The Mainstream Heliocentric Model is Correct

# **Here Comes the Sun** So, this video starts by describing one of the FE models. It also happens to be a perfect example of the ad hoc approach that FE'ers take. There are a lot of ways to prove that this model is incorrect, here's one: The spherical sun acting like a spotlight creates a timezone problem. At 7am in NYC it's daylight. It's also daylight in Argentina at that time. Argentina is about ~12,000 miles due South of NYC. At this same moment, it's 4am in Los Angeles and it's still dark there. There's no way for that model to reflect this reality. Try it yourself. Draw a circle of light of any size you like on the map and try to make the above scenario happen. You'll discover that basic geometry prevents this from ocurring. On a spherical Earth, it's easy to make happen. The second half of the video spends a lot of time trying to show that size changes of the sun and its coverage glow prove that the sun isn't 93M miles away. This topic is another perfect example of the kind of thinking errors that lead to FE beliefs. In principle, it sounds pretty reasonable. The guy clearly shows us that the sun looks like it changes size. And he points out, quite correctly, that a cause of apparent size change is perspective but only at close distances. He also correctly points out that the coverage of sunset glow shrinks from either side of the sun inward toward the sun. He correctly states that sunlight should be hitting the entire Earth evenly if the sun is 93M ways. If someone isn't trained to think logically or sceintifically, it's easy to see why all of that sounds compelling. But the mistake he's making is assuming that the only way the sun could appear to change size is through perspective. And that's incorrect. Light flaring will also make he sun look bigger and smaller. Moreover, on several videos you can even see that the shape of the sun like a four-pointed star... to my eye, that's obviously flare. Does he think the sun is moving away from us and changing shape too? Turns out that you can remove the flare to see if the true sun changes size. You can see Wolfie doing it here: @8:35 when he says the sunlight "shrinks"? That effect is caused by the fact that he's inside the atmosphere. Think about how a sunset works. The light hits the atmosphere parallel from all over. The atmosphere scatters it and separates it into wavelengths. In the case of sunlight, more red makes it through than other wavelengths. Wherever you are in the world if you're facing directly West at sunset then you're going to see more at the point you're looking than far to either side of you. Why? Because the light where you're looking has the shortest distance, least amount of atmosphere and least amount of angle change to reach your eyes. The light hitting atmosphere say way north of you, has a lot more atmosphere to get through to reach your eyes and has to be deflected to a much more unlikely angle. **The most undeniable proof of the Fleat Earth SUN! Mindblowing Clip!** Wow. Not only does this clip not show what it thinks its showing. It actually shows the opposite. The FE model claims that distance plus perspective are the reason why we lose sight of the sun. This experiment shows us a very good example of what a sunset looks like -- and it looks very much like a disc that is occludded by a horizontal line starting from the bottom and moving up. They then try to replicate this by moving a disc away from our view over a table without changing height. The experiment does indeed seem to show us something that looks a lot like the sunset. But there's a pretty big problem here. In the experiment with the table, our point of view is below the surface of the table... ...BUT in the real world, our point of view is NEVER below the horizon line. In the FE model as the sun recedes away from us, it should appear to move closer and closer to the horizon line but never be able to reach it. That follows from the definition of how perspective works. So the part in this video where the bottom half of the sun was blocked by the table? What would be the equivalent of that on a flat plane? It can't be the plane itself because we're standing on that. If we had placed the camera on top of the table. Or even imagine you were six inches high and standing on the table, then the experiemnt wouldn't have worked. If you were six inches high, you'd have to jump off the surface of the Earth and stand below it to see this effect work. **Flat Earth - The Sun Explained** SO, this is just another video describing the supposed model. My earlier argument about the timezone problem applies. As do my arguments to the previous video. According to this model, the circle that the sun takes each day gets smaller and smaller toward summer and gets larger and larger toward winter. It also says that that once circuit takes 24 hours. If this were true, it would mean that the sun's linear velocity must be much slower in summer and it must be much higher in winter. Just look ing at the image at 2:01, the distance that the sun has to cover in Winter is more than double the distance in summer. So the sun should be moving twice as fast. But we can see that the sun moves at the same speed everyday. This model does not allow for sunsets. If you look at a California sunset you see a very clear shape. The diameter of the sun remains the same. It begins to dip below the horizon without any change to the size of the sun's shape and when it's halfway down we see a clear semi-circle. None of this could be observed if this was merely perspective. Which means sunsets as we see them wouldn't happen on this model. Also see response to first video. **How the sun and moon work over the FLat Earth model** Hilariously, if you look, I've already refuted a lot of these videos when they came out. I have months/years old comments on a lot of them. Before I respond to this one's main point - look at the footage at 3:06. Rob calls that "getting smaller" but if that's what is actually happening there it's not getting smaller because of perspective. Perspective doesn't' change the shape of an object like that. Perspective doesn't cut squeeze just the bottom half and leave the top half alone. Why a FE plays this video and ignores that is beyond me. So, his actual argument starts at 4:21. Two things... The magnification exaggerates the perspective phenomenon but notice how he didn't' actually show the sun setting? Because it still won't ever disappear over the horizon from bottom up. And then did you see how in the upper left videos he subtly but without mentioning it added in barriers that were above our eye-line? Same thing the table guy was doing. That doesn't work as a model of reality. **TRUTH #7** Did this video even make an argument? **ANTARCTICA VIDEO** So, basically everything being asserted about Antartica is false. You can read the treaty here: https://www.bas.ac.uk... Show me where it says you're not allowed to go. You are allowed to go. "The dollar value of the resources is too high to ignore." Says who? What is it? According to this, it's not worth the cost; http://discoveringantarctica.org.uk... There are bunch of throwaway lines after that. ANy in particualr you want to defend? **THE DUBAY BLOG ENTRY** Again, perfect example of how unhinged the FE'ers are... basically, Eric Dubay has no idea what actually happens in the real world. He's so mixed up in that blog entry it's comedic. He wrote, "If the Earth were actually a spinning globe revolving around the Sun, the only place such a phenomenon as the Midnight Sun could be observed would be at the poles." Apparently, he's not aware that the Earth has an axial tilt. But it does. And that's why his sentence makes no sense. Then later her writes, "In typical reverse-engineered damage-control fashion, trying to explain away the Midnight Sun, problematic Arctic/Antarctic phenomena, desperate heliocentrists in the late 19th century again modified their theory to say the ball-Earth actually tilts back 23.5" Wait a minute. If he knows that the GE model involves an axial tilt then in what universe does he think it's not intellectually dishonest to have written early that the concept is impossible because we can't see through land? That kind of rhetorical approach should be a giant red flag to you and anyone else stumbling onto Dubay. Oh, but he says we only came up with that because we were trying to explain away the midnight sun. That was pretty unfair of us... just trying to weasel out of facing the truth like that! Pretty amazing we had the foresight to do this before we discovered the midnight sun though, don't you think: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu... Bro, Dubay is the worst of the worst. He's not only wrong. He's willing to lie in an effort to convince people. He wrote, "Heliocentrists also cannot explain why the Midnight Sun phenomenon is not experienced anywhere in the Southern hemisphere at any time of year." Uh, say what now? Now, Eric is claiming it doesn't happen in the South? These aren't even clever lies. He's just asserting random stuff in order to hopefully confuse people and support his case. Of course, the southern pole DOES experience it... "The midnight sun is a natural phenomenon that occurs in the summer months in places north of the Arctic Circle or south of the Antarctic Circle, when the sun remains visible at the local midnight." https://en.wikipedia.org... Once realize how deceptive FE proponents are you'll start checking and double-checking their claims and quickly discover that the only people who believe them are the people who don't do