Flat Earth people, you are very entertaining with your comments. My challenge to you: put your money where your mouth is and book a cruise ship holiday to Antarctica below the Antarctic circle to prove the video wrong. I'll even reimburse the cost of your trip if you can prove the sun does not do this as shown in this video... Edit: Years later, cue sound of crickets, despite 40,000 tourists and thousands of researchers and workers going to Antarctica every year, no one has taken me up on this offer.
Ok, I'll bite: what is the arching path described in the FE model?
Because, first off, any path over a flat Earth would have to have the same sunrise time across the entire planet, which we know doesn't happen.
Second, on any given day, the sun would rise and set in completely opposite directions in NA and Asia, which we know it doesn't.
Third, the "equator" is completely meaningless in FE. If the sun arches "away from you" in New Zealand, to the South, it will also arch "away from you" in Alaska, just further away. Furthermore, it would arch "away from you" to the north if you were in Chile on the same day ie still in the southern hemisphere but on the opposite side of the Earth as the Sun. Which we know doesn't happen.
he sun is small and light from the sun is not visible all the way across the earth, even though it is flat
So the argument is that the sun fades in and out everyday?
Why do we not see gradients, then? (edit)
If that's true, the sun should be brightest when it's directly overhead then noticeably fade until it's gone, like car lights in fog. But that's not what happens.
Every single day the sun is completely visible (barring clouds) from the moment it rises above the horizon to the moment it sets. The only effect of the atmosphere on visibility is to shift the visible light towards the red side of the spectrum and to reflect small amounts of light when it's barely hidden. If the sun "fades out", sunset should take hours, not minutes.
Message by creator from the description:
Ok, I'll bite: what is the arching path described in the FE model?
Because, first off, any path over a flat Earth would have to have the same sunrise time across the entire planet, which we know doesn't happen.
Second, on any given day, the sun would rise and set in completely opposite directions in NA and Asia, which we know it doesn't.
Third, the "equator" is completely meaningless in FE. If the sun arches "away from you" in New Zealand, to the South, it will also arch "away from you" in Alaska, just further away. Furthermore, it would arch "away from you" to the north if you were in Chile on the same day ie still in the southern hemisphere but on the opposite side of the Earth as the Sun. Which we know doesn't happen.
So the argument is that the sun fades in and out everyday?
Why do we not see gradients, then? (edit)
If that's true, the sun should be brightest when it's directly overhead then noticeably fade until it's gone, like car lights in fog. But that's not what happens.
Every single day the sun is completely visible (barring clouds) from the moment it rises above the horizon to the moment it sets. The only effect of the atmosphere on visibility is to shift the visible light towards the red side of the spectrum and to reflect small amounts of light when it's barely hidden. If the sun "fades out", sunset should take hours, not minutes.