[MCToon]

I published a video last week examining the claimed "most comprehensive flat earth sunset explanation".  The video I reviewed simply said that perspective was the main cause of sunsets.  Then offered refraction as the second cause.

I analyzed these claims and found they didn't explain sunsets at all.  I did the math for perspective and concluded that perspective demands that the sun could never get close to the horizon.

I examined the effects of refraction, which cause things to appear slightly higher, not lower.

In the comments of my video, several flat earthers were angry at me and declared that I just didn't understand flat earth.

I don't want to misrepresent the flat earth position. So I come to you, dear flat earthers, looking for the correct explanation for flat earth sunsets. 

Since I have already done the math for perspective, there is no need to just say "perspective".  Instead, please provide the full geometry-based method to properly explain how the sun appears to cross the horizon.

Further, I have read the wiki page here on the topic:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

This provided nothing testable.

I read Rowbotham's work.  It simply makes claims about perspective without a plausible mechanism.

I read the Electromagnetic Acceleration page.  It lacks empirical supporting evidence.

Any answers I receive may be featured in the follow up video.

Thank you in advance.
Here is my video in case you want to point out the correct methodologies:

[Action80]

I published a video last week examining the claimed "most comprehensive flat earth sunset explanation".  The video I reviewed simply said that perspective was the main cause of sunsets.  Then offered refraction as the second cause.

I analyzed these claims and found they didn't explain sunsets at all.  I did the math for perspective and concluded that perspective demands that the sun could never get close to the horizon.

I examined the effects of refraction, which cause things to appear slightly higher, not lower.

In the comments of my video, several flat earthers were angry at me and declared that I just didn't understand flat earth.

I don't want to misrepresent the flat earth position. So I come to you, dear flat earthers, looking for the correct explanation for flat earth sunsets. 

Since I have already done the math for perspective, there is no need to just say "perspective".  Instead, please provide the full geometry-based method to properly explain how the sun appears to cross the horizon.

Further, I have read the wiki page here on the topic:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

This provided nothing testable.

I read Rowbotham's work.  It simply makes claims about perspective without a plausible mechanism.

I read the Electromagnetic Acceleration page.  It lacks empirical supporting evidence.

Any answers I receive may be featured in the follow up video.

Thank you in advance.
Here is my video in case you want to point out the correct methodologies:

Provide the constants used in the math you performed for perspective.

[MCToon]

I am in Minneapolis, 45°N latitude.

On the December Solstice I measured the sun's angular elevation at local solar noon to be 22.5°.
45°N latitude is 4730 miles from the sun's position over the Tropic of Capricorn at local solar noon.
That gives a sun elevation of 1973 miles.

12 hours later the sun's position is on the opposite side of flat earth.  10,944 miles from Minneapolis.
using 1973 miles elevation, the sun's angular elevation must be 10.2°.

This uses the AE map.  If you prefer a different one, please provide it and include the analysis of the distances.

[Tom Bishop]

So you read through the EA page and decided that it worked, but you thought that it "lacked empirical evidence" and discarded that possibility, proceeding to publish a video with the title page "The Sun Could Never Set on Flat Earth" which ignores EA and doesn't bring it up at all. This appears to be dishonest.

Why does EA "lack empirical evidence" to preclude it's inclusion in the video, but the FE Perspective Theory made the cut. Where is the empirical evidence for the FE Perspective Theory to show that it has more empirical evidence than EA? Also, where is the empirical evidence for the RE Theory observation of the sun setting behind the horizon to differentiate it from other explanations like EA? You appear to have singled out EA as not having empirical evidence, so I would expect you to show how the other two theories mentioned do have empirical evidence.

Furthermore, the EA page does list and link evidence: Moon Tilt Illusion, Milky Way arch, tails of comets, meteors, curved aurora borealis, curved ecliptic.

[Action80]

What year?

[MCToon]

I was specifically responding to a singular video claiming to have the "comprehensive explanation for sunsets on flat earth".  The video never mentioned EA.  None of the YouTube flerfs mention EA that I have seen.  I have only seen it here.  If there are other applications, I would love to review them as well.

I can respond to "perspective".  It is real and does exist.  This is basic trig.  It's just that when you do apply perspective it shows that the sun would never set.  You must appreciate the sweet irony.

The response to EA is so boring: there is no evidence light does this.  What else is there?  It's a testable hypotheses that has been falsified already.  Here's one of many: https://mctoon27.files.wordpress.com/2020/01/results-of-leveling-refraction-tests-by-ngs-tr-nos92-ngs22.pdf

I do appreciate that you, Pete and the others here actually try to provide an explanation for things.  It's a bit more interesting than the religiflerfs that just say "nuh-uh", "density", and "perspective".

[MCToon]

What year?

December Solstice 2019

[MCToon]

So you read through the EA page and decided that it worked, but you thought that it "lacked empirical evidence" and discarded that possibility, proceeding to publish a video with the title page "The Sun Could Never Set on Flat Earth" which ignores EA and doesn't bring it up at all. This appears to be dishonest.

Tom, I would like to give some time to EA.  Would you present the idea in a live video?

[Action80]

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

[Tumeni]

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

Can you suggest a method or methods for doing this?

[MCToon]

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

You seem to have neglected to read my post.

I am giving flat earthers an opportunity to showcase how sunsets work on flat earth.  Since all the analysis I did conclude that sunsets are not possible, you will clearly disagree with my results.

So, please show the process YOU personally went through to critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth.

You did critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth, right?

The analysis you personally did showed that sunsets are possible, right?

Otherwise, you would never have accepted them, right?

All these things are supported by empirical evidence, right?

[Action80]

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

You seem to have neglected to read my post.

I am giving flat earthers an opportunity to showcase how sunsets work on flat earth.  Since all the analysis I did conclude that sunsets are not possible, you will clearly disagree with my results.

So, please show the process YOU personally went through to critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth.

You did critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth, right?

The analysis you personally did showed that sunsets are possible, right?

Otherwise, you would never have accepted them, right?

All these things are supported by empirical evidence, right?

Your OP is entitled "Re: Comprehensive explanation for sunsets"

My question directly deals with how comprehensive your observations were.

I have accepted nothing.

You have offered no true analysis of the two possible causes.

I just asked you a direct question related to one of the issues you claimed to have analyzed and you dismissed it out of hand.

[BillO]

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

Air quality variables?  You mean like particulate matter, humidity and temperature?  These, under normal physics, would have a negligible effect on the apparent elevation of the sun.  I can only assume that MC Toon was using normal physics as there is very little offered from the FE perspective.

[stack]

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

You seem to have neglected to read my post.

I am giving flat earthers an opportunity to showcase how sunsets work on flat earth.  Since all the analysis I did conclude that sunsets are not possible, you will clearly disagree with my results.

So, please show the process YOU personally went through to critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth.

You did critically analyze the claimed mechanism for sunsets on flat earth, right?

The analysis you personally did showed that sunsets are possible, right?

Otherwise, you would never have accepted them, right?

All these things are supported by empirical evidence, right?

Your OP is entitled "Re: Comprehensive explanation for sunsets"

My question directly deals with how comprehensive your observations were.

I have accepted nothing.

You have offered no true analysis of the two possible causes.

I just asked you a direct question related to one of the issues you claimed to have analyzed and you dismissed it out of hand.

I think you're missing the point. The question in the OP is, "So I come to you, dear flat earthers, looking for the correct explanation for flat earth sunsets."

The question is not, "What is it about my empirical assessment that you find ambiguous or faulty." So once you answer the OP question, then comes the discussion as to how one arrived at whatever explanation. But the OP question should be answered first otherwise there is no discussion to be had.

So what is your correct explanation as to how FE sunsets work?

[Action80]

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

Can you suggest a method or methods for doing this?

I analyzed these claims.

How did you account for air quality variables between yourself and the sun during your period of observation?

Air quality variables?  You mean like particulate matter, humidity and temperature?  These, under normal physics, would have a negligible effect on the apparent elevation of the sun.  I can only assume that MC Toon was using normal physics as there is very little offered from the FE perspective.

I analyzed these claims.

I think you're missing the point. The question in the OP is, "So I come to you, dear flat earthers, looking for the correct explanation for flat earth sunsets."

The question is not, "What is it about my empirical assessment that you find ambiguous or faulty." So once you answer the OP question, then comes the discussion as to how one arrived at whatever explanation. But the OP question should be answered first otherwise there is no discussion to be had.

So what is your correct explanation as to how FE sunsets work?

I analyzed these claims.

Not surprisingly, the OP reveals itself to be another case of RE stomping their collective feet, outrageously demanding an explanation from FE for something they claim to have already analyzed in depth. One goes so far as to label the analysis as using  "normal physics"!

Another steamy pile.

[Tumeni]

Not surprisingly, the OP reveals itself to be another case of RE stomping their collective feet, outrageously demanding an explanation from FE for something they claim to have already analyzed in depth.

I did not claim that. Your question was, paraphrased "Have you accounted for atmospheric variables?", directed toward McToon. I've fielded the same question in the past, with regard to my own observations, phrased in different ways. My response is always to ask - "How do you suggest I do that?", and after that, everything goes silent. 

Do you have any method for accounting for the things that you say McToon (and possibly I) should be accounting for?

If you don't, do you have any basis for suggesting that they have any effect, at all, on the observation?  I want to know if my eyes and camera are misleading me, so tell me what I should be looking for.   

[MCToon]

Not surprisingly, the OP reveals itself to be another case of RE stomping their collective feet, outrageously demanding an explanation from FE for something they claim to have already analyzed in depth. One goes so far as to label the analysis as using  "normal physics"!
[/quote]

Again, you miss the point, I am asking for the flat earth explanation.  I was told I don't understand flat earth.  So I am here to learn.

Since my analysis concluded that sunsets could never happen, the analysis is wrong in your view, why would you want my analysis?  This is your chance to shine.

I posed this question in many other places as a response to the accusation that I don't understand flat earth.  Flat earthers have three general responses:

• Anger, deflection, demanding I answer questions, memes, etc.
• "Perspective" and "Refraction".  Sometimes in the form of a video that never applies perspective, and roughly applies refraction opposite empirical measurements.
• The sole outliner, Tom Bishop, with EA.
  
  • Tom is the ONLY one that has earned any respect as his proposed answer has some analysis.  If light actually curved as he proposes, there could be something interesting.
  • There is no empirical evidence light does as he proposes, so it gets no farther.

Action80, you have chosen option 1.  This informs me that you accepted the claims without doing any analysis.  Anyone that had done the analysis would be giddy to share their results.  Thank you, Action80.  You have confirmed, yet again, that flat earthers generally accept flat earth claims without critical analysis.

[Action80]

Not surprisingly, the OP reveals itself to be another case of RE stomping their collective feet, outrageously demanding an explanation from FE for something they claim to have already analyzed in depth.

I did not claim that. Your question was, paraphrased "Have you accounted for atmospheric variables?", directed toward McToon. I've fielded the same question in the past, with regard to my own observations, phrased in different ways. My response is always to ask - "How do you suggest I do that?", and after that, everything goes silent. 

Do you have any method for accounting for the things that you say McToon (and possibly I) should be accounting for?

If you don't, do you have any basis for suggesting that they have any effect, at all, on the observation?  I want to know if my eyes and camera are misleading me, so tell me what I should be looking for.

Actually, that is nowhere near an accurate paraphrasing of my question to the OP.

My question was very specific.

The OP claims his analysis demonstrates a setting sun is not possible on a flat earth.

I asked a very direct question regarding that analysis.

Response = nothing of substance.

I am not going to engage in any of your research projects.

My time is too valuable to surrender for free.

Yes, I have a basis for stating the atmoplane is a variable affecting the appearance of objects to individual viewers located at various distances from the object(s) in question.

I am relatively confident you and everyone else has heard of mirages, for instance.

[Action80]

Since my analysis concluded that sunsets could never happen, the analysis is wrong in your view, why would you want my analysis?  This is your chance to shine.

It is decidedly apparent to all here that your so-called analysis is nothing more than a statement that flat earth does not allow for a setting sun.

My choice of how I choose to shine is to clearly point out that your so-called analysis is nothing of the sort.

Your simple statement qualifies more as an Angry Rant, "erth rund!!!!"

Action80, you have chosen option 1.  This informs me that you accepted the claims without doing any analysis.  Anyone that had done the analysis would be giddy to share their results.  Thank you, Action80.  You have confirmed, yet again, that flat earthers generally accept flat earth claims without critical analysis.

Engaging in projection fails to aid you in your quest for answers.

[Pete Svarrior]

Since my analysis concluded that sunsets could never happen, the analysis is wrong in your view, why would you want my analysis?

Presumably for the same reason you're trying to solicit an analysis from FE'ers. After all, we disagree with you, therefore we're wrong, so why would you want our position?