Not really sure what trolling means in this context? Aren't we just having a conversation?
I could have explained to you that in Flat Earth cosmology the sun & moon are not millions of miles away but local (as demonstrated by the phenomena known as crepuscular rays), but it was simpler to drop the video and I thought you & future readers might enjoy the dulcet tones of Dubay ;)
Those "very specific" circumstances you mentioned just happen to be exactly what everyone believed in the years prior to the globe Earth story. So, probably worth taking into account when making an experiment to disprove them.
Let's not get into the INSANELY specific circumstances required to produce a sun & moon which appear exactly the same size from Earth, despite (supposedly) being at different distances from Earth (especially when combined with the odds of being on a 'planet' which is at exactly the right distance from the sun to produce life). The odds of this are unimaginable. While the odds of the two orbs which create day & night (two halves of a whole) being the same size & distance from Earth does not seem so unimaginable at all. Even a child would concede this.
You are fast to cite your evidence with the N/S E/W alignment, yet all this proves is that you are unfamiliar with the subject. No doubt you believe the Mercator projection map to be the most accurate map of this realm to date? Well, even wiki acknowledge "There is some controversy over the origins of the Mercator". Indeed. That's because it looked rather different prior to this.
On a Flat Earth map everything lines up. Confirmed by looking at modern flight times & re-fuelling ports, which on a mercator map don't make any sense. I don't just watch videos in fact. Have spent a huge amount of time on this.
I am a photographer/filmmaker by trade and in Indonesia five years ago I ran tests with my most powerful telescopic lens over large expanses of water where with the lens it was possible to see the white sand of beaches on far away islands when technically they should have been below the curvature of the Earth, which is easily worked out using the maths provided by today's 'science'. It is probably worth mentioning that at the time I was trying desperately to disprove the Flat Earth! Because just as it is for you, every part of my body was pushing me away from the idea (years of conditioning tend to have this effect). Yet no matter how hard I tried, I simply could not disprove it.
So, I suppose my challenge to you is simple. See if you can personally disprove the Flat Earth.
Should be easy right?
The sun and moon do not appear to be the same size from earth, if you bother to measure them. The do not even always appear to be the same size themselves... both will look larger close to the horizon, because of atmospheric lensing effect. This is part of the same phenomenon that causes corpuscular rays (and why corpuscular rays do not always appear to have the same angle, which they should if it was a close sun shining through a flat atmosphere).
As for your telescope experiment, I don't know how far away your white sand beaches, and I didn't get a chance to double check the math. I know that when you approach the Rockies by car you don't just suddenly see the whole mountain, you see the tops first. When you approach a city from the see you don't see the beaches first, because they're closer, you see the building first, because they're taller. And I know that you cannot point a laser at Antarctica from America, because of the curve of the earth. It's the reason broadcast signals cover the whole planet. It's the reason you can't see Europe with a telescope from America, which should be easy, right, since you can see the moon so easily, and that's supposed to closer AND smaller than Europe.
I've already personally disproven the Flat Earth. I was a science geek of a kid who was into astronomy, and I couldn't afford formal education. I read books, and did my own experiments. Can I prove it beyond ANY shadow of a doubt? No, that wouldn't be science. Science dictates that there is always room for doubt. People have doubted the idea that the earth is round for as long as people have been on this earth, but as people have tried to prove which is true, the shape of an oblate spheriod is the only one that has never been proved false. There are literally thousands of years worth of research on this, and much of it is available for you to double check.
The reason I thought you might be trolling me with that video is because that guy doesn't back up anything he says with actual science, he just reinforces the false assumptions that scientist spent centuries trying to understand, and have since spent millenia trying to find a deeper understanding of. That, and Dubay's 'dulcet tones' sound like he's trying to mock Carl Sagan.
But eclipses fit together perfectly? I have photographed many. So when the sun & moon both experience the same atmospheric distortion from our perspective they appear the same size. Which is undeniably a mighty big coincidence.
Can you see how the same would be true on a flat earth? The atmosphere becomes clearer the higher we go.
And of course you can't see Europe from America ;) Even the best telescope cannot see through that much haze. Same problem for a laser.
The distance I was looking at in Indonesia was around 50 km. (196.20 meters curvature). And even this was hard to see due to haze. It was just observable due to the colour contrast between the white sand against the dark green of the jungle behind it.
No trolling here my friend. I am genuinely keen to learn as much as I can from any humans who who believe themselves to have knowledge (or even better, first hand experience!) in subjects which also interest me.
Eclipses do not fit together perfectly, as you should know if you've photographed so many. They don't even always fit exactly the same way, as can be seen in the 'ring of fire' phenomenon with solar eclipses. I assume you're only talking about solar eclipses, since the same size comparisons don't apply to lunar eclipses.
Atmospheric conditions do not explain why you see mountain tops first. The air is more rarified, but the tops of the mountains are many more miles away. Also, the mountain tops appear on the horizon, they do not seem to float in the air (although I have seen that illusion with foggy ground conditions).
The haze explanation will kinda work when it comes to seeing Europe through a telescope. There are workarounds for that as well, like trying mountaintop to mountaintop, or even NYC city skyscraper roof to European mountaintop. If your theory about seeing mountain tops first as you approach because the air is more rarified is true, then viewing through the rarified air of higher elevations should do the trick. We make lasers now that would easily cut through the haze, and even pocket lasers will go through quite a bit of it. Global tight beam communication should be possible on a flat earth. It is definitely not possible (with current technology) to do it on this earth.
The calculation you used to measure your apparent drop in Indonesia wasn't exactly correct for your experiment. The number you have here is the total drop from a perpendicular plane, not the amount of curvature. Because you would have been on land, looking at a downward angle toward the beach the drop wouldn't have been easily apparent. Had you set the plane of your telescope perpendicular to earth, them measured the downward angle you had to use to view the beach, and adjusted for your own elevation, you should be able to verify the distance of that perpendicular drop. You could also do the math to see what downward angle should allow you to view an island 50km away on a flat earth.
Assuming that you believe the sun and moon go around a flat earth, how do you explain that the sun and moon don't appear significantly smaller at the apex of their path, where they should be much farther away than they would be at the horizon? Also, how do you explain that there is no edge? And how do you explain that people can fly to the west coast of America by traveling east from Africa, and vice versa? Or the movement of the stars observed from the poles?
Hello there! How you doing?
Am wondering if you came up with an answer to the last question I asked? Relating to the longest line of sight photograph, covering a distance of 275miles. This is not the first time I have reached this point in the conversation only to never hear from the other person again! Does this mean you've simply had enough talking about this subject? Or perhaps it means you don't have an answer to the question? Either way I would love to know.
Same answer applies as the answer to your issue with seeing the white sandy beach through your telescope. Line of sight depends on MANY more variables than just the curvature of the earth.