He bases the model off of the accounts he takes from FEs online. Simple. He either went to this wiki, or asked around, and proceeded to make a model based on what he got as answers. It's not that hard.
How do you know?
Why don't you make a sim, then, if apparently those who don't believe in FE can't make accurate FE models?
I do not see a need to do so at this point, except in reference to the way the Sun shines on the AEP.
You present a model you deny exists because you can? I see no problem with this. Who cares if I, or OP, doesn't believe in FE. What does that have to do with anything? Can OP still not make a sim? Just because he doesn't agree, doesn't mean he doesn't know the basic claims. It's not bias unless you make it yourself, and you agree with that side. If you made a sim, then it'd be bias.
Thanks for admitting it is biased and not likely an accurate representation.
I've also seen jets fly above. They really do change speed. It's gradual, but noticeable. You said you've made calculations. Would you mind posting them here?
A jet flying at 300 mph is flying at 300 mph.
I do not know where you live but I live near Ohare and Midway in Chicago. From the time a plane first appears in the East till the time it disappears in the West (I happen to live directly under the approach corridor) the planes' perceived speed happens to remain relatively consistent in the sky.
I was using a calculator and a watch, taking notes. Did not save any of them.
And again, what type of experience do you have observing objects in the sky that are 32 miles across and 5000 km in altitude?
As for soot, water vapor, etc, no. Those are small. Water vapor makes about .25% of the atmosphere, on average, but can be as much as 5% in hotter climates. At the very least, it constitutes .001%.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
For foreign particles, which would probably be better classified as aerosols, there is no number I could find, but it is likely very low, otherwise it'd be too harmful to breathe in even the "cleanest" air. May I ask though, why are these important for any of this?
What effect would the presence of these in the atmoplane have on observations?
Could they provide distortion of any sort?
Especially the water?
You are going to sit here and type out the words, "As for soot, water vapor, etc, no."
Sorry, but you are so wrong it is ridiculous.
Onto dimensions. Yes, those are the dimensions we can directly observe. Do you have evidence of more? We know we live in a physical world of 3 dimensions, and an observable of 4. Time is expansive. How far exactly? Well, we're not sure. Our best calculations and estimates from our observations put the age of the Universe at 13.9 billion years old. But, it's possible time existed before that, or it's always existed. We just don't know. Again, why does this matter?
In what way does string theory apply to FE?
I don't know why it matters. It could matter though...
If the dimensions are found to be real.
The point is these subjects (potential) are considered worthwhile fields of inquiry that could be impacting the current discussion.
1. I know because it says so in the first second of the video. He lists the metrics. Earth diameter: 25K miles. Sun/Moon diameter: 32 miles. Sun/Moon distance: 3K miles. Dome 100 miles above sun/moon. All of these numbers, which are used in the video, are stated on the wiki at wiki.tfes.org.
2. Then, if you don't see a need to make your own sim, I don't believe you have the right to criticize a RE for making a sim. The RE at least did something.
3. I never said it was biased. I never said it was inaccurate. He bases his metrics literally on what is in your wiki. It can't be inaccurate. Explain your reasoning.
4. I live west of Philly. I have about 60+ planes fly overhead every day. I actually just watched one fly overhead 15 minutes ago. I don't know if you're looking at something else, but the plane I watched did gradually increase its speed in the sky as it came toward me, and then slowed as it went away. Perspective isn't selective. You said you had a calculator and watch. For what? Those wouldn't help to measure the speed of the plane. The plane is likely maintaining a constant speed in the sky. We don't need to measure that. What you do measure is its apparent location in the sky, and how its angle in the sky changes over time. Take a sextant, or some other device to measure the angle of the plane. Use the watch and measure the plane's position in equal intervals, about 3-5 seconds, I'd say. You will notice the biggest change in angle when the plane is closest to you.
There are no experiments where we can measure a 32-mile object 3000 miles away, but we can do similar experiments scaled down. Take a 32-inch object 3000 inches away (250 feet), and try the experiment. Or a 32-centimeter object 3000 cm away (98 feet). It doesn't matter. Like I said, perspective isn't selective. Watch the simulation again. Those metrics are correct. You will see a change in the apparent speed of the sun as it hovers overhead.
5. The only thing that could distort the presence of objects in the atmosphere is water vapor. Particles would just act as barriers, and the composition of the atmosphere doesn't change. Water vapor, though, does, but the distortion of the atmosphere is minimal. I don't understand your ad-hominem attacks though. You say I am "so wrong it's ridiculous," yet you haven't demonstrated how, because I'm not wrong. How am I wrong? Am I wrong about water vapor providing some changes to the atmosphere? Am i wrong about the composition of the atmosphere? Am i wrong about how a moving object will appear to be moving the quickest when it is nearest to you? Oh wait, no. I am not wrong about any of that.
6. I never claimed those dimensions to be real. It's possible that they are real. It's possible they're not. Who knows? I don't. We know time to be real. We know the 3 physical dimensions to be real. I don't understand the tangent argument you're trying to make. In what way does the amount of dimensions relate to the apparent speed of the sun? I don't think it does. I think you're trying to curve the argument away from the main focus so that you can "trap" me.
In conclusion, you're making some bad arguments. For starters, you keep asking if I've ever observed a 32-mile object 3000 miles (5000 km) in the sky. No, I haven't, but that isn't the point. I don't want to straw man, but it seems to me that you're trying to claim that an object like that might not appear to change is apparent speed. That is blatantly wrong. Every object will change its apparent speed if its distance to the observer changes. That is perspective. It's impossible to avoid unless the actual speed of the object changes. The sun will change its apparent speed in the sky if it hovers above us at 3000 miles and moves around above once daily. There's no exceptions.
Second, you claim I'm wrong about something with the composition of the atmosphere. I'm not wrong. You claims aren't based in anything. What am I wrong about?
Finally, it seems to me that you're trying to change the argument to a side that you might be able to win in, but not because I don't know what I am talking about, but simply because the amount of human knowledge in that subject is limited, and claims during an argument about that subject would be entirely hypothetical.