I'm starting to wonder if they've thought this out. - eviltoast
    • Fyurion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      1 year ago

      Though even then, the sun would never go below the horizon, it would fly off in a stright line and disappear. Going below the horizon only works on a globe

      • XIN@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        The idea is that the light is small and close. It doesn’t need to go over the horizon to disappear in the distance.

        I’m not sure how they explain the random pattern the light would need to travel for different seasons or why it looks so massive as it rises or sets.

        • green_pyroxene@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          “it doesn’t need to go over the horizon to disappear in the distance”, but the problem is that it does go over the horizon rather than disappearing, as anyone who’s seen a sunset can attest

          • XIN@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Maybe not truly logical, but there is definitely an attempt at logic as well as experiments.

            The documentary Beyond the Globe was kinda funny, sad and interesting all at once.

        • vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          so most visible stars are about 1000 light years away. And they’re still visible. And our sun obviously cannot travel at least over 1000 light years twice a day.

          • XIN@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            For reference a light year is about 63241 times further than the distance between the earth and sun.