[herewegoround]

1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.

2. There are circumpolar stars in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Their centres of rotation are always either due North or due South respectively. The stars in between rise and set on the horizon much like the sun does. There is no flat Earth model which can account for this.

3. In the summer in Antarctica the sun is visible 24 hours a day. At the same time it is dark 24 hours a day in the Arctic. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it couldn't possibly be visible at all points around the edge of the disc while not being visible at the centre of the disc.

4. The sun sets. If the sun is following a giant circle above a flat disc it could never be seen to drop to an angle of elevation of less than 0 degrees. Also, its apparent size would change significantly over the course of a day and it would be seen to follow a radically different path in the sky.

5. Ships disappear over the horizon at the exact distance from shore as you would predict them to do if you were standing on a sphere with a radius of 4000 miles. Once they disappear the strongest telescope in the world won't bring them back into view. However, if you climb to higher ground the horizon line moves further away and you can see the ship again. The only explanation for these facts is that the world is round.

6. The curvature of the Earth had to be taken into account when building The Verrazano–Narrows Bridge.

7. The distance from the North Pole to the equator is about 6 200 miles. If the Earth is flat that would mean the equator is a circle with a circumference of 39 000 miles. The equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles. 

8. According to the flat Earth model with The North Pole at the centre; the Tropic of Cancer should have a circumference of about 29 000 miles and the Tropic of Capricorn should have a circumference of about 49 000 miles. They both have a circumference of about 23 000 miles. Coupled with the fact that the equator has a circumference of 25 000 miles, this overwhelmingly suggests that the Earth is a spheroid.

[Pongo]

Did you want us to debate these points or are you simply listing things for the sake of posterity?

[herewegoround]

Did you want us to debate these points or are you simply listing things for the sake of posterity?

Feel free to debate them.

[jroa]

Did you want us to debate these points or are you simply listing things for the sake of posterity?

Feel free to debate them.

Which one?  It is kind of hard to debate a list of invalid and erroneous points all at once. 

[herewegoround]

Did you want us to debate these points or are you simply listing things for the sake of posterity?

Feel free to debate them.

Which one?  It is kind of hard to debate a list of invalid and erroneous points all at once.

I've seen you use this tactic so many times before.

Lets start with number 1.

1. The angular or apparent size of the sun in the sky does not change significantly. It changes slightly over the course of a year but not by any measurable amount over the course of a day. The only explanation for this is that the diameter of the Earth is negligible compared to the distance to the sun. If the sun is a distant object then all the light from it must be parallel. However, the angle of incoming sunlight is known to change gradually over the surface of the Earth: there are time zones. The only explanation for this is that the Earth is round.

[jroa]

But, the size of the sun does change over the day.  I am confused as to whether you actually researched this or you are just repeating something that you may have heard in grade school or you are just making things up and trying to pass it off as a truth.  Could you please enlighten us? 

[herewegoround]

But, the size of the sun does change over the day.  I am confused as to whether you actually researched this or you are just repeating something that you may have heard in grade school or you are just making things up and trying to pass it off as a truth.  Could you please enlighten us?

This is the total epitome of flat Earth dishonesty. There are three main tactics as far as I can tell: invent un-specifiable processes that make the world seem like it's round, make meaningless comments, deny simple and well established facts about the world.

It is an uncontroversial and uncontentious fact that the angular size of the sun does not change significantly over the course of the day. If you happened to be at a place on the Earth were the sun was directly overhead at midday, it would be the exact same size in sky at sunset.

If you are going to debate, there has to be a backdrop of facts that we assume are true since we have no good reason for supposing otherwise. The near constant angular size of the sun is one of those facts. If you want to deny it then the burden of proof is on you. It's a fact widely accepted by pretty much the whole of the human race.

Do you see the sun change size in these videos?





Every single source online simply lists the sun as having an angular diameter of about 0.5°. Nowhere does it say anything about this being dependent on the time of day or the location on Earth.

http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/A/Angular+Diameter

That's one example, there are plenty others.

[jroa]

Are you claiming, like it is a fact, that the sun does not change in size as it circles above us?  You might as well be claiming that there are fairies in the woods behind my house. 

[herewegoround]

Are you claiming, like it is a fact, that the sun does not change in size as it circles above us?  You might as well be claiming that there are fairies in the woods behind my house.

Below there is a link to a page where someone asks an astronomer why it is that the sun seems to look bigger on the horizon than when it is directly overhead. The astronomer clearly states that this is an illusion and that the sun is the same apparent size on the horizon as it is when it is directly overhead.

Are you going to claim that you know more than an astronomer? Or, perhaps you think she's part of a global conspiracy. If you click on her name you are taken to a page where you can read her credentials including a PH.d from Cornell.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/the-sun/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate

If you think she's wrong perhaps you should contact her and let her know, I'm sure she would be most amused to be contacted by a flat Earth proponent.

[herewegoround]

Are you claiming, like it is a fact, that the sun does not change in size as it circles above us?  You might as well be claiming that there are fairies in the woods behind my house.

Here is her email.

kristine.spekkens@rmc.ca

If you think she is wrong I really think you should tell her.

[jroa]

So, let me get this straight.  You are claiming that that one astrologist overrides all of the others who say that the sun does appear to change size as it moves across the sky? 

[herewegoround]

So, let me get this straight.  You are claiming that that one astrologist overrides all of the others who say that the sun does appear to change size as it moves across the sky?

For a start she's an astronomer, not an astrologist. Why don't you contact her and tell her she's wrong, if you have the balls.

You are profoundly dishonest. How can you in all good conscience keep coming back to these forums knowing that you have never once successfully argued the case for the Earth being flat. You know that the sun's apparent size in the sky doesn't change. I have showed you videos, I have shown a statement from a professional astronomer. Your tactics are despicable. You have no integrity or honour whatsoever. I could provide links to you all day and you would deny them. You are supposedly one of the moderators on this forum, you make it even more of a joke than it already is.

Here are some links to other people who say that the angular size of the sun doesn't change, not astronomers, just general people.

http://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-sun-appear-bigger-during-sunrise-and-sunset-and-not-during-the-noon

http://www.askingtoexpert.com/archive/623/is-the-sun-bigger-at-the-equator.html

http://www.answers.com/Q/Why_does_the_sun_look_larger_at_sunset

Ok, I have provided more than enough evidence to back up my claim.

Now, provide some links to places where people argue that the size of the sun does change size over the course of a day.

[Ghost of V]

The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.

[herewegoround]

Lets do some maths.



I would estimate that the sun goes from an angle of elevation of about 10° to and angle of elevation of at least 30°. If you don't agree with these estimates tell me yours.

For flat Earth theory to account for the change in angle of incidence of sunlight over the surface of the Earth, the sun has to be about 4000 miles directly above a point on the Earth.

If the sun is at an angle of elevation of x° then its distance is given by 4000/sin x°. I can show this more fully if you want, it's basic trigonometry.

At an angle of elevation of 10° the sun is at a distance of about 23 000 miles.

At an angle of elevation of 30° the sun is at a distance of about 8 000 miles.

23 000 ÷ 8000 = 2.9 to 1 d.p.

This means that if the sun is 4000 miles above a flat Earth it is 2.9 times further away at the start of this video than at the end. For small angular sizes the relationship between distance and angular size is close to being inversely proportional. We should expect than the sun looks 2.9 times bigger at the end of this video than it does it the start.

Even if my estimates are out you by quite a bit you would still be looking at a noticeable change in angular size. The size of the sun doesn't change at all over the course of this video.

[herewegoround]

The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.

If the Earth was flat we would notice it change by a significant amount. It would also follow a totally different path across the sky.

[Ghost of V]

The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.

If the Earth was flat we would notice it change by a significant amount. It would also follow a totally different path across the sky.

Why? You clearly do not know much about FET. Our FAQs and Wiki answers all these questions satisfactorily.

[herewegoround]

The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.

If the Earth was flat we would notice it change by a significant amount. It would also follow a totally different path across the sky.

Why? You clearly do not know much about FET. Our FAQs and Wiki answers all these questions satisfactorily.

I'm always being told by flat Earth proponents that questions have already been answered somewhere else. I can never find these answers when I go to look for them. I have shown that I have a full grasp of the standard flat Earth model. The circular Earth with the North pole at the centre and Antarctica forming an ice wall around the rim. In the reasons for the Earth being round I give above I show clearly that this model fails at every hurdle. It can't account for the angular size of the sun. The distance from the North pole to equator and the circumference of the Equator don't fit. The circumference of the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn don't fit. It can't explain how the sun sets. It's not just a bad model, it is catastrophically wrong.

[jroa]

We do have a search engine that you are free to exploit or use as you wish to prove your round Earth theory. 

[Ghost of V]

The Sun does change size during the day. It is a very small (almost unnoticeable) change, but it's apparent if you observe it closely and do the math.

If the Earth was flat we would notice it change by a significant amount. It would also follow a totally different path across the sky.

Why? You clearly do not know much about FET. Our FAQs and Wiki answers all these questions satisfactorily.

I'm always being told by flat Earth proponents that questions have already been answered somewhere else. I can never find these answers when I go to look for them. I have shown that I have a full grasp of the standard flat Earth model. The circular Earth with the North pole at the centre and Antarctica forming an ice wall around the rim. In the reasons for the Earth being round I give above I show clearly that this model fails at every hurdle. It can't account for the angular size of the sun. The distance from the North pole to equator and the circumference of the Equator don't fit. The circumference of the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn don't fit. It can't explain how the sun sets. It's not just a bad model, it is catastrophically wrong.

Most size discrepancies, especially the ones you are describing, are caused by light passing through the aetheric whirlpool which causes a bending effect. Perspective is also a very important concept as well, and it's something you seem to have a hard time understanding.

[herewegoround]

We do have a search engine that you are free to exploit or use as you wish to prove your round Earth theory.

So you have nothing more to say on this matter.