appearing mostly over the horizon, then duplicated that ellipse to the furthest away, mostly complete moon. Feel free to do it yourself. Be careful to pick 1px stroke instead of 2px though, unless you want to be called a hack lol...
So, does it, or doesn't it appear smaller and distorted near the horizon?
Does the moon change apparent size and shape or not. That's the only question. That's the only thing we're debating right now.
Does it, or doesn't it. Not whether or not it is a neglible amount or not. I didn't pull no tricks woody. I made an ellipse same size as the moon appearing mostly over the horizon, then duplicated that ellipse to the furthest away, mostly complete moon. Feel free to do it yourself. Be careful to pick 1px stroke instead of 2px though, unless you want to be called a hack lol...
So, does it, or doesn't it appear smaller and distorted near the horizon?
Are you fucking kidding me? It wasn't intended to be a "precise" measurement because, quite literally, you can see without it that the moon appears flattened closer to the horizon.
Are we to assume that the moon is actually flat where it meets the horizon? Is that what you're saying, that it was illogical to project the ellipse to the part obscured by the horizon?
I am guessing totes has access to a program better than something like MS paint.
Stop stupid nit-picking! According the "Flat Earth Theory" the size should change massively - by a factor of around THREE depending on the location of the observer!
But this change should be gradual over the whole night and not restricted to just at moonrise or moonset.
On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.
What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?
On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?
On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?
I calculated 50% based on a 4000 mile equatorial radius, and 3000 mile height of the moon. Since flat earthers can't even present a map to test, that's the best I can do.
The distance to the moon when it is directly overhead is 3000 miles (obviously).
Six hours later when it is about to set, it is:
sqrt(40002 + 40002 + 30002) = 6400 miles away.
A little over twice the distance, which should result in it appearing about half the size. Technically it doesn't completely prove that the earth isn't flat. However, it does prove that the moon is much farther away than 3000 miles, which is a rather vital part of the "flat earth theory".
I've never seen any flat earth theory proponent say that the moon, or the sun should look half the size when they set.
EDIT:
I also stand by my original illustration and outline of the moon, btw.
I've never seen any flat earth theory proponent say that the moon, or the sun should look half the size when they set.
I also stand by my original illustration and outline of the moon, btw.
Well try it with a 6,250 mile (10,000 km) equatorial radius.On the other hand, the flat earth theory predicts a much more noticeable change is size, if the moon is indeed moving away from us: 50% decrease in both width and height between 6pm and midnight near the equator. This clearly doesn't happen. Flat earth theory is wrong. Sorry.What part of flat earth theory makes that prediction?
I calculated 50% based on a 4000 mile equatorial radius, and 3000 mile height of the moon. Since flat earthers can't even present a map to test, that's the best I can do.
The distance to the moon when it is directly overhead is 3000 miles (obviously).
Six hours later when it is about to set, it is:
sqrt(40002 + 40002 + 30002) = 6400 miles away.
A little over twice the distance, which should result in it appearing about half the size. Technically it doesn't completely prove that the earth isn't flat. However, it does prove that the moon is much farther away than 3000 miles, which is a rather vital part of the "flat earth theory".
I've never seen any flat earth theory proponent say that the moon, or the sun should look half the size when they set.
EDIT:
I also stand by my original illustration and outline of the moon, btw.
Magnification and ShrinkingShall I go on?
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A: The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.