[jonnytimber]

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers. 

[jonnytimber]

Same goes for the moon too

[Rayzor]

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.   On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.   

That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.

Use your eyes indeed.

[Pete Svarrior]

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.

Very curious. How, exactly, do you propose that refraction is responsible for this apparent shrinking of the sun? Generally, the agreement among mainstream RE'ers appears to be that refraction can only explain the apparent anomalous displacement of the sun, and some of the observable turbulence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Are you proposing your own alternative Round Earth model here? I'm not necessarily disparaging against that given FET's track record, but I would appreciate your being upfront about it.

[Rayzor]

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.

Very curious. How, exactly, do you propose that refraction is responsible for this apparent shrinking of the sun? Generally, the agreement among mainstream RE'ers appears to be that refraction can only explain the apparent anomalous displacement of the sun, and some of the observable turbulence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

Are you proposing your own alternative Round Earth model here? I'm not necessarily disparaging against that given FET's track record, but I would appreciate your being upfront about it.

Uh, no it's magnified,  not shrunk.

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/132-why-does-the-moon-look-big-on-the-horizon-intermediate

[Pete Svarrior]

Uh, no it's magnified,  not shrunk.

You're clinging to my (admittedly debatable) choice of words rather than answering the question - for shame!

But sure, in my mind it was easier to imagine it as the sun "shrinking" from point A to point B. If you prefer to view it as it "growing" between points B and C, that's fine by me.

Ultimately, however, your link very explicitly states that it's not caused by refraction. Could resolve this seeming contradiction? In other words, could you please pick a stance and stick to it?

[Rayzor]

Uh, no it's magnified,  not shrunk.

You're clinging to my (admittedly debatable) choice of words rather than answering the question - for shame!

But sure, in my mind it was easier to imagine it as the sun "shrinking" from point A to point B. If you prefer to view it as it "growing" between points B and C, that's fine by me.

Ultimately, however, your link very explicitly states that it's not caused by refraction. Could resolve this seeming contradiction? In other words, could you please pick a stance and stick to it?

Ok,  let's make it simpler,  my stance is that the sun and moon are not especially closer to earth when close to the horizon, in spite of appearing larger.   If the earth was flat the and the sun was  close,  the sun should appear to get smaller as it moves further away.

The fact that it doesn't is more of an argument for a round earth than a flat earth.

[Pete Svarrior]

To clarify, are you taking this statement back?

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.

[emphasis mine]

[Rayzor]

To clarify, are you taking this statement back?

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.

[emphasis mine]

Perhaps you could clarify,  do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?
 

[andruszkow]

To clarify, are you taking this statement back?

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.

[emphasis mine]

Perhaps you could clarify,  do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?

In general, yes. Its the whole cold/warm/density of the atmosphere the sunlight is passing through over again. Move on please.

[jonnytimber]

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.   On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.   

That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.

Use your eyes indeed.

No sorry, if the sun was that far away, so so far away, it would always look the same.  Our minuscule position across a vastness of 93,000,000 miles could never affect the visual appearance of the sun.  It's pure common sense.  However, on a flat earth, taking into account our perspective vision, it makes perfect sense that it appears larger at the horizon

[Rayzor]

If the sun was 93,000,000 miles from Earth, how is that at times - such as sunset - it appears sometimes 4-5 times larger than usual?  Are we 4-5 times closer at those times?  This is simple common sense that the sun is not as far away as we're told it is.  Use your eyes non believers.

Nice proof of a globe earth,  it's a refractive effect caused by the curvature of the earth's atmosphere.   On a flat earth the sun would get smaller as it approached the horizon.   

That's the cue for the bendy light brigade to ride to the rescue.

Use your eyes indeed.

No sorry, if the sun was that far away, so so far away, it would always look the same.  Our minuscule position across a vastness of 93,000,000 miles could never affect the visual appearance of the sun.  It's pure common sense.  However, on a flat earth, taking into account our perspective vision, it makes perfect sense that it appears larger at the horizon

So you think perspective makes things look bigger as they get further away?    Are you sure it's not an optical illusion?

[Pete Svarrior]

Perhaps you could clarify,  do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?

Of course. It's just entirely impossible for it to cause a magnification effect on the Sun, regardless of the Earth's shape.

[Rayzor]

Perhaps you could clarify,  do you think there is refraction when looking close to the horizon?

Of course. It's just entirely impossible for it to cause a magnification effect on the Sun, regardless of the Earth's shape.

I was working towards understanding another issue,  not strictly related to the apparent size. 

The refraction of sight lines close to the horizon can't occur on a flat earth.   ( Excepting unusual ducting and temperature gradient effects ) 
The refraction of horizontal rays requires the curvature of the earth for the light path to go through air of different density. 

The flat earth answer I imagine is going to be along the lines of the sun is not on the horizon,  but somewhat elevated,  so the sight line is not horizontal, and angled through layers of different density and therefore can be refracted downwards.  Which would have the effect of making the sun appear higher in the sky, not lower.   So on a flat earth it's the wrong way around.

 

[Pete Svarrior]

So, for clarity, you do agree that the issue mentioned in the OP would not be caused by refraction under the Round Earth model?

[Rayzor]

So, for clarity, you do agree that the issue mentioned in the OP would not be caused by refraction under the Round Earth model?

From what I've read, the general consensus is that it's an optical illusion,   the refraction doesn't make it bigger under normal circumstances,  but it does allow you to see the sun when it's slightly below the horizon. 

I was hoping you would address the flat earth refraction question.

[Pete Svarrior]

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

[juner]

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.

[Rayzor]

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

No.

Let me repeat, the suns rays are refracted by the earth's curvature when the sun is close to the horizon,  this can cause the sun to appear distorted and magnified,   this effect cannot happen on a flat earth.

I thought you already partially agreed with me when you said.   

Of course. It's just entirely impossible for it to cause a magnification effect on the Sun, regardless of the Earth's shape.

Were you wrong when you suggested the sun was shrinking,  just a yes or no will suffice.

Very curious. How, exactly, do you propose that refraction is responsible for this apparent shrinking of the sun? Generally, the agreement among mainstream RE'ers appears to be that refraction can only explain the apparent anomalous displacement of the sun, and some of the observable turbulence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_refraction

emphasis added.

[andruszkow]

Can you please give me a straight answer? Use either a "yes" or a "no".

Were you wrong when you claimed that it's caused by refraction?

I'm finding that this new batch of RErs don't know much beyond mental gymnastics, logical fallacies, and even intellectual dishonesty.

Amazing input.