The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Bibi on August 18, 2022, 10:41:24 PM
-
Hi!
I started looking into flat earth arguments to debunk them, but discovered there was too much that couldn’t be debunked or ignored, and I’m just starting to change sides.
Though there’s still one thing that confuses me, so maybe you guys have an explanation.
If the sun was like a flashlight above the earth, then it should look smaller and smaller as it moves away during sunset. But when I see the sunset it really looks like more and more of the sun is disappearing behind an edge (“horizon” or whatever). Like you can see that the sun is circular, then meets/disappears behind a flat edge. And the circular sun doesn’t look like it’s getting smaller. What exactly is it disappearing behind? Could it be that it is actually on the other side of the disk shaped earth during night?
-
It can't go under the disk, because it is always day over half the earth, so it has to be up there. Not only does it not get smaller as it would if it were 3500 mi away, nor come anywhere near the horizon, but another issue is why is it equally bright all day, then when it appears to go under the horizon, it becomes invisible over a period of 20 minutes. If it was varying by distance, you would expect it to get brighter until noon, then darker slowly with distance, so there must be another explanation.
Go to the WIKI and search for Electromagnetic acceleration, There you will find an explanation of the banding light. The explanation does not have equations, description of physical mechanism, just a diagram of the vertical component that show the bending necessary to make the inclination of the north star match latitude. There is also horizontal error, which I put at about 45 degrees, in opposite directions at sunset and sunrise.
At sunset in Denver, in St Louis, the sun has already disappeared under the edge of the earth and the sky is black with stars, while in Salt Lake City, the sun is still up in the the light blue sky. If a person in Salt Lake City and a person in St Louis look at the sky directly over Denver, one sees black with stars, the other sees light blue with no stars. WTF?
RE has a reasonable explanation for this. FE does not. If you want to count problems with earth shape possibilities, FE has many many many. Somehow, to FEs, problems with RE make them think the earth can't be round, but problems with FE do not cause them to think the earth can't be flat, they just don't have an explanation yet. There is a much longer list of problems with FE than RE, plus, REs can explain every FE problem with RE. FEs can't explain any of their problems, except to refer you to the wiki, which is speculative, incomplete, and wrong.
Easy way to fix your distress with where does the sun go? Simply explain with RE. I don't think any FE will answer your question, but maybe they wiill, should be entertaining. Most likely they will say it is explained in the WIKI. The WIKI basically says "the light bends however it needs to to make the earth appear round. If only there was some way to measure, find equation, invent experiment ....
-
EA works as an explanation for sunset - well, it works better than “perspective” and other FE hypotheses.
But the angular size and luminosity of the sun through the day don’t fit with a sun taking the path FE claims. The sun must be many times further away at sunrise and sunset than at midday so should appear many times smaller but it does not. There is a page on the Wiki about that but it contains no real evidence other than some photos with a load of glare which don’t demonstrate anything.
The consistent angular size, luminosity and angular speed through the sky are all explained by a rotating spherical earth and distant sun.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
How does glare make these lights in the distance in this embedded video relatively the same size exactly? What property of glare makes distant lights the same size?
(https://i.imgur.com/A0fhjlQ.png)
Glare would need to be intelligently resizing itself based on the light's specific distance to the observer to make a relatively consistent size in the distance. How does that happen?
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
How does glare make these lights in the distance in this embedded video relatively the same size exactly? What property of glare makes distant lights the same size?
In general, we at the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered
https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_-_Frequently_Asked_Questions
-
If you can't explain it then you don't know what it is. If you don't know what it is, then the consistent size effect of distant bodies may be happening to other light sources such as the Sun.
-
Well the magnification explanation does make sense in explaining why the sun doesn't look smaller and smaller during sunset. It definitely is correct that if you use a flashlight against a wall, the light spot will get bigger if you move away from the surface.
Though, I still no not understand what the sun is disappearing behind? When you see the sunset over an open sea view, you can see that the round shape of the sun is disappearing more and more behind the waterline (which btw appears flat, not curved). So in the middle of the sunset, the upper part of the sun still looks circular, but the lower part is cut off/ hidden behind some edge. What is this edge?
And also, shouldn't the sun appear less and less bright (or more and more bright during sunrise), even though not smaller and smaller (or bigger and bigger)? But everyone who has witnessed a sunrise knows that you cannot see the sun at all (just some light that is not nearly as bright), and then all of a sudden you can see the first sunrays which makes a huge immediate difference. What is causing this effect, if not the fact that the sun is finally rising above some edge (either round or flat earth)?
-
That image is a complete blurry glare filled mess. I don't know how you can expect anyone to do any sensible analysis of it.
There are about 8 lights which can be distinguished, which do get noticeable smaller. After that it becomes a complete mess of overlapping light sources.
This is the bit after those first 8 lights:
(https://i.ibb.co/W2BbGyw/Glare.jpg)
You seriously expect to draw any conclusions from that? You can't distinguish the light sources, it's so blurry and full of glare you can't begin to do any proper analysis of that image.
And if your explanation is that "The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer." then why does the moon remain the same angular size during the night even when it's a small crescent moon and therefore not that bright? Several places in the Wiki you sneer at what you call "coincidences", here you are claiming an effect which completely coincidentally maintains the same angular size of an object no matter its distance and which still works no matter the phase of the moon or how bright it is.
Are you expecting this to be taken seriously?
-
Well the magnification explanation does make sense in explaining why the sun doesn't look smaller and smaller during sunset. It definitely is correct that if you use a flashlight against a wall, the light spot will get bigger if you move away from the surface.
Because the light from a torch, as we say in English, is not parallel. So yes, it spreads out and if you move the torch further away then it spreads further.
The sun is far enough away that the light rays are in effect parallel, so not equivalent to a torch.
-
If you can't explain it then you don't know what it is. If you don't know what it is, then the consistent size effect of distant bodies may be happening to other light sources such as the Sun.
The constant size in the video you posted is because the further the lights are away, the more out of focus they are. This effect, called bokeh, will make the further lights seem to all be the same size. It is a consequence of the optical design of the lens and aperture. It would probably benefit you to do some research into how optics work rather than just assume whatever nonsense supports your flawed intellectual bias.
-
That image is a complete blurry glare filled mess. I don't know how you can expect anyone to do any sensible analysis of it.
There are about 8 lights which can be distinguished, which do get noticeable smaller. After that it becomes a complete mess of overlapping light sources.
This is the bit after those first 8 lights:
The lights in the far field don't shrink as much or as consistently as the lights in the near field. The lights do not shrink consistently. The effect is reproducible and is seen in other images.
The constant size in the video you posted is because the further the lights are away, the more out of focus they are. This effect, called bokeh, will make the further lights seem to all be the same size. It is a consequence of the optical design of the lens and aperture. It would probably benefit you to do some research into how optics work rather than just assume whatever nonsense supports your flawed intellectual bias.
The effect you referenced isn't glare. It's an effect referenced on the tfes page I linked (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Similar_Effect:_Circles_of_Confusion) and is also known as Circles of Confusion. It shows that it is possible for a body to magnify on a medium between the observer and the object, creating light sources which are consistent in size. It shows that it is possible for a light source to maintain its diameter in the distance.
-
The effect is reproducible and is seen in other images.
But you don't pay much credence to photographic evidence, we have already established that.
As I said, that picture is a blurry, glare filled mess. There is no sensible way to analyse what's going on. I'd suggest if you are going to present more images you do so with ones with an appropriate camera setting or filter to remove glare and in which the photo is taken at such an angle that the distant light sources are distinguishable.
EDIT: I notice you ignored the point about the moon.
-
Thank you for the self-own.
That image is a complete blurry glare filled mess. I don't know how you can expect anyone to do any sensible analysis of it.
Wow, I easily made out 16 lights just looking at the picture for 15 seconds.
There are about 8 lights which can be distinguished, which do get noticeable smaller.
Are you expecting this to be taken seriously?
I do not think you need to worry about anyone taking your post seriously. Claiming the lights in the photo get noticeably smaller is ridiculous.
The effect is reproducible and is seen in other images.
But you don't pay much credence to photographic evidence, we have already established that.
As I said, that picture is a blurry, glare filled mess. There is no sensible way to analyse what's going on. I'd suggest if you are going to present more images you do so with ones with an appropriate camera setting or filter to remove glare and in which the photo is taken at such an angle that the distant light sources are distinguishable.
EDIT: I notice you ignored the point about the moon.
You do give credence to photographic evidence and are woefully inept at its proper analysis.
This is a thread about sunsets, not the moon.
Stop derailing the topic.
-
The effect you referenced isn't glare. It's an effect referenced on the tfes page I linked (https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Similar_Effect:_Circles_of_Confusion) and is also known as Circles of Confusion. It shows that it is possible for a body to magnify on a medium between the observer and the object, creating light sources which are consistent in size, showing that it is possible for a light source to maintain its diameter in the distance.
Right, it's not glare. And it only happens when the object is out of focus. If you focus in on the object with good optics it will render it's appropriate size given the magnification in play. Lights further away, when in proper focus, will look smaller.
In optics, a circle of confusion is an optical spot caused by a cone of light rays from a lens not coming to a perfect focus when imaging a point source. It is also known as disk of confusion, circle of indistinctness, blur circle, or blur spot.
The size of the circle of confusion affects the sharpness of a photographic image. A small circle of confusion indicates a very narrow spot of light that creates a tiny point on the plane of focus; this is associated with very sharp focus. A large circle of confusion indicates a wider beam creating a blur spot at the focus point; this is not conducive to a particularly sharp image, but it can create a strong bokeh effect.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Circles_of_confusion_lens_diagram.svg/1200px-Circles_of_confusion_lens_diagram.svg.png)
-
This is a thread about sunsets, not the moon.
Firstly, learn to quote.
Secondly, the reason to mention the moon is that the same logic applies. The moon also circles above us in your model.
So that should also appear much smaller at "moon rise" and "moon set" than it does when high in the sky. Because it's much further away.
The excuse for the sun could be said to apply also to a full moon which is also quite bright. But even when the moon is a slim crescent it still maintains the same angular size and speed throughout the night. The Wiki says:
The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
How does that explanation work for a dim new moon? Or do you have another mechanism for that?
-
The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
Okay, what's the mathematical formula for this?
-
This is a thread about sunsets, not the moon.
Firstly, learn to quote.
Secondly, the reason to mention the moon is that the same logic applies. The moon also circles above us in your model.
So that should also appear much smaller at "moon rise" and "moon set" than it does when high in the sky. Because it's much further away.
The excuse for the sun could be said to apply also to a full moon which is also quite bright. But even when the moon is a slim crescent it still maintains the same angular size and speed throughout the night. The Wiki says:
The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmolayer.
How does that explanation work for a dim new moon? Or do you have another mechanism for that?
The same logic applies to two distinct objects, each appearing in the sky via differing methods responsible for their visibility ???
Wow...unbelievable...where do you come up with this ridiculous stuff?
Again, this is a thread about sunsets.
-
The same logic applies to two distinct objects, each appearing in the sky via differing methods responsible for their visibility ???
Wow...unbelievable...where do you come up with this ridiculous stuff?
I come up with it from the laws of perspective.
If something increases in distance from you then it’s apparent size, or angular size, gets smaller. Does that really need explaining?
You accept that is how reality works, yes?
As any object gets closer it appears bigger, as it gets further away it appears smaller.
In your model the sun and moon are much further away when on the horizon than when high in the sky, yes?
So why do they look the same size throughout the day and night respectively? They don’t vary in angular size in the way you would expect given the constantly varying distances they are from you in the course of a day or night. Why not? Why does that law of perspective which we all know applies to every object randomly not apply to the sun? Or moon.
The explanation given on the Wiki is what we are discussing. The explanation being some ad hoc mechanism which just happens to perfectly account for the constantly varying distances. The evidence for that mechanism is some incredibly blurry and overexposed photos - while elsewhere in the Wiki it’s said you don’t pay much attention to photographic evidence. And the mechanism is said to occur because of “intense rays of light” which might just apply to a full moon, it certainly does not apply to a new moon which can also be observed to maintain a consistent angular size through the night. This is just yet another ad hoc mechanism which is used to patch a glaring hole in FET. If the sun and moon really move as you claim then they would appear vastly different sizes when on the horizon and when overhead. But they don’t.
-
The same logic applies to two distinct objects, each appearing in the sky via differing methods responsible for their visibility ???
Wow...unbelievable...where do you come up with this ridiculous stuff?
I come up with it from the laws of perspective.
If something increases in distance from you then it’s apparent size, or angular size, gets smaller. Does that really need explaining?
You accept that is how reality works, yes?
As any object gets closer it appears bigger, as it gets further away it appears smaller.
In your model the sun and moon are much further away when on the horizon than when high in the sky, yes?
So why do they look the same size throughout the day and night respectively? They don’t vary in angular size in the way you would expect given the constantly varying distances they are from you in the course of a day or night. Why not? Why does that law of perspective which we all know applies to every object randomly not apply to the sun? Or moon.
The explanation given on the Wiki is what we are discussing. The explanation being some ad hoc mechanism which just happens to perfectly account for the constantly varying distances. The evidence for that mechanism is some incredibly blurry and overexposed photos - while elsewhere in the Wiki it’s said you don’t pay much attention to photographic evidence. And the mechanism is said to occur because of “intense rays of light” which might just apply to a full moon, it certainly does not apply to a new moon which can also be observed to maintain a consistent angular size through the night. This is just yet another ad hoc mechanism which is used to patch a glaring hole in FET. If the sun and moon really move as you claim then they would appear vastly different sizes when on the horizon and when overhead. But they don’t.
Actually, no.
It is quite frequently observed that both objects appear much larger when they are on the horizon.
-
It is quite frequently observed that both objects appear much larger when they are on the horizon.
You don't ever tire of being wrong, do you?
That the Sun appears larger when it is on the horizon is just an optical illusion. The brain thinks that objects on the horizon should be farther away than objects overhead; since the Sun is the same apparent size in both places, the brain concludes that the Sun is physically bigger when it's on the horizon, and thus tricks you into thinking that the angular size is bigger than when it's overhead. This phenomenon is known as the Ponzo Illusion, and occurs for the Moon as well.
To convince yourself that this is, in fact, an optical illusion, put your head between your legs and look at the Sun upside down when it's on the horizon: it should look the same as it does when overhead.
For more information about the "larger Sun" and other astronomical myths, check out Phil Plait's article (now on the Moon and not the Sun but it's the same idea!).
Quoted from here. (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate#:~:text=The%20brain%20thinks%20that%20objects,bigger%20than%20when%20it's%20overhead.)
-
It is quite frequently observed that both objects appear much larger when they are on the horizon.
You don't ever tire of being wrong, do you?
That the Sun appears larger when it is on the horizon is just an optical illusion. The brain thinks that objects on the horizon should be farther away than objects overhead; since the Sun is the same apparent size in both places, the brain concludes that the Sun is physically bigger when it's on the horizon, and thus tricks you into thinking that the angular size is bigger than when it's overhead. This phenomenon is known as the Ponzo Illusion, and occurs for the Moon as well.
To convince yourself that this is, in fact, an optical illusion, put your head between your legs and look at the Sun upside down when it's on the horizon: it should look the same as it does when overhead.
For more information about the "larger Sun" and other astronomical myths, check out Phil Plait's article (now on the Moon and not the Sun but it's the same idea!).
Quoted from here. (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/our-solar-system/52-our-solar-system/the-sun/observing-the-sun/190-why-does-the-sun-appear-larger-on-the-horizon-than-overhead-intermediate#:~:text=The%20brain%20thinks%20that%20objects,bigger%20than%20when%20it's%20overhead.)
Actually, you are the one who never tires of being wrong.
The source you provide states quite clearly that it appears larger.
Offering an explanation of why something appears larger actually serves to confirm it appears larger.
Thank you for confirming my statement.
-
Did you miss the word illusion in there? ::)
-
Did you miss the word illusion in there? ::)
Nope. Did you miss the word appear?
Or are you claiming illusions do not appear?
-
Your discussion about the sun/ moon size is quite interesting, so I don’t mind if you keep doing that here.
But would also he nice if someone could answer my question about why it looks like more and more of the sun disappears behind the “horizon”?
And also why the sunrise is not only gradually getting brighter, but all of a sudden gets a lot brighter when you can see the first sun rays?
-
Did you miss the word illusion in there? ::)
Nope. Did you miss the word appear?
No I didn't, however I know how English works. The sentence clearly says that it is an illusion that "the Sun appears bigger". This means it does not appear bigger, it's just an illusion. Did you also miss the sentence structure? It did not just say "The sun appears larger" it said "That the sun appears larger" as in they are referring to the statement "The sun appears larger" and go on to explain that it is incorrect.
???
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
We can find all kinds of images that show progressive, consistent, non-circle of confusion, some with glare, some with not shrinkage™...
(https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/styles/full/public/article/image-non-gallery/ChicagoLights_1213.jpg?itok=B8BWo1zt)
(https://i.imgur.com/WipDVKp.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/bm72cFU.png)
(https://www.gannett-cdn.com/presto/2019/05/03/PDTN/01aaeeb3-1bca-40ea-9ce6-633f6e838e34-Street-Lights-02.JPG?width=600&height=856&fit=crop&format=pjpg&auto=webp)
(https://i.imgur.com/Y1Xn12q.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/eHogYIo.png)
-
Did you miss the word illusion in there? ::)
Nope. Did you miss the word appear?
No I didn't, however I know how English works. The sentence clearly says that it is an illusion that "the Sun appears bigger". This means it does not appear bigger, it's just an illusion. Did you also miss the sentence structure? It did not just say "The sun appears larger" it said "That the sun appears larger" as in they are referring to the statement "The sun appears larger" and go on to explain that it is incorrect.
???
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Evidently, you do not know how English works.
David Copperfield caused an elephant, that was appearing in front of my eyes, to disappear.
But it was an illusion.
Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.
-
Did you miss the word illusion in there? ::)
Nope. Did you miss the word appear?
No I didn't, however I know how English works. The sentence clearly says that it is an illusion that "the Sun appears bigger". This means it does not appear bigger, it's just an illusion. Did you also miss the sentence structure? It did not just say "The sun appears larger" it said "That the sun appears larger" as in they are referring to the statement "The sun appears larger" and go on to explain that it is incorrect.
???
::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
Evidently, you do not know how English works.
David Copperfield caused an elephant, that was appearing in front of my eyes, to disappear.
But it was an illusion.
Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.
Go ask a 5th grader to explain it to you, if they are normal they would know this.
Copperfield made the elephant disappear. One second you saw it, the next you didn't. It may have still been there, but he arranged it so you could no longer see it.
The sun does not appear larger on the horizon, you just think it does, but you can easily verify that it doesn't by doing the experiment she suggested.
I give up. Go find that 5th grader.
-
Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.
Actually, illusions are fundamentally based on things not being as they appear.
-
Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.
Actually, illusions are fundamentally based on things not being as they appear.
You cannot have an illusion unless there is something appearing.
So, the "appear" needs to come first.
Bullwinkle knows this, yet still tries to argue against fundamental English.
It does not matter why the sun and moon appear larger.
The fact is this: They do appear larger.
-
Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.
Actually, illusions are fundamentally based on things not being as they appear.
You cannot have an illusion unless there is something appearing.
Or, in the case of the your magician, something disappearing.
So, the "appear" needs to come first.
Bullwinkle knows this, yet still tries to argue against fundamental English.
Arguing semantics is exceedingly tedious and distracts from the important point.
It does not matter why the sun and moon appear larger.
The fact is this: They do appear larger.
Right. What matters is that fact that the sun and moon appearing larger is not the reality of the situation. If you wanted to take the trouble of properly measuring the size of the sun at noon and at sunset, you would find that they are exactly the same size. That is not what one would expect if the earth was flat and the sun was physically moving across the sky.
-
The fact is this: They do appear larger.
That we will categorize as a flat earth type fact = total fiction.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
How does glare make these lights in the distance in this embedded video relatively the same size exactly? What property of glare makes distant lights the same size?
(https://i.imgur.com/A0fhjlQ.png)
Let me see if I have this right. It is being claimed that the sun at sunset (when it's furthest away from the observer) appears larger than the sun at noon (when the sun would be closest to the observer), correct? If so, then why are you presenting a photograph where the nearer street lights appear larger than the street lamps in distance as evidence? Isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of the claim?
-
You cannot have an illusion unless there is something appearing.
Can you have an illusion that makes things disappear?
-
It does not matter why the sun and moon appear larger.
The fact is this: They do appear larger.
Right. What matters is that fact that the sun and moon appearing larger is not the reality of the situation. If you wanted to take the trouble of properly measuring the size of the sun at noon and at sunset, you would find that they are exactly the same size. That is not what one would expect if the earth was flat and the sun was physically moving across the sky.
I'm going to have to disagree markjo. AchtungAteHe is not right. The word "appear" does not allow for imagined errors. It just means you can see it. The Sun (or moon) does not "appear" larger. It appears, and if you measure it it will not be larger. The "larger" comes from your brain. You may be "seeing" it larger, but it does not "appear" larger.
There, the pedantic semantic shit is out of the way. Use "see" not "appear" for crap the your brain makes up.
All that aside, the language in the post I provided is correct. And the treatment of the situation therein is correct. Lackey is wrong - as usual.
-
The fact is this: They do appear larger.
You are getting far too bogged down with semantics. They do appear larger in the sense that this is how we perceive them. In the same way that the three men in this drawing appear to be getting larger:
https://therealweeklyshow.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/5-more-mind-bending-optical-illusions/#jp-carousel-1950
But in reality they aren’t. And the moon and sun aren’t really getting larger either. It’s an optical illusion and you can take measurements to prove that. The reality is the angular size remains constant. And the reason for that is the distance remains constant. Which proves your FE model wrong.
-
Illusions are fundamentally based on how things appear.
Actually, illusions are fundamentally based on things not being as they appear.
You cannot have an illusion unless there is something appearing.
Or, in the case of the your magician, something disappearing.
So, the "appear" needs to come first.
Bullwinkle knows this, yet still tries to argue against fundamental English.
Arguing semantics is exceedingly tedious and distracts from the important point.
It does not matter why the sun and moon appear larger.
The fact is this: They do appear larger.
Right. What matters is that fact that the sun and moon appearing larger is not the reality of the situation. If you wanted to take the trouble of properly measuring the size of the sun at noon and at sunset, you would find that they are exactly the same size. That is not what one would expect if the earth was flat and the sun was physically moving across the sky.
How is it that you can possibly claim to lecture anyone about how things would seem in a world you so vehemently deny?
The sun and moon appear larger.
That is all there is to it.
-
The fact is this: They do appear larger.
That we will categorize as a flat earth type fact = total fiction.
Except it is not total fiction.
You even posted a source stating the exact same thing.
Gaslighting is the only thing you got.
Sad.
-
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset
How does glare make these lights in the distance in this embedded video relatively the same size exactly? What property of glare makes distant lights the same size?
(https://i.imgur.com/A0fhjlQ.png)
Let me see if I have this right. It is being claimed that the sun at sunset (when it's furthest away from the observer) appears larger than the sun at noon (when the sun would be closest to the observer), correct? If so, then why are you presenting a photograph where the nearer street lights appear larger than the street lamps in distance as evidence? Isn't that pretty much the exact opposite of the claim?
Let me see if I get this right> Markjo is claiming the closer lights appear larger when that is not the case at all.
-
The sun and moon appear larger.
That is all there is to it.
Well no, that isn’t all there is to it.
As I noted above they may appear larger but that is merely an optical illusion. I gave another example above where things appear different sizes but are in fact the same.
In reality the sun and moon maintain a consistent angular size. That can be measured. The simplest explanation for that is that they are a consistent distance. FE has to invent a mechanism to explain this.
-
You even posted a source stating the exact same thing.
Nope. The post did not say that as I already pointed out. Like I said, find a 5th grader to explain it to you.
Gaslighting is the only thing you got.
Nope. Another word you don't seem to know the meaning of.
Sad.
You are free to be mistaken. It's up to you, and yes, the fact you seem okay with that is sad indeed.
-
How is it that you can possibly claim to lecture anyone about how things would seem in a world you so vehemently deny?
Because, unlike you, I actually think about how things would need to work if the earth was flat.
The sun and moon appear larger.
Larger than what? Please try to express complete thoughts, if at all possible.