There are numerous inconsistencies with the ideas in those two videos.
First of all, they only focus on the moments surrounding sunset and sunrise, not accounting for the entire rest of the day. If these ideas were true, the effects of perspective and “water-in-the-air lensing” would not perfectly cancel out the way they appear to. The sun would change speed and size throughout the day- not observed.
Second, if the sun’s apparent size is due to glare, then why is its image so clearly defined at sunset? Instead of being a blob of light with a definite cutoff (which one of those videos shows) it would appear blurry.
Third, the perspective diagram she repeatedly shows makes no sense. The “planes” of perspective are not made of physical points in space, for one thing, and for another, as the diagram itself shows, the sun would only appear to “set” if it got further than infinitely far away from the observer. Why not give a diagram that traces the supposedly curved lines of sight through to the observer’s visual sphere? Maybe you’d see that the sun would have to become flattened as well, long before it reaches the horizon?
If there’s one thing that tells me flat earth is definitely fake it’s the flat earth priests’ constant insistence to “never make models”. Why do they always get hung up about the word “model”? Human beings model everything they can’t immediately sense. Is it really that big of a stretch to imagine that something is happening beyond what we can see? That the sun still exists when we can’t see it? So we should be able to make models to guess where it would be, and compare those guesses with what we do see. The flat earther’s fear of models tells me that flat earth is impossible to accurately model- and is therefore not descriptive of reality.
There are numerous inconsistencies with the ideas in those two videos.
First of all, they only focus on the moments surrounding sunset and sunrise, not accounting for the entire rest of the day. If these ideas were true, the effects of perspective and “water-in-the-air lensing” would not perfectly cancel out the way they appear to. The sun would change speed and size throughout the day- not observed.
Second, if the sun’s apparent size is due to glare, then why is its image so clearly defined at sunset? Instead of being a blob of light with a definite cutoff (which one of those videos shows) it would appear blurry.
Third, the perspective diagram she repeatedly shows makes no sense. The “planes” of perspective are not made of physical points in space, for one thing, and for another, as the diagram itself shows, the sun would only appear to “set” if it got further than infinitely far away from the observer. Why not give a diagram that traces the supposedly curved lines of sight through to the observer’s visual sphere? Maybe you’d see that the sun would have to become flattened as well, long before it reaches the horizon?
If there’s one thing that tells me flat earth is definitely fake it’s the flat earth priests’ constant insistence to “never make models”. Why do they always get hung up about the word “model”? Human beings model everything they can’t immediately sense. Is it really that big of a stretch to imagine that something is happening beyond what we can see? That the sun still exists when we can’t see it? So we should be able to make models to guess where it would be, and compare those guesses with what we do see. The flat earther’s fear of models tells me that flat earth is impossible to accurately model- and is therefore not descriptive of reality.