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.
The distance from pole to pole is approximately 20,000 miles; the diameter of FE, then, is about 40,000 miles.
If the sun is only 7000 miles up, you can make a right angle triangle from where you are standing, to directly below the sun, up to the sun.
For a right angle triangle:
tantheta = (the height of the sun) ÷ (the distance to the point directly below the sun)
Where theta is the angle of the height of the sun versus the ground from where you're standing.
If you're at the outer circumference of the FE, and the sun is over the opposite side of the circumference, theta is 10°. Which is to say, the sun never goes beneath 10°.
But wait, the sun orbits above the equator, so the max distance is 30k (pole to pole, plus half again to the far equator).
So the lowest the sun can go, according to this model, is 15°.
Of course, by this point the sun should have faded due to distance, so the actual minimum angle is necessarily higher.
Therefore, if I observe the sun below 15°, at any time, this FE model is false.
If I'm at the north pole, and the sun orbits the equator, then the distance is fixed. Either I would always see it, spining in complete circles around the sky at the same angle, or I would never see it because it's too far away.
the sun is brighter when it is close to you (overhead) and less bright when it is far from you. Gradient.
No it isn't. If that were true, you could comfortably look directly at the sun without damage to your eyes as it "faded in" in the morning and "faded out" at night.
Try to google "sun fade out". You will see the gradient of the last bits of ligjt as the sun fades, refracted by elements and particles
Right, all video from nasa, independent researchers, amd everyone who disagrees with you is fake, but google can be trusted... Bit selective, no?
What is really cool is the view when the sun fades away. Like vanishes. It can be seen easily from a high elevation on a clear day, and using a zoom lense.
I work on roofs for a living. No it doesn't.
You will notice the last color to be seen is green, but only for a few seconds. That is because the frequency of that color is higher and thus can pentrate deeper it to the air. And we see that green gadient pass in this fade out.
Why green? Why not a higher frequency like purple? And why would it be red (low frequency) at sunset as it starts to fade? Shouldn't red be the first frequency to be cut off by the "fading"? Or do you see something totally different in that case as well?
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.
Here's some napkin math to try on for size.
The distance from pole to pole is approximately 20,000 miles; the diameter of FE, then, is about 40,000 miles.
If the sun is only 7000 miles up, you can make a right angle triangle from where you are standing, to directly below the sun, up to the sun.
For a right angle triangle:
tantheta = (the height of the sun) ÷ (the distance to the point directly below the sun)
Where theta is the angle of the height of the sun versus the ground from where you're standing.
If you're at the outer circumference of the FE, and the sun is over the opposite side of the circumference, theta is 10°. Which is to say, the sun never goes beneath 10°.
But wait, the sun orbits above the equator, so the max distance is 30k (pole to pole, plus half again to the far equator).
So the lowest the sun can go, according to this model, is 15°.
Of course, by this point the sun should have faded due to distance, so the actual minimum angle is necessarily higher.
Therefore, if I observe the sun below 15°, at any time, this FE model is false.
Oh wait, how about this?
If I'm at the north pole, and the sun orbits the equator, then the distance is fixed. Either I would always see it, spining in complete circles around the sky at the same angle, or I would never see it because it's too far away.
No it isn't. If that were true, you could comfortably look directly at the sun without damage to your eyes as it "faded in" in the morning and "faded out" at night.
Right, all video from nasa, independent researchers, amd everyone who disagrees with you is fake, but google can be trusted... Bit selective, no?
I work on roofs for a living. No it doesn't.
Why green? Why not a higher frequency like purple? And why would it be red (low frequency) at sunset as it starts to fade? Shouldn't red be the first frequency to be cut off by the "fading"? Or do you see something totally different in that case as well?