The Mainstream Heliocentric Model is Correct

#1 You reassert that it shows the valid timezone but it doesn't. First of all, at timecode 0:20 the sun is on the wrong side of the world. I let it play forward to where it might be as you say and it doesn't work. You can't just assert false things and expect ti to be compelling. Moreover, it's a geometric impossibility. If the circle is large enough to cover a vertical distance of 12,000 miles then you can't cover the vertical slice that includes NYC and Argentina without also capturing California. Draw the circle. You don't even have to upload it or anything. Just try it on your own and be honest. #2 "The video does not state that the sun is constantly changing size, just during the end of a sunset and the beginning of a sunrise, again, such as this example." No, what are you suggesting? That perspective only happens during sunset? The video focuses on sunset but the argument is that the sun's size is decreasing because the sun is moving away form us. The argument invokes perspective. But if the sun is changing size due to perspective then it has to be changing size all day long. Look at the model. No matter where you are in the world, the sun is either moving toward you, or moving away from you. So perspective has to apply at all times. "I don't think my opponent understands what I'm saying, so I will give a longer explanation. At 11 PM, which is almost noon the sun is nearly directly overhead. The video was taken in May. During that Month, the sun typically does not set until around 8 PM. I have no clue where Wolfie is from but lets use an example, the city I live in." Uh, you're right. I don't understand what you're saying there. I assume you mean AM but this is what you've "explained": - 11 am is almost noon - The video was taken in May - The sun typically sets at 8pm in May. So what's your argument? #3 "My opponent is simply dismissing his statements. Next" I already showed that his example is broken because he's artificially occluding the horizon. He assertion that the horizon is above our head is unhinged. I could assert to you that the Earth only exists in my head and is round because that's how I imagine it. At some point, it becomes silly. You're not defending it but you seem like you're not willing to concede is obviously false so here you go: He provides no evidence or argument. He just asserts an obviously untrue thing. So my counter-assertion of "No, it doesn't" meets his evidential burden. An argument that absurd isn't being made in good faith but if it help you understand then how about this: the horizon has no mass, without mass it cannot occlude light, if cannot occlude light then he cannot simulate it with a table. #4 "The video isn't claiming that seasons are caused by the sun changing speed, the video is instead claiming that seasons are caused by the sun moving its path. Please try harder." Dude. You are so confused right now. What you wrote makes no sense. 1. I'm aware the video attempts to discuss the seasons. 2. My argument has nothing to do with the seasons. 3. My argument takes two claims made by the video and points out that they logically imply a contradiction with reality. 4. My argument has nothing to do with the seasons. 5. The video makes two claims: a. The sun always completes one circuit in one day. b. The sun's circuit shifts toward the center and away over the course of a year. 6. I took those two facts and noticed that they mean that the sun must be speeding up and slowing down. 7. Why? Because sometimes it completes the small circle in one day. And sometimes it's completing the large circle in one day. The circumference of the outside circle is much higher than the inside circle. 8. If the sun travels the outside circumference in the same time it travels the inside circumference (1 day), then it must be traveling faster when it's on the outside and slower when it's on the inside track. 9. This speed differential is not observed in real life. Thus, the model is refuted. And, bro, the snipes don't help your case. #5 "I believe you are the confused one here. He isn't arguing that the sun is changing shape, he is arguing it is getting quashed. See what I mean?" Uh, no, I don't see what you mean. Do you not know the definition of squashed? Here, I just looked it up: "crush or squeeze (something) with force so that it becomes flat, soft, or out of shape." He's saying that the sun is being squeezed so that it's shape changes from a sphere/disc to flat. That's changing shape. What the heck do you think he's saying? #6 "Yes, almost your entire argument was a rant. You spent a long time claiming that he was a liar and confused, brought up the axis argument, and then dismissed a couple more of his statements." Are you being intentionally deceptive here? You realize you can go look at what I said. So for the third time... You cut and paste and explanation I have disproven twice. See this line in the middle? "...desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5 degrees on its vertical axis.." Now, go back to my first argument and look at my answer where I provide you a link that directly refutes this assertion of Eric's. He assertion is without evidence. I show you research that proves the axial tilt has been known since B.C. He claimed that the antarctic didn't have a midnight sun. I provided you proof that it did have a midnight sun. Did you actually follow any of my links? Do you know what the difference between dismissing and refuting is? Did you really have the gall to tell ME to try harder? SMH.