A shame, @steevc because although that I think you're technically correct, I believe you're doing a very troublesome job proving it.
The dark truth is that most people are in cults. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, or perhaps even communism, nazism, democracy, republicanism, or liberalism. Or science.
Of course it's not that the written method of science is a cult necessarily. It's that your MIND; your brain, CRAVES cults to join. Cults, groups, cliques, a people, a nation, a team, a tribe. Or an answer that puts to rest your fears, uncertainties, and doubts.
Thus you have allied yourself with at least the general direction of science, such that you would scoff at @kencode's potential belief that relates to a firmament or mythological existence, but although I will expect @kencode to find it very hard to actually PROVE a firmament exists and especially come up with ways to utilize it, or even land on the firmament, and mine it for resources, I'm finding it amusing how you are also failing to prove your point.
Do you actually understand what you believe?
I was very specific in how I presented my evidence, when detailing the size-distance ratio, and how 5 degrees of sky really does seem like a reasonable answer. My math has yielded an element of truth.
Of course the answer can't be presented in inches or millimeters, but 5 degrees of a sky arc is the answer, and that's just about how it looks whenever I see the full circle of the sun in real life.
But I'll anticipate circle vs sphere and answer that: How do we know it's a sphere? We'd watch as it rotates, or as we orbit around it. Just track the features, such as sunspots, and immediately we have a very clear way to know the shape of the sun, even if the size is unknown.
However, @kencode is right that we could use two lasers in different locations to measure the distance of the sun. What we would do is be exactly one or two kilometers away from each other, and simply shine the lasers at the sun and observe when they hit the same spot on the sun. Then we shine the same laser at each other, completing a full triangle. From there, we can begin to see how we would form an equation to solve the length of the sides of a triangle.
The more data we gather, such as the shape, the distance, the size, the trigonometry details, the composition, and how it works, such as elemental or chemical makeup, nuclear science, star fusion details, etc, the closer we can triangulate the true nature of our star.
But this is a real example that you can actually implement, and understand why it works. @Steevc, you need to have a little more respect for @kencode. Do you realize the sort of society we live in? It is NOT easy to trust people, especially mainstream things, such as politics, religion, culture, corporations, and science. There is no reason why "trust" should extend beyond my family, friends, and neighbors. These other people are strangers. The politicians, the CEOs, scientists, and all others with power or influence in society. They're strangers whom I have never met. There is no strong reason to trust either schools or Google or anyone else that I don't personally know.
And even if they intrude into my life, that still does not mean I would trust them. But I can at least utilize math and logic and natural facts that I myself can test, and do test.
Only lies and falsities come up with random fake answers or excuses, or explanations that completely fail to convince. Fake answers will be inconsistent, and not fit into anything else we know. For example, one reason why a firmament is illogical is because when we look at other planets in space, we are able to watch the moons of those planets orbit around those planets, and watch those planets orbit around the sun.
The intense 3D nature of orbits, including on the atomic and sub-atomic level, where we never deal with anything like firmaments, but instead, we always deal with spheres, or "droplets in zero-gravity" with other spheres orbiting them, drives away the idea of a firmament very effectively. Firmaments just aren't seen anywhere in real life, so I am not convinced that I will ever see a firmament. I've used telescopes before. I've seen the real details regarding stars and planets and even distant galaxies. A firmament is just not a realistic answer.
The closest thing to a flat firmament in space is our galaxy, which orbits in a very flattened shape, like a nicely fried egg. Is THAT the true meaning of firmament? Our galaxy? If that was the true ancient meaning of the word firmament, as if to imply that our galaxy is a unit that we can someday explore, although other galaxies are likely too far away, then that would be an answer that is both consistent and logical, and doesn't call into play supernatural entities, nor does it bring up concepts too technical or complex for us to explain and talk about together.
I prefer to keep things as simple as necessary, because if I ever find that I cannot explain something that I believe, I immediately darkly ponder just why it is that "truth" should be so hard to explain.
You make some assumptions about what I believe. What I see from the flat-earthers is a lack of trust in authorities, but they have to assume that millions of people who are doing science are lying whilst keeping the conspiracy silent. That's a big ask. Apparently some distrust NASA, but the science of astronomy goes back a long way and covers many cultures.
I did a certain level of science at school, so I know some principles even if I may not follow advanced topics. I do know that shining a laser at the Sun is pretty pointless as you would not be able to make it out against all the radiation pouring out. People were able to make accurate measurements long before lasers came along, but these may not be easy for an amateur to replicate. I also cannot look at some subatomic particles, but I did some observations of interactions at school such as Brownian motion and some types of radiation.
I'm not into religion or other supernatural things as those lack scientific validity. People can believe what they want as long as they do not force it on others.
If you don't trust people you never met then that limits what you can trust. Will you fly in a plane or accept medical treatment? Trust is vital for a working society, but has to be earned. Without science we would not be communicating now.
On balance I trust science more than random people on the internet. It has a better record of being right.
The issue here is that you are using the word "trust" in a way that it doesn't deserve, considering we're on a blockchain on the fringes of society, Tsk. Apparently everyone else in society can only use Twitter and Discord and Reddit, simply because those are what are mainstream and well accepted. Popular.
The keyword we need to bring up is "Trustless," in the sense of "code is law" or "math is law," or even the idea that the data, logic, and scientific method are trustless, because we do not necessarily need "peer review," as much as we need the external existence of reality.
So when you say you "trust science," I'm not really sure what your intentions are.
Obviously this entire conversation is taking place in the realm of someone who is so mistrustful of mainstream knowledge, that they question even Galileo, Copernicus, and other centuries old discoveries, to hearken back to the firmament model.
There is no place to be told that we should "trust science more than random people on the internet." In the context of this specific debate regarding the firmament, the issue is so fundamentally about the lack of trust people have in major institutions, that the only answer is the raw math, equations, and data itself.
In effect, random people on the internet are roughly as trustable as any random scientist, priest, politician, or even engineer or doctor. At least from the view of someone like @Kencode. Of course we are not here to be naive about how to function in society regarding the existence of technology and techniques, but in many ways, @Kencode's concern is very likely not necessarily a belief in the firmament, as if he absolutely knew all the facts about creationism and the firmament, but rather, the idea that modern science is so suspicious and untrustable, that all previous answers need to be reviewed again, including the firmament, creationism, and even non-big-bang theories that may lack any supernatural god element, but are still not what is currently accepted as science.
Trust has no place here and even mentioning it is a dark blight upon the topic of science. Having a better record of being right means nothing to me. Only the truth is true.
Faith, trust, and belief are blights blights blights, and even using that word in the context of a debate about the firmament is just not going to convince anyone. If you want to defeat @kencode, then you need to stop using the word trust, and stop asking him to trust people. That's not going to work. He views these institutions as liars, and until you can prove that at least some of what they say is true, why wouldn't he grow even more suspicious the more you tell him to have faith? You should just deliver him the data, the logic, and the usage of the scientific method, and importantly, do these experiments in real life, and get him to do them too. These are debates about the truth of reality, and unless you both go outside and embrace the light of the sun, all you will know is darkness.
I'm not out to 'defeat' @kencode. I am just putting out my views, but I don't know what level of proof he is looking for really. Measuring astronomical distances requires specialist equipment and knowledge.
I disagree with that. Trust is based on reputation which we can take from what we see them say/do and also from what others think of them. Mind you, I would say that a billion Christians can be wrong :) To become a respected scientist you need to prove yourself through exams and then by publishing papers that your peers review. I am not qualified to judge them, but I have some trust in the system.
None of us is going to read every scientific paper to understand how everything works, so you have to trust that others have read them. The system is by no means perfect, but it is all we have. Humans are imperfect too. They can lie and steal, but most are basically honest and so the crooks can get caught out.
Unlike some people here I have respect and trust in some politicians and CEOs. They are just people like us after all, not alien lizards out to conquer Earth (or whatever some people believe).
Trust should not be blind, but you get to set the limits you place on it. Yours may be different to mine. When I get on a plane I trust that it has been tested and maintained. I do not do my own inspection.