I am sorry for the name calling, but I find it extremely distressful when someone makes a statement as fact so assuredly but lacking any solid evidence which meets my levels of quality. So it stresses me out seeing someone so confidently state things without backing them up and not being willing to address my concerns without derision.
I see massive flaws in your observations which need to be accounted for in order for them to be as simple as you have claimed.
I have suggested that the simulations and inspiration posters are not the most effective ways of making a statement with the intent of persuading, but rather seems like a self congratulatory back on the back for your own clique.
Does that make sense.
Its not to derail the conversation. Its because I am actual upset by your arguments because they have holes which you haven't addressed.
Namely the simulation, the scale of the globe vs your visible field of view, the altitude measurements and their mechanisms, and raindrops.
I would expect that the sun should not appear that much different in brightness of you are very close to the north pole as the sun should remain the same distance relative you.
I notice that most of the northern sunset stuff is from far from the pole. So it is still possible for their to be slight distortion in colour.
This would suggest that if it is the same all throughout the rotation at the pole, that the globe is at least plausible.
If it is changing colours like it does else where...then it must be flat or at least the sun is smaller and closer than we are told
While I like the argument. I need one more test to show why I think may be happening.
What If I get refracted parallel rays which then hit a cloud, which is not evenly distributed and that then also refracts the refracted light. (Layers of clouds)
Ie. Can I make a parallel ray appear like a local light source through a type of lense.
If so, when I take that resulting light source, does it create crepuscular rays?
I am sorry for the name calling, but I find it extremely distressful when someone makes a statement as fact so assuredly but lacking any solid evidence which meets my levels of quality. So it stresses me out seeing someone so confidently state things without backing them up and not being willing to address my concerns without derision.
I see massive flaws in your observations which need to be accounted for in order for them to be as simple as you have claimed.
I have suggested that the simulations and inspiration posters are not the most effective ways of making a statement with the intent of persuading, but rather seems like a self congratulatory back on the back for your own clique.
Does that make sense.
Its not to derail the conversation. Its because I am actual upset by your arguments because they have holes which you haven't addressed.
Namely the simulation, the scale of the globe vs your visible field of view, the altitude measurements and their mechanisms, and raindrops.
What about the northern sunset at midnight.
I would expect that the sun should not appear that much different in brightness of you are very close to the north pole as the sun should remain the same distance relative you.
I notice that most of the northern sunset stuff is from far from the pole. So it is still possible for their to be slight distortion in colour.
This would suggest that if it is the same all throughout the rotation at the pole, that the globe is at least plausible.
If it is changing colours like it does else where...then it must be flat or at least the sun is smaller and closer than we are told
While I like the argument. I need one more test to show why I think may be happening.
What If I get refracted parallel rays which then hit a cloud, which is not evenly distributed and that then also refracts the refracted light. (Layers of clouds)
Ie. Can I make a parallel ray appear like a local light source through a type of lense.
If so, when I take that resulting light source, does it create crepuscular rays?