0
0

Modeling the behavior of the sun (self.theworldisflat)

ChangeThroughTruth が 投稿

Preamble

For me, the topic of the shape of the earth has two distinct parts. (1) Disproving the official spinning globe model (2) Constructing an alternative model that matches observational reality. Too often these are lumped into one resulting in a disproof of one model being used as a direct proof of another model. Ie "Southern star trails don't work on the flat earth model" -> therefore official spinning globe model is correct.

Let's assume we are past (1). Now I want an alternative model that works which requires addressing challenges to it.

The Sun

The standard flat earth model has the sun taking a circular path around the North pole, parallel to the ground with the radius of the circular path changing with the seasons. When the radius of this path is the largest it is summer in the Southern 'hemisphere'.

An Observation

It is observed that Tierra Del Fuego, at the tip of South America has a longest day of 17h 19m and 53s. As can be seen from the standard flat earth map, the sun's position would be the top blue dot where the three arrows are coming from. Each longitude line is 40 minutes. Half of 17:19:53 is 8:40, or 13 lines. The left line on the photo measures the sun's position at the end of the longest day. The other two lines are the same length. If the sun can be witnessed over that distance to Del Fuego, it would reach similar distances to other parts of the earth.

http://imgur.com/taP5Va8

That is, the world would be in perpetual daylight as seen by this image: http://imgur.com/2CI8oGA With the sun coverage shaded in. This of course is when the sun is the furthest off the centre of the "disk". In the northern summer, it would completely cover both hemispheres 24/7.

A model consistent with this observation

To me this means that the sun cannot be modeled on a flat earth as a spotlight with constant viewable distance. In this video MrThriveAndSurvive begins with problems for sun ray angles in the spinning globe model, then starting at around 18:00 he talks about a flat earth model for the sun where refraction from curved glass in the sky creates the observed phenomenon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tafd1p7MBHc

A question that is important in this discussion: Does light bend as it travels through the atmosphere? The Wild Heretic website (which promotes concave earth) has this page discussing the bending of light in the atmosphere: http://www.wildheretic.com/bendy-light-the-evidence/ I find the Theodolites section interesting.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on modeling the behavior of the sun for a flat earth model that are consistent with the observation I described? Are there any problems with the observation I gave and my reasoning that it means the sun cannot be modeled as a spotlight with constant viewable distance?

全 10 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]drball45 1ポイント2ポイント  (9子コメント)

I have always seen you flat earth people claim that the round earth is a conspiracy, this is a conspiracy, that is a conspiracy. But, WHY would the government, or almost all the governments in the world with a decent space program, produce such a conspiracy? in no way does keeping such a conspiracy benefit them, and on the contrary requires alot of human resources and money to keep this useless conspiracy going. I tell you- if the governments want to prove which is more superior, having faked a moon landing would IMMEDIATELY be found out by others trying to do that same feat (china, soviet russia, japan, uk etc) and news of a fake moon would be spread around like wildfire to bring down the us government to shame. But that was not the case.

Multiple moon landings have happened since then, with no government reporting it to be a hoax. I find this "conspiracy by duh government" thing really stupid and not remotely workable.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth[S] -2ポイント-1ポイント  (8子コメント)

This isn't really related to the topic of the post. You'll notice I went out of my way to put as a premise it was assumed that the official model was incorrect.

But I will address your point anyway. Let's look at your logic. You are saying that you cannot comprehend the motivation for something, therefore it cannot be true, blocking you from ever getting to the step of looking at the abundant evidence. Many people do this, it is hard not to unless you consciously avoid it. They will believe something if it involves a company doing something underhanded where there is a profit motive. They understand that. But if you try to discuss a topic and they suss out your conclusion and the motive doesn't jive with their world view, then they shut down and the tone of the conversation changes. It becomes all about their ego and defending their current beliefs.

Not all people are the same and have the same goals. Allowing disbelief of motivation to prevent any investigation is a problem.

WHY would the government, or almost all the governments in the world with a decent space program, produce such a conspiracy

This started a long time ago. When the fraud began the technology wasn't there to observe from great heights. So this means when the technology did become available those in control of it would have had to decide to continue the fraud.

having faked a moon landing would IMMEDIATELY be found out by others trying to do that same feat (china, soviet russia, japan, uk etc)

The moon landings were faked. All countries with space programs are aware of this reality. Take a look at some of the space footage from NASA and from the space agencies of the other countries you mentioned. There is a huge amount of bs, if you look you will see.

(china, soviet russia, japan, uk etc)

This is really a separate topic, but the East vs West oppositional paradigm is mostly an illusion. Wars are incited at the will of bankers and industrialists who finance both sides. There is abundant evidence for this, but it is a huge topic of its own.

I find this "conspiracy by duh government" thing really stupid and not remotely workable.

It is not a conspiracy by the government. What do you think the nature of the global power structure is? I can tell you that national elected governments are not the top of the power structure. Why would the people in charge not have puppets to put out for the people to focus on? Do you really think the current elected president is the guy in charge? Again this is a separate topic.

So, my entire point is that you should suspend your disbelief long enough to look at the evidence. There is an abundance of proof that the cosmology we have been given is wrong.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. - Aristotle

Try it, look past the how and why of the coverup required to pull off this huge lie and look at the evidence that has been presented.

[–]earthshape 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

You are saying that you cannot comprehend the motivation for something, therefore it cannot be true, blocking you from ever getting to the step of looking at the abundant evidence.

He's not saying that at all, no one is. What we say is that if you want us to believe there's a conspiracy, there needs at the very least to be some kind of rational motivation for it, and if there isn't, so much evidence that motive doesn't matter. You, in your reply, present neither motive nor evidence, just more claims we're supposed to take on good faith, for no particular reason.

This started a long time ago. When the fraud began the technology wasn't there to observe from great heights. So this means when the technology did become available those in control of it would have had to decide to continue the fraud.

This is a claim that requires evidence. The "fraud" could also easily be disproved from very low heights, like sea level, which is how the first people started realizing the earth was round in the first place: things sinking after crossing the horizon.

The moon landings were faked. All countries with space programs are aware of this reality. Take a look at some of the space footage from NASA and from the space agencies of the other countries you mentioned. There is a huge amount of bs, if you look you will see.

Again, no actual evidence presented. If you look for things you can't explain, you will find them. This is just confirmation bias in action. If you instead try to understand what you are seeing, and accept the evidence that adequately explains it, there is no conspiracy to be seen.

This is really a separate topic, but the East vs West oppositional paradigm is mostly an illusion. Wars are incited at the will of bankers and industrialists who finance both sides. There is abundant evidence for this, but it is a huge topic of its own.

Even if that's true, this still isn't evidence for a conspiracy regarding the shape of the earth.

I can tell you that national elected governments are not the top of the power structure. Why would the people in charge not have puppets to put out for the people to focus on? Do you really think the current elected president is the guy in charge? Again this is a separate topic.

And again it is irrelevant because it doesn't actually prove this conspiracy, the one we're discussing.

Evidence of a global cabal does not automatically make you right about the earth's shape. That is a separate claim that requires separate evidence.

So, my entire point is that you should suspend your disbelief long enough to look at the evidence. There is an abundance of proof that the cosmology we have been given is wrong.

Well, so then present it, and explain why that evidence is reliable, when so many have poked so many holes in it already.

Try it, look past the how and why of the coverup required to pull off this huge lie and look at the evidence that has been presented.

"Don't ask questions, just accept what I'm telling you."

First you prove, conclusively, using facts and science, not magic, that the earth is flat. Then, when you've done that, you prove conclusively who is involved in the conspiracy to cover this up, and how they do it. With actual evidence you can provide directly, not just claim exists "out there".

If you can't do these things, you cannot know you're right. To put it in your own perspective: you'd be believing things because someone told you to the exact same way you claim we believe the earth is round.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

You, in your reply, present neither motive nor evidence, just more claims we're supposed to take on good faith, for no particular reason.

Yes, this is absolutely true. I did not provide evidence for my premise, but I did it for a reason. This is a subreddit specifically for this subject. Discussing with people who are completely new to the topic or who think the entire thing is nonsense is one type of discussion. But it is something that you have to do over and over and over again, rehashing the same information for each new person who comes into the conversation. This is a very tiresome process because each of these people is interested not in researching for themselves, but rather preserving their world view by "winning" an argument. This becomes a process of responding to the person's every question and inquiry until they find some gotcha that they hang on. Then it repeats with the next person.

I am looking for another type of conversation here.

"Don't ask questions, just accept what I'm telling you."

No, I absolutely do not want anyone to accept what I am saying without questioning. But again, this post has a premise: the official globe model is wrong. To have a discussion in the context of a premise, you don't have to accept that premise as true, you just know your thinking is based on that premise. Here I am not trying to convince you the world is flat. Instead I want to have a conversation on how the sun might work in a flat model.

Well, so then present it, and explain why that evidence is reliable, when so many have poked so many holes in it already.

I may do this here, make a post on why the official model of the globe is wrong. It would take me several hours to compile it, then I would need to set aside some time to compose responses.

First you prove, conclusively, using facts and science, not magic, that the earth is flat.

I'm not convinced that it is flat. My position is that the official spinning globe model is incorrect. This is admittedly an easier position to take as I don't give a model to attack, instead an opponent is put in the position of defending the globe model.

[–]earthshape -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

Discussing with people who are completely new to the topic or who think the entire thing is nonsense is one type of discussion. But it is something that you have to do over and over and over again, rehashing the same information for each new person who comes into the conversation. This is a very tiresome process because each of these people is interested not in researching for themselves, but rather preserving their world view by "winning" an argument.

If there was actual research with actual evidence available anywhere, say at educational institutions or libraries, rehashing the same things here wouldn't be necessary. But for some unfathomable reason, flat earth "science" just plain isn't. It's not documented in anything other than internet forums, it's not verified using actual scientific methodology and principle, facts are not collected in intellectually honest manners and no scientific theories of any kind have been presented using any of all the evidence you claim to have... but are too tired to present to me, or anyone else.

I would be happy to read through the numerous scientific papers submitted for peer review by other experts and scholars, had they ever existed. Since they don't, I'm forced to come to reddit, and ask you about it.

No, I absolutely do not want anyone to accept what I am saying without questioning. But again, this post has a premise: the official globe model is wrong.

That's fine. The problem is, we can't have a discussion around a premise only one side claims to understand fully. The premise still has to be based on something. In your case, the premise is based on a claim that the earth is flat, but that claim in itself requires further evidence and explanation, something which is sorely lacking. Even when some kind of explanation exists, it is usually contradictory to other evidence and explanations, or even internally inconsistent with itself. So I ask again, while it's fine to have a premise, what is that premise actually based on? Can we have any discussion where either side isn't forced to make up facts from imagination, and where speculation can be at least limited to one distinct type of laws of physics, as opposed to several?

Here I am not trying to convince you the world is flat. Instead I want to have a conversation on how the sun might work in a flat model.

Again, a fine idea. But if I then say to you "well, the sun of course operates on magic", would you not dismiss my question? What is the framework of the discussion? What are its limits? Because we can have a discussion without them, but it will quickly devolve into absolute chaos and pointlessness.

I may do this here, make a post on why the official model of the globe is wrong. It would take me several hours to compile it, then I would need to set aside some time to compose responses.

I can guarantee that all globe earth supporters would be excited to read what you have to offer. They would also gladly spend ten times as many hours explaining to you all the things you are wrong about, and we'd be right back where we started.

If all there is to this idea is a few scattered people on the internet devoting, at most, "several hours" to compile a comprehensive theory of the earth, the sun, and the entire universe, along with the entirely new model and laws of physics required for it to function, then you cannot exactly fault me for questioning you, as well as your premise.

I'm not convinced that it is flat. My position is that the official spinning globe model is incorrect. This is admittedly an easier position to take as I don't give a model to attack, instead an opponent is put in the position of defending the globe model.

Indeed. Thankfully, the globe earth has defended itself against this idea for a long time already, and none of its own evidence has ever been disproved, not for lack of trying.

Like I said, the entire scientific community, basing almost every single established theory on the fact of the earth being round, would welcome you overturning thousands of years of scientific evidence after "several hours" of work. I'm sure I speak on their behalf when I say "we can't wait!"

[–]ChangeThroughTruth[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

If there was actual research with actual evidence available anywhere, say at educational institutions or libraries...

I have lost faith in "official science knows all". This is another post in itself. When you have the editor of the lancet telling you there is fraud on a massive scale, perhaps there is a problem with science:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1/fulltext?rss%3Dyes
http://www.madinamerica.com/2015/05/lancet-editor-proclaims-half-of-all-scientific-studies-are-false/

From the first link: "The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue."

If you look back in history you can see how official science operates. Where does funding come from? What happens to the careers of scientists who do what they are told? What happens to the careers of scientists who investigate in unapproved areas?

http://therundownlive.com/11th-alternative-health-doctor-mysteriously-dies-famed-holistic-oncologist-found-dead-in-woods/

Do the historical outcomes for whistleblowers encourage others to step forward? There is both a carrot and a stick. If the stick doesn't work there is a gun behind it.

Like I said, the entire scientific community, basing almost every single established theory on the fact of the earth being round,

For this fraud to be perpetrated there must be a large conspiracy. Not as large as you might think though. There are very few positions for which the shape of the earth actually matters.

If NASA is truthful then obviously I am wrong. Do you believe NASA to be legitimate? Do you think the moon landings happened? As a percentage, how much of the material that NASA has presented to the public is fraudulent in your opinion? Realizing the fraud that is official space programs is a prerequisite to discussion about the shape of the earth. Until that occurs a person is still in "cannot possibly be true" mode.

Can we have any discussion where either side isn't forced to make up facts from imagination, and where speculation can be at least limited to one distinct type of laws of physics, as opposed to several?

I made the original post with a topic that I wanted to discuss. You seem interested in discussing something else. I'm sure there are lots of other places that would be more appropriate for the conversation you are trying to have.

Again, a fine idea. But if I then say to you "well, the sun of course operates on magic", would you not dismiss my question? What is the framework of the discussion? What are its limits? Because we can have a discussion without them, but it will quickly devolve into absolute chaos and pointlessness.

I would find "magic" to be an unsatisfactory response. Your participation here is optional. Again, I see the conversation you want to have, but I didn't start this topic to have that conversation.

If all there is to this idea is a few scattered people on the internet devoting, at most, "several hours" to compile a comprehensive theory of the earth, the sun, and the entire universe, along with the entirely new model and laws of physics required for it to function, then you cannot exactly fault me for questioning you, as well as your premise.

Haha, I'm not going to spend "several hours" compiling a comprehensive theory of the earth. My statement was: "make a post on why the official model of the globe is wrong". In order to disprove a model I only need a single solid counterpoint. My quote of "several hours" was to put together a few of them nicely formatted for you and prepare to discuss responses.

I can guarantee that all globe earth supporters would be excited to read what you have to offer.

No, no they would not. The vast majority of people would not look. In our lives we don't have time to go into the details of everything. For some things we think through them once, save the result and reference it whenever the topic comes of up again. But we don't necessarily remember how we arrived at our result. For many things we just take the general consensus of the people around us as our point of view. In social situations it is expensive to have an opinion that is contrary to the group. If there is no significant benefit to taking a position to counterbalance the cost of opposition to those around us, then we likely will not even consider it to begin with. The conditioning on this topic specifically is interesting. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=obama+flat+earth I am not trying to present this as evidence of anything, but it is curious that he mentions it so much.

I am interested in your own views. In order to take this topic seriously you need some prerequisite understandings, discussion before that point is pointless. Let me get your views on two subjects:

(1) Does NASA produce legitimate material?
(2) Can you describe the nature of what you believe to be the world power structure?

[–]earthshape 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I have lost faith in "official science knows all". This is another post in itself. When you have the editor of the lancet telling you there is fraud on a massive scale, perhaps there is a problem with science:

You have two links, but they still reference the same source... And that source seems very specifically about medicine. While also science, it is a fair bit different from actual Newtonian physics and mathematics. It's hard to tell a drug truly does what it's supposed to in the human body, it's very easy to show the laws of physics are true always, no matter what.

Medical science being 50% false does not, in any way, impact the science of the shape of the earth. But of course, that's not the point, is it? You were just looking for an excuse to dismiss all science due to a perceived problem in one area of it.

For this fraud to be perpetrated there must be a large conspiracy. Not as large as you might think though. There are very few positions for which the shape of the earth actually matters.

Really? Because I would think it impacts literally every person on earth who ever travels more than a few miles across the earth's surface? Beyond that, I can think of several groups that would have a problem with it: snipers, bridge engineers, sailors, radar operators, meteorologists, and yes, since you'll inevitably bring it up, NASA (as well as every other space agency in the world).

Do you believe NASA to be legitimate? Do you think the moon landings happened?

Yes, and yes. The evidence is there, whether you want to accept it or not.

As a percentage, how much of the material that NASA has presented to the public is fraudulent in your opinion?

Potentially as little as none of it.

Realizing the fraud that is official space programs is a prerequisite to discussion about the shape of the earth.

But once again, NASA and their space program is just a small part of the overall earth population that in one way or another rely on the facts of the round earth. If the earth was in fact flat, the round earth physics and mathematics would be invalid, and since they're not, and no credible evidence for a flat earth exists (as a percentage, how much of the flat earth material presented to the public is fraudulent or false in your opinion? In mine: 100%), even without taking NASA into account I can still verifiably confirm that the earth is round.

I made the original post with a topic that I wanted to discuss. You seem interested in discussing something else.

Not at all. What I'm saying is that we can't discuss what you want to discuss until you explain how we are supposed to discuss it.

Once again, if my answer to the question of how the sun works is "because magic", and that is allowed, what kind of discussion are we really having?

I would find "magic" to be an unsatisfactory response.

Then you know how I feel when the claim is made that the earth is flat. But sure, let's take something else then:

The sun works on a flat earth because the aliens of Proxima Centauri remote control it. I know that because obviously aliens exist, and obviously they've been here, and obviously they control the government, and obviously they'd want to make sure we don't find out the truth. Of course I have evidence for this, but I can't be bothered to type it out everything someone asks about it. And you can't possibly believe flat earthers are a credible sources of information, do you? Most of them believe in God, which is obviously a lie created to mask the truth of our alien overlords.

Again, what kind of discussion are we having when I can possibly submit that as a serious offering to your proposed discussion?

No, no they would not. The vast majority of people would not look.

If you truly had facts and evidence to base a well-formulated valid theory upon, I promise you they would. If all you have is a claim based on "I refuse to believe NASA, therefor flat earth", then no, I guess not.

I am interested in your own views. In order to take this topic seriously you need some prerequisite understandings, discussion before that point is pointless.

Neither of your questions have anything to do with actual facts and evidence neither for nor against any proposed shape of the earth. All you're looking for is a reason to reject me and whatever argument I make, based on a "test" designed to filter out anyone not already predisposed to believe your claims.

(1) Does NASA produce legitimate material?

Of course it does. Everything it releases is scrutinized by the entire world's collective intellectual elite, and very little of it, if any, is ever found to be false or fraudulent.

(2) Can you describe the nature of what you believe to be the global power structure?

No, I can't, because it simply isn't even relevant. The kind of facts I'm talking about are things you can study by yourself, independent of any "power structure" of any kind. The evidence is all right in front of you, not controlled by anyone at all.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You were just looking for an excuse to dismiss all science due to a perceived problem in one area of it.

No, that is not the point. Recall that I said "This is another post in itself" which it is. I gave one example, that is all. I am not attempting to dismiss all science. What I am trying to say is that we should not just accept dictated conclusions from people who have been built up as authorities. "Science says so" is not an argument.

A fair bit different from actual Newtonian physics and mathematics.

Yes medicine is not the same as physics, but the funding sources, carrot and stick mechanisms are still at play. There is not some big quest for truth out there. Research is funded by people and institutions with the resources to do so for their own motivations. Scientific journals are corrupt, peer review is flawed. For examples of this we can look to research in areas of electromagnetism influenced by Tesla. Eric P Dollard is an interesting case study. The science he has pursued and the track of his career have demonstrated what I am talking about.

The phenomena of black holes, dark matter and many others are entirely made up to fill holes in the current cosmology. You have assumptions built on assumptions, built on other assumptions backed up by incredibly complex math that fails to match observational reality.

Really? Because I would think it impacts literally every person on earth who ever travels more than a few miles across the earth's surface? Beyond that, I can think of several groups that would have a problem with it: snipers, bridge engineers, sailors, radar operators, meteorologists, and yes, since you'll inevitably bring it up, NASA (as well as every other space agency in the world).

I have to disagree with this. For the vast majority of people the shape of the earth is immaterial in their day-to-day lives. For some of the professions you mentioned it does matter, for most the details are abstracted away. They just deal with an interface. Does a meteorologist really need to know the shape of the earth or does he simply try to create models of the weather that match observation? Once that reasonably working model is created, how often are the details of it considered by people using it? People just need to be able to do their jobs and have things work. The reason that what they are doing works is not important.

As for jobs where it actually matters, like designers of large structures, here are some points to consider on that subject: http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/05/architects-engineers-for-flat-earth.html

Do you believe NASA to be legitimate? Do you think the moon landings happened?

Yes, and yes. The evidence is there, whether you want to accept it or not.

As a percentage, how much of the material that NASA has presented to the public is fraudulent in your opinion?

Potentially as little as none of it.

Then likely this conversation is pointless. Start with space fraud first. Once you actually start looking critically you start seeing how much nonsense is there. Try /r/spacefraud

"I refuse to believe NASA, therefor flat earth",

This obviously does not follow logically. I would say space fraud it is a prereq though. And before spacefraud there is a prereq of realizing that official institutions can lie. Regulation through agencies like the FDA and EPA is a complete joke.

Neither of your questions have anything to do with actual facts and evidence neither for nor against any proposed shape of the earth. All you're looking for is a reason to reject me and whatever argument I make, based on a "test" designed to filter out anyone not already predisposed to believe your claims.

I am not trying to filter you out of discussion. I am trying to assess your world view so I know where to start the conversation. You didn't challenge my Lancet editor fraud point, so can I assume that you realize not all dictate from authorities (scientific, governmental or other) should be taken at face value unquestioningly?

[–]Hyakumanten 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So, my entire point is that you should suspend your disbelief long enough to look at the evidence. There is an abundance of proof that the cosmology we have been given is wrong.

Ok, let's look at the evidence. Let's start from the very beginning. We know for a fact that the sun's apparent size in the sky doesn't change between noon and sunset. This you can measure yourself. Most flat earth models put the sun at 3000 miles away, which would make it ~6355 miles away at sunset.1

So the sun is more than twice as far away but still the same size in the sky? Clearly something is wrong here. The sun doesn't vanish to a point at sunset. For a distance of 5603 miles to have no difference on the portion of the sky occupied by the sun, it would have to be sufficiently far away and sufficiently big that those 5603 miles are negligible.

Ok, let's now assume it is really big and really far away. Far enough and big enough that no matter where you are on earth relative to the sun, it will always be essentially the same size. This is consistent with the one thing we know for sure so far. We're not assuming anything else yet. If the sun is that big and that far away, we can't treat it as a point source. It would have to be at least as big as the Earth.

I am not going to bother explaining that this leads straight to Erastothenes' experiment where he calculates the circumference of the Earth. We can start from no assumptions at all and arrive at a round earth just from what we can see as real evidence.

I would very much like to see any evidence that shows that the widely accepted cosmology is wrong.

1: Distance from pole to equator on flat earth is 3962 miles. The sun at 6pm would therefore be above a point that is Sqrt(39622 x 2)=5603 which you can get by drawing a right angle triangle on a map of the flat earth. And then the distance from our sunset observer to the sun at sunset is Sqrt(30002 + 56032 )=6355 which you get by drawing a second right angle triangle.

[–]ChangeThroughTruth[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

We know for a fact that the sun's apparent size in the sky doesn't change between noon and sunset.

So the sun is more than twice as far away but still the same size in the sky?

It does not appear to be the same size at sunset/sunrise that it does at noon. In fact it often appears larger at the horizon. Sample image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sunset_in_Zadar_2.jpg I don't think we can use the visual appearance of size to measure distance here.

I would very much like to see any evidence that shows that the widely accepted cosmology is wrong.

For this post I am using this as a premise. I don't want every conversation I have on this topic to be convincing someone new to the topic that it isn't all just nonsense. That gets tiring and is very time consuming. I may take the time to make another post summarizing why the official cosmology cannot be correct. Perhaps I should have done that first given the responses I am getting to this post.