Tom, I am completely convinced that you are deliberately trying to distract from the facts of the case. I explained it several times, and yet you act like you cannot understand. Or perhaps that you didn't see it. You keep coming back to the same tired incredulity. It really does not matter what you believe, Tom. The math is clear.

Yes. The math is clear.

**It does not care about the distance to the sun, as you admit yourself.**Therefore, it is not a Round Earth model and it is hard to argue that it is. It may as well be a Flat Earth or a Concave Earth model, since it does not care about the Round Earth Geometry.

The angle I provided is actually based on RET geometry, and the geometry of the scene in question. Why not do that to explain that moon tilt illusion? Use the geometry of the scene!

You won't because you can't, and the authors of the paper could bot do it either, hence the odd math that doesn't care about the sun and moon distances.

You have a losing argument, and anyone can connect those dots together.

In your little diagram, you are calculating angle A. The angle A in that diagram means literally nothing to the moon tilt illusion.

The angle I calculated does mean something to the Round Earth Theory. Its the angle that a green arrow in space points at the sun. Aka the moon. The green arrow always points to the sun in the triangle math, no matter the distance to the sun, and never away from it.

The "moon tilt illusion" cannot be explained in the Round Earth Theory, and you have not provided a model that provides any explanatory power for the Round Earth Geometry. You said it yourself. The math doesn't care about the distances.

I explained this already, so acting like you didn't already know this is dishonest. If you'd like to say you didn't read it or didn't understand it, I would be willing to accept an apology, but it's right there.

You appear to be in denial about the matter.

*It is not a Round Earth model if it does not care about the Round Earth Geometry.*After I pointed that out, I also pointed out that your argument is 100% irrelevant. We are talking about RE here, and in RE, we know the distances to the sun and moon. You don't get to just change them to try to break the math. The math works just fine even if you do try that, but that's not relevant. If the math only worked when using the correct distances to the bodies, that would be all it would need to do. And that means, your argument is nothing more than a distraction.

What are you talking about? You have stated several times that the geometry of RET doesn't matter to the math. The sun can be one foot from the earth or 100 billion miles from it, and it gives the same result.

It is not a "Round Earth Model" if it does not use the Round Earth Model.

No more B.S. Plain and simple.

The sun is 93,000,000 miles away. The moon is 239,000 miles away. The angle this creates is 0.15 degrees at a maximum! Hold up a ball, and the light from the sun will hit that ball at an angle that differs from the angle on the moon by a whopping 0.15 degrees. No more B.S. Stop trying to trick people with your fake math and broken logic. All that matters is right here. Hold up a ball and prove us wrong, or admit that we've been right the entire time.

The sun is pointing at the ball, right? The only way to get the ball to point away from the sun is a close range perspective effect. What other explanation do you have if the ball were to point away from the sun?

If I do get the ball to point away from the sun, what does that tell us? The ball is affected by a close range perspective effect. Since the Round Earth model isn't affected by perspective, the Round Earth model cannot be a reflection of what is happening to the ball.

The mathematical model you showed is not a Round Earth Model. It does not use Round Earth Distances.

Shout out your positon ten times: "It doesn't matter that the Round Earth Geometry is not being used, it's a Round Earth model!!" Maybe you will see the ridiculousness of that statement.