Ok, and?
Did that. You ignored every argument I made.
Actually, it's utter stupidity. If it had anything at all to do with perspective, as I said in my last post, the Sun would simply get smaller and smaller as it passed into the distance. IT DOES NO SUCH THING.
I will not watch your asinine videos, David. I don't care what you think it shows, what it does not show is the Sun shrinking into the distance like EVERY OTHER THING THAT YOU'VE EVER SEEN GET FURTHER AWAY FROM YOU! If the sunset had anything to do with perspective, the apparent diameter of the Sun would shrink into the distance just as rail road tracks do and for the same reason.
No need for photos, videos or any electronic anything. Simply go outside and watch the sunset.
If it shows that, which I doubt, he is a liar and you're a fool to give him one minute of your time.
Want proof?
Go outside and watch the sunset (or sunrise).
This single sentence is all I need to know to understand that its a 1000% INTENTIONAL lie.
Refuted by me in my last post and now again in this post.
I DARE YOU TO DO THIS!
Perspective is easy to graph. An object twice as far away is half the apparent size, something three times as far away is one third the apparent size and so on.
Two objects, one twice a big but twice as far away as the other, will both have the same apparent size.
Get it? Super duper simple. Graph it.
Clete
Ok, and?
You can't refute an argument based on video evidence if you don't watch it.
Land masses rise up and block the sun as it moves away into the distance over a flat earth.
Again, why does the sun not get smaller over a spinning globe when it does indeed get farther away from the viewer?
--Dave
You must be blind, Dave.And you think you can see where the flare begins in the overhead photo. I don't think so.
--Dave
You must be blind, Dave.
Look at the picture you posted. Compare mine with yours. Do you see that little circle in the middle of what you call the sun? That's the actual sun, Dave.
So yes, Dave, I don't just "think I can see" where the flare begins, I highlighted where it DOES begin.
Yes, he can.
So the land moves?
This has been answered, but you ignored it.
I know it has been answered because I answered it myself. No, I'm not going to redo the math, and no, I'm not going to go find my post containing the math. Figure it out yourself.
You have never given even the tiniest shred of actual EVIDENCE for this statement. How about some FACTS?There is flare as you say but this pic does not indicate where it begins.
As I said to Clete, the sun is farther away from the viewer at sun set and sunrise than it is when it's over head and so it must appear larger when closer to the viewer and smaller when farther away from viewer.
--Dave
Simple geometry is your enemy Dave.
No. Let's read it sensibly. :up:
:wave:
Do you still believe that the firmament is the ground itself?
Hi.:wave:
Which firmament?Do you still believe that the firmament is the ground itself?
The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day. Then God said, “Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called Seas. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. Then God said, “Let the waters abound with an abundance of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the face of the firmament of the heavens.”
Genesis 1:2, 6-10, 14-18, 20 NKJV
Bolded are references to what we say are two firmaments. The distinction is in those bolded phrases, but also among the details linked to each:
The "firmament called Heaven" has the following features:
1. Created within water. The water is "the deep" of verse 2.
2. Has water above it, called "seas," and water below.
3. Is called "Heaven." Singular, capitalized.
The "firmament of the heavens" has the following features:
1. Has heavenly bodies created within it.
2. Has birds flying across its face.
3. It's of the "heavens." Plural, lower-case.
From our point of view, there are many distinctions and those differences are plainly in the text.
The firmament called Heaven is the granite crust of the Earth, which was broken into pieces by the fountains of the great deep (see feature 1).
The firmament of the heavens is outer space.
Man, you and I are on a roll hahaHi.
Which firmament?
Check out this post:
Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk
I've never seen the two of us in the same room. :think:Man, you and I are on a roll haha
So, I haven't used pejoratives against you, I have watched the videos, I went to the trouble to make an animated gif in direct response to your video. Do I need to call you names to talk with you? Again, you seem to be only respond to people that will describe you in a bad light just so you can fall back on an accusation of name-calling when you can't defend your position.You know what I mean by land masses rise up, but just because your playing dumb, I'll explain the obvious anyway. Land, that I'm referring to, is above sea level, and can rise to elevations very high above sea level. That does not mean they move. There are many times though that I don't think you're just playing the dumb card, but I always give you the benefit of the doubt.
Math does not explain that things farther away appear larger the closer they get and appear smaller the farther away they get from the viewer. And the sun does get closer to viewer on a spinning globe until it's over our head and farther away from us as it sets. Can you do the math on that?
--Dave
But this is a big part of the problem. Dave actually thinks that he is defending the FE "model" by repeating the same old worn out and completely disproved "ideas" that he has found on the Internet (like the silliness that the sun does actually get smaller from midday to sunset).So, I haven't used pejoratives against you, I have watched the videos, I went to the trouble to make an animated gif in direct response to your video. Do I need to call you names to talk with you? Again, you seem to be only respond to people that will describe you in a bad light just so you can fall back on an accusation of name-calling when you can't defend your position.
You can't because you're stupid.You can't refute an argument based on video evidence if you don't watch it.
You mean like when train track go up a hill, getting apparently narrower and narrower as they go up and away from you?Land masses rise up and block the sun as it moves away into the distance over a flat earth.
It does get smaller/larger depending on where we are in the orbit. The Earth's orbit is almost circular but not quite. The Earth is 147,098,074 km from the Sun at perihelion (closest) to 152,097,701 km at aphelion (most distant). That a total difference of 4,999,627 km. That's a difference of about 3.2%. This is the reason why total Solar eclipses don't always cover the disc of the Sun the same way.Again, why does the sun not get smaller over a spinning globe when it does indeed get farther away from the viewer?
--Dave