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.
Speed?
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.
Horse hockey.
First, I claimed I did not see a need to make a sim now.
Second, I have zero intent on ever making a movie in Hollywood but that does not relieve or remove my right to be critical of any movie. I can still remain critical of the sim, also.
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.
He can state he used this or used that...How do you know that is true?
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.
Ask Stevie Wonder if that is true...
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.
So?
You tell me I do not need a watch, do use a watch...wtf man?
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.
And again, you do not know the metrics are correct.
5. The only thing that could distort the presence of objects in the atmosphere is water vapor.
Horse hockey.
There could be suspended particles of glass in the atmoplane...
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.
Horse hockey.
What is the composition of the atmoplane at 10km, 20km, 30km...
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.
Yeah, you are.
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.
Right or wrong, real or not real, you acknowledge possible existence.
That possible existence could affect perception, even down to individual perception.
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.
That is the point. You have no prior experience, you are biased against the idea to begin with, and therefore cannot be relied upon as providing any sort of worthwhile testimony toward a rational model.
I don't want to straw man...
Good, then don't...
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.
Ah...damn man...you strawman anyway...
So, the Sun does not change its distance to us in the heliocentric model?
Where does the cut off point occur (distance wise)?
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?
Almost all of it...
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.
Nope...
Settle your errors in the whole damn thing...
1. Speed can be found doing calculations. Let's base it off the sun being directly over the equator. You can adjust accordingly depending on where you want the sun to be. The equator is halfway between the north pole and south pole (or edge of flat earth). If the diameter of the earth is 25K miles, and the equator is halfway on the radius, then the diameter of the circle the sun moves around is 12.5K miles. The circumference of a circle is D*pi, so the sun moves 39,250 miles every day. 39,250 miles every 24 hours is about 1635 mph. That's quite fast.
2. I know you didn't claim to need to make a sim. I'm saying you should. If you're getting caught up, as you did earlier, in the fact that a RE made a sim of the FE, then you should just make your own. It wouldn't be any different than the RE's sim, because you'd both use the same metrics. Also, when did I claim you specifically aren't allowed to make critiques? I said you shouldn't complain because it can be turned right back onto you, and your complaints aren't strong. I never said you CAN'T complain.
3. I don't know, ask him if he really used that or this, and then ask for proof. OR, make your own, so that you KNOW you will be making an accurate simulation.
4. So you have no argument? Ok. And I made the mistake of saying you didn't need a watch for your observations. Disregard the watch. Your observations still wouldn't have worked. But you still didn't address the other part. You're cherry picking there. And finally, what do you mean I don't know that the metrics are correct? I scaled down the model that your wiki claims the FE to be, from miles, to inches. There's no error there.
5. Ok, how much glass is in the atmosphere then? How much of an effect would it have? As for composition, it remains relatively the same until you hit 10km:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#Composition But, usually, you aren't going to be above 10km (33K feet), because you aren't climbing mount everest, and I can guarantee you 95% of people don't fly for the majority of their lives. Why does the composition of the atmosphere matter for this argument at those heights? And why is it "horse hockey?" that aerosol particles act as barriers to light?
And, may I take a moment for the last part of number 5? "Yeah you are." Wow, what a well-constructed, mature, evidence-riddled argument. Just kidding. How am I wrong? Where am I wrong? What is your proof that I am wrong?
6. How would the existence of these dimensions change the light from the sun, then? Why don't they change the light reflecting off of or emitted from other objects? If they do, why would the light change for certain objects, or the distortion be selective?
7. Yes, I have no experience with observing a 32-mile object at 3000 miles BUT i do have experience observing other objects on Earth that the same rules would apply to. You haven't observed anything like what you claim either, so you can't be relied on as a testimonial either.
I didn't straw man. And the distance to the sun on a heliocentric, and correct, model, ranges between 91.4 million miles (147.1 million km) and 94.5 million miles (152.1 million km), with an average being 93 million miles, or 150 million km. This is on a yearly basis. The sun changes its distance, but not in the same way as a moving object like the sun on a FE model, or a plane in the air. Your location to the sun based on the Earth's rotation adds almost no change, and even less if you aren't at the equator. Your distance would be furthest from it during midnight, then, when observing, it'd be furthest during sunrise and sunset. The earth's radius is 4K miles, so you'd be 4K miles closer. 4K miles over 93 million is a .004% change. The sun's apparent diameter, though, between the earth's closest and furthest point IS noticeable and measurable. Here's the difference:
http://www.perseus.gr/Images/solar-scenic-aph-peri.jpg It's tiny.
By cutoff point, I'm assuming you mean the last point we can observe it on a normal day. This is sunset. If I'm wrong, please do correct me.
8. Again, what am I wrong about. Don't just say "almost all of it." Explain.
9. Settle what errors in what thing?