Flat Earth

[AntiSoof]

I began researching this subject at "200 proofs the earth is not a spinning ball", that's what got me started researching this about five years ago, and I've done hundreds of hours of research since then, mostly watching videos on the subject. I believe in the Holy Bible AS IT WAS WRITTEN (although interpretations can vary), and that includes Hebrew cosmology. I would ask those who think they live on a spinning ball to watch the "200 proofs" video, and tell me where he was wrong...?

I didn't see much that was right.

3. Water. Liquid water always seeks its own level. Gravity, which is really the function of density (weight) of objects over distances, cannot cause oceans to curve around the globe. Sea level must be consistent throughout the world. Water, in other words, can not curve. Example: the Pacific Ocean, sea level.

Water is not flat. It does level. On a 3-D globe as it does.
There are several reasons for the gradual distribution of the water. i.a. the air pressure, gravity and probably the 4th state of the water. Indeed, gravity does not exist. That's probably an atomic force. Everything seeks its level. Water is 1 kg/l in weight, seeks equilibrium with other matter. What you call density. Seems correct to me.

 

[fega72]

Maybe water does not want to be flat, water wants to be as evenly distributed as possible (over the earth). Among other things, the air pressure ensures that distribution. Moreover, the 4th form of water may contribute to this phenomenon. Plus the 'gravity', that also plays a role. For these kinds of problems one has to think 3-D.

Luckily laser lights decided to fallow that evenly distributed water surface and not going in strait lines. And the atmosphere decided to stay around the globe and ignore the vacuum's force so we have air pressure to push the water around the curved surface, and the water can ignore the centrifugal force and sticks to the globe, even if it evaporate it will fall back to the surface at some point. The gravity is strong enough to keep the atmosphere around the globe but it is too weak to make the moon fall. etc...

 

[AntiSoof]

Luckily laser lights decided to fallow that evenly distributed water surface and not going in strait lines. And the atmosphere decided to stay around the globe and ignore the vacuum's force so we have air pressure to push the water around the curved surface, and the water can ignore the centrifugal force and sticks to the globe, even if it evaporate it will fall back to the surface at some point. The gravity is strong enough to keep the atmosphere around the globe but it is too weak to make the moon fall. etc...

I haven't seen any honest conclusive evidence of those lasers yet. Moreover, light could bend slightly with the curvature of the earth and so it seems to be so.

Oops, I believe I misread you. Or did I not?
Why do you write "vacuum's force"? Vavuum is not a force. It is zero pressure.
I myself am a proponent of the ether theory. The field in which everything takes place. And I think everything is an expression of energy in motion. Matter seems to me to be energy in condensed form, immensely small movements of waves in the immense ether field. Protons, for example, seem to me to be pure energy in very small waves, so do neurtrons and electrons. Light seems to me like a wave in the ether field. Heat is a wave in that field. Everything is tiny waves, as explained in quantum mechanics. That seems to me to be the most obvious explanation. The structure of the movement of those quantum particles is a great insight. Everything seems to be energy. A dance in the infinite background field of the universe's ultra-fine mesh. A web that communicates timeless probably. This theory also seems to explain the shape of the earth to some extent. It's because it's the best it can be. That's all.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Probably the ISS is a movie studio in Star City, Moscow.

or a movie set in Houston.
but.
. a solar-powered tin can vrooming around at 17,000 mph in a complete vacuum?

not

^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>>>>>>

The following post is (should be) separate from the one above.
A formatting flaw, in my opinion. If I wanted to edit a previous post, I would do so.
. . . . . . . .

~33:33

View: https://youtu.be/NxYs7-dYnPU


JTolan MEDIA
How I Measured the Distance to the Celestial Dome

Apr 10, 2022
Increasing the positional and angular accuracy with a theodolite has revealed a most shocking truth.
________________

This YTer is known for his infrared photography of targets at very long range. Infrared lenses removes refraction from atmospheric clutter.
In this video he triangulates the distance to the dome.
3943 miles, which is 16 miles off the radius of the globe.
That figure does not measure the thickness of the total firmament.
Space, the Final Frontier, starts at the Karman line, ~ 62 mile
Can we interpret that claim as a clue? since the Nasa freemasons pride themselves on their sharing the true truth, somewhere in the haystack of fake facts of science.

Let's ask the Google: how many heavens are there?

https://climate.nasa.gov › news › earths-atmosphere-a-...

Search for: How many layers of atmosphere are there?

What are the 7 layers of atmosphere?

The 7 Layers in Order

Exosphere.
Ionosphere.
Thermosphere.
Mesosphere.
Ozone Layer.
Stratosphere.
Troposphere.
Earth's Surface.


The 7 Layers the Earth's Atmosphere by Hailey Hammonds - Prezi

Thanks for posting that video Grav , it is most interesting and suggests to me that this distance to the starry vault has been known for at least few hundred years .

It 's a fine piece of work by the lad carrying out the survey .

If you take those survey results and fit them to the globe model , in which all incoming starlight rays are parallel owing to those fantastic distances to the stars then the angle which the separated theodolites subtend to the centre of a globe earth must give that same value for the radius of the imaginary globe.

Hope that makes sense.

So in my opinion this has been known ever since the early surveys carried out by Brahe , Cassini and the other proper scientists of the time . Explains why the blob was supposed to be around 8000 miles diameter and eventually this was refined as optical instruments improved.

TPTB have once again inverted the truth .

 

[grav]

Explains why the blob was supposed to be around 8000 miles diameter and eventually this was refined as optical instruments improved.

Are you saying the dome, or firmament, is 8000 miles deep?
If so, I'd halve that number, to between 3000 and 4000 miles.

The bottom layer, in my guesstimate, begins at 62 miles of altitude, the Karman line.
Above that are transparent layers of "glass" ceilings in which luminaries reside, either fixed or moving.

The outermost layer would be ~3000+ miles, which JTOLAN and other researchers have concluded, by triangulation to stars.

Above that is what? The waters, as Bible and myths have chronicled.

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

Distance traveled, divided by time spent traveling is equal to the speed of travel. If you travel for 1 hour, and travel 100 miles in that hour, you have traveled 100 miles/hour.

Assuming that you do not follow the heliocentric model; which requires the Earth to be passing infront of the sun, we can consider the following: The sun is traveling over the earth.

Not only is it doing exactly that, but it is consistent in it's travel. At a rate of about 1040 miles an hour, the sun travels about 24,960 miles a day. Just 40 miles shy of the 25,000 mile circumference of Earth, that was calculated by Cyrus Teed back in the mid 1800's.

Proponents of the Flat Earth demonstrate that the sun travels over the face of earth in a circular motion, however it moves inward and outward during the year.

If this is to be an assumed physical representation of our reality; than then sun MUST increase it's speed as it travels over the southern hemisphere, which is consistently depicted as nearly double the diameter of the northern hemisphere in every depiction of Flat Earth.

The acute issue with this concept is that we do not experience an increase of the sun's speed at the rate it would be physically required to travel across a tropical zone that is twice the size of it's sister tropic zone.

TL;DR F.E. Doesn't work because the sun would literally have to double in speed to travel over the tropic of capricorn, and both tropics get equal amounts of sunlight every year. D=T/S. We know the distance of the tropics is equal. Shipping routes world wide demonstrate this, and have for hundreds of years. I highly encourage any Flat Earther to consider navigating the tropics by sea in order to demonstrate their belief as fact. (Or Fiction)

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Are you saying the dome, or firmament, is 8000 miles deep?
If so, I'd halve that number, to between 3000 and 4000 miles.

The bottom layer, in my guesstimate, begins at 62 miles of altitude, the Karman line.
Above that are transparent layers of "glass" ceilings in which luminaries reside, either fixed or moving.

The outermost layer would be ~3000+ miles, which JTOLAN and other researchers have concluded, by triangulation to stars.

Above that is what? The waters, as Bible and myths have chronicled.

To clarify , no-one has ever measured any curvature or carried out anything other than planar survey of some parts of the earth surface . Yet we are told the earth has a supposed radius of around 3950mls .

jTOLAN and others has surveyed the distance to the stars giving a resulting distance roughly the same .Good work by jTOLAN and the others.

The 8000 mile earth diameter figure was always bandied around from so-called ancient times according to mainstream .

I think that figure must have come from early triangulations . We are told that the early astronomers thought that the stars are far far away their incoming lightrays parallel etc. All rubbish.

Am of the opinion now that past astronomers also used trigonometric techniques to survey the distance to the stars (Euclidean geometry has been around for a long time) . They also new the world was flat . Their results would have given the distance to the stardome as being around the 4000 mile mark same as todays.

The deception carried out by the bozos in control was to pretend this 4000miles was actually the radius of earth rather than the distance to the vault of the stars. Hence the 8000ml diameter of the earth.

Have the distances to any planets been triangulated would you know?

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

To clarify , no-one has ever measured any curvature or carried out anything other than planar survey of some parts of the earth surface . Yet we are told the earth has a supposed radius of around 3950mls .

jTOLAN and others has surveyed the distance to the stars giving a resulting distance roughly the same .Good work by jTOLAN and the others.

The 8000 mile earth diameter figure was always bandied around from so-called ancient times according to mainstream .

I think that figure must have come from early triangulations . We are told that the early astronomers thought that the stars are far far away their incoming lightrays parallel etc. All rubbish.

Am of the opinion now that past astronomers also used trigonometric techniques to survey the distance to the stars (Euclidean geometry has been around for a long time) . They also new the world was flat . Their results would have given the distance to the stardome as being around the 4000 mile mark same as todays.

The deception carried out by the bozos in control was to pretend this 4000miles was actually the radius of earth rather than the distance to the vault of the stars. Hence the 8000ml diameter of the earth.

Have the distances to any planets been triangulated would you know?

Curvature was actually measured twice that I am aware of. Once with a mechanical device, back in the 1800's; and the 2nd time was much more recent, in Brighton Colorado.

However I favor the original measuring procedure as conducted by Cyrus Teed, and Ulysses G Morrow, and I am a large proponent of Brian Mullin's "Force the Line" Experiment.

 

[FarewellAngelina]

Distance traveled, divided by time spent traveling is equal to the speed of travel. If you travel for 1 hour, and travel 100 miles in that hour, you have traveled 100 miles/hour.

Assuming that you do not follow the heliocentric model; which requires the Earth to be passing infront of the sun, we can consider the following: The sun is traveling over the earth.

Not only is it doing exactly that, but it is consistent in it's travel. At a rate of about 1040 miles an hour, the sun travels about 24,960 miles a day. Just 40 miles shy of the 25,000 mile circumference of Earth, that was calculated by Cyrus Teed back in the mid 1800's.

Proponents of the Flat Earth demonstrate that the sun travels over the face of earth in a circular motion, however it moves inward and outward during the year.

If this is to be an assumed physical representation of our reality; than then sun MUST increase it's speed as it travels over the southern hemisphere, which is consistently depicted as nearly double the diameter of the northern hemisphere in every depiction of Flat Earth.

The acute issue with this concept is that we do not experience an increase of the sun's speed at the rate it would be physically required to travel across a tropical zone that is twice the size of it's sister tropic zone.

TL;DR F.E. Doesn't work because the sun would literally have to double in speed to travel over the tropic of capricorn, and both tropics get equal amounts of sunlight every year. D=T/S. We know the distance of the tropics is equal. Shipping routes world wide demonstrate this, and have for hundreds of years. I highly encourage any Flat Earther to consider navigating the tropics by sea in order to demonstrate their belief as fact. (Or Fiction)

We are talking about the distance to the stars and the dome . The nature of the sun is unknown.

Can you provide details of these measurements of curvature you allude to?

 

[GandalfTheGreen]

I most certainly can.

Please enjoy this fabulous post by one of the Admins here, Dreamtime.

Dreamtimes FEcore post.

This is for the attachment that I've already posted above, where FE core acknowledges through measurement that the surface of the earth is Inverse what we are taught. (Which easily explains the navigation, observation, and celestial issues of FE)

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I most certainly can.

Please enjoy this fabulous post by one of the Admins here, Dreamtime.

Dreamtimes FEcore post.

This is for the attachment that I've already posted above, where FE core acknowledges through measurement that the surface of the earth is Inverse what we are taught. (Which easily explains the navigation, observation, and celestial issues of FE)

FE core are not known to me as flat earthers - they are skilled in the art of deception. Hence the use of an imaginary horizontal line - their words not mine- used in their "scientific survey" to force the level .

All they really need to do is to carry out the Brian Mullins "Force the Line " experiment which does not rely on imaginary scenarios. But they won't because they are not interested in the truth.

 

[EUAFU]

7 ways you can easily prove that the Earth is not flat
Posted Sunday 24 May 2020 10:00 by Mimi Launder in tech
UPVOTE

View attachment 9405
Picture: iStock
Pretty much everyone knows the Earth is a globe. But a very, very small minority of us cling inexplicably to the idea of a flat Earth.
So, with everyone staying inside over the course of the Covid-19 pandemic, we thought it was the perfect time to compile the ways you can prove that the Earth most definitely a globe.
1. Look upwards
View attachment 9406
Yep, this one's pretty simple. When you look up at the night sky, you can only see certain constellations from certain points on Earth.

Someone in Australia will see a different sky to someone in England at night - for example, you can't see Polaris, the North Star, from the southern hemisphere.
If the Earth was flat, everyone would be able to see the same constellations.
2. Look down
An equally straightforward way to prove the Earth is not flat is to simply measure your shadow.
If you get two people at different distances from the equator, and they measure their shadows at the same time, their shadows will be different lengths. But if the Earth was flat, their shadows would be the same.
Eratosthenes, who conducted a version of this experiment, knew this 3,000 years ago
3. Weigh yourself
View attachment 9407

Gravity, which pulls everyone towards the centre of our planet's mass, means we weigh the same wherever we are in the world.

But a flat Earth would mean that those at the edge of the disk would be pulled sideways, while those at the centre would be pulled down.
To iron out this problem, Flat Earthers have concluded there is no such thing as gravity - you know, that force that pretty much holds the entire Universe together.

But if they were correct, you would not be able to weigh yourself at all. You would also be dead.
4. Take a trip to Antarctica
Flat Earthers argue that Antarctica is actually a massive ice wall around a flat Earth.
But, if that were true, the countless planes that fly over Antarctica would surely have just... fallen off?

5. Check your watch
View attachment 9408
Picture: iStock / FoxysGraphic

To explain seasons, Flat Earthers argue that the sun orbits in a circle above us.
But that doesn't explain time zones, though this is their attempt, which shows the sun as some kind of spotlight,

Everyone whose ever used a torch at night knows you can see its beam from the side - and that would apply to a flat Earth too.
6. Grab a compass
Our planet has a magnetic field generated by the molten iron at the core of our planet.
If the Earth was flat, it would have no core. And even if it had a flat layer of liquid metal instead, the planet wouldn't rotate in a way that created a magnetic field.

7. Grab a pendulum
This famous experiment was first demonstrated in 1851 by Leon Foucault and is now found in museums around the world.

If you watch a pendulum for long enough, you'll notice it starts to swing in a slightly different direction, which proves the Earth is rotating beneath your feet.

If this is the evidence that the Earth is a globe, then the Flat Earth theory makes much more sense.
The arguments in this post are pretty weak, the premises that try to support them are even childish.
What do you mean that people should see all the stars if the Earth were flat? That is if the stars were billions of miles away. If they are closer the answer is no.

When did they prove that something called Gravity exists? That's right. Another false premise.

Same for the Earth's supposed iron core.

In short, these earth-globe proofs are weak to say the least.

 

[Quiahuitl]

If this is the evidence that the Earth is a globe, then the Flat Earth theory makes much more sense.

The only evidence the Earth is a globe is the Copernican model and the photos from space. We know a lot of the space photos are fake. I am speaking up for the Copernican model, I think it holds up quite well. I shall post more on the rotation of the Moon's face soon.

The arguments in this post are pretty weak, the premises that try to support them are even childish.

There's only one thing worse than arguing with Flat Earthers and trying to convince them the Earth is round; that's arguing with people who believe the Earth is round and trying to convince them there is lots of good evidence the Earth is flat.

What do you mean that people should see all the stars if the Earth were flat? That is if the stars were billions of miles away. If they are closer the answer is no.

Every 'Primitive' civilisation believed the fixed stars were inside the moving stars. This includes the ancient Greeks from whom we derive the majority of our philosophy, geometry, mathematics and so on. The Toltecs believed that Venus ('Quetzalcoatl') was inside the fixed stars and all other moving stars outside.

When did they prove that something called Gravity exists? That's right. Another false premise.

You misunderstand where the conventional Science is with regard to Gravity. No-one has claimed to understand it. It is an observable fact that things fall, so there must be some force pulling things downwards, and we have put a label on it.

Gravity is said to occur instantaneously. Most things cannot propagate very quickly, including Sound, Heat, Vibration, Nuclear explosion, Light, Radio waves, etc... But Gravity is said to propagate across infinitely large distances instantaneously. Conventional scientists are constantly looking for a Gravity wave or a Gravity particle, and have so far failed in spite of the incredible budgets they've been awarded.

Same for the Earth's supposed iron core.

I'm not sure there is any evidence for this apart from the Earth's magnetic field. I'm guessing that someone took the strength of the field and worked backwards to assume there was an iron core. Which is said to be molten, under tremendous pressure and moving rapidly.

In short, these earth-globe proofs are weak to say the least.

Apart from the Copernican model of the movements of the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets, about which I will be posting more soon.

The Copernican model does not say the Earth is round; it says If We assume the Earth is a spinning ball then we can very well explain the movements of the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.

The conventional narrative says that Copernicus lived in the 1500s and had the idea; that Galileo lived in the late 1600s and was the public face of it.

Tycho Brae was the only one who had accurate enough measurements of the positions of the planets, sustained over a long enough period of time, to make any proper discussion possible. He believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, and the Planets orbited the Sun. This is the Tychonic model which has been comprehensively rejected by everyone for three centuries now!

 

[FarewellAngelina]

I would say the Heliocentric model has been forced upon us rather than the Tychonic model being comprehensively rejected by everyone. The heliocentric model does not stand up to scrutiny , perhaps because it uses the spinning ball assumption as its basis.

 

[otl2021]

I am speaking up for the Copernican model, I think it holds up quite well. I shall post more on the rotation of the Moon's face soon.

The Copernican model is totally impossible.

And the rotation of the Moon's face is as relevant to a discussion regarding our Earth's shape as discussing billiard balls is in helping us determine the shape of the table.

 

[AntiSoof]

The only evidence the Earth is a globe is the Copernican model and the photos from space. We know a lot of the space photos are fake. I am speaking up for the Copernican model, I think it holds up quite well. I shall post more on the rotation of the Moon's face soon.



There's only one thing worse than arguing with Flat Earthers and trying to convince them the Earth is round; that's arguing with people who believe the Earth is round and trying to convince them there is lots of good evidence the Earth is flat.




Every 'Primitive' civilisation believed the fixed stars were inside the moving stars. This includes the ancient Greeks from whom we derive the majority of our philosophy, geometry, mathematics and so on. The Toltecs believed that Venus ('Quetzalcoatl') was inside the fixed stars and all other moving stars outside.




You misunderstand where the conventional Science is with regard to Gravity. No-one has claimed to understand it. It is an observable fact that things fall, so there must be some force pulling things downwards, and we have put a label on it.

Gravity is said to occur instantaneously. Most things cannot propagate very quickly, including Sound, Heat, Vibration, Nuclear explosion, Light, Radio waves, etc... But Gravity is said to propagate across infinitely large distances instantaneously. Conventional scientists are constantly looking for a Gravity wave or a Gravity particle, and have so far failed in spite of the incredible budgets they've been awarded.






I'm not sure there is any evidence for this apart from the Earth's magnetic field. I'm guessing that someone took the strength of the field and worked backwards to assume there was an iron core. Which is said to be molten, under tremendous pressure and moving rapidly.






Apart from the Copernican model of the movements of the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets, about which I will be posting more soon.

The Copernican model does not say the Earth is round; it says If We assume the Earth is a spinning ball then we can very well explain the movements of the Sun, Moon, Stars and Planets.

The conventional narrative says that Copernicus lived in the 1500s and had the idea; that Galileo lived in the late 1600s and was the public face of it.

Tycho Brae was the only one who had accurate enough measurements of the positions of the planets, sustained over a long enough period of time, to make any proper discussion possible. He believed that the Sun orbited the Earth, and the Planets orbited the Sun. This is the Tychonic model which has been comprehensively rejected by everyone for three centuries now!

What if gravity takes place in the erher? Each 'particle' (packet of energy in the form of a wave field) would then dance on the web of the ether. The atoms and photons, for example, are pure energy, which because of their specific form of motion have their special aspects? Why does one not think so? Because of the inability to measure the ether, then indirectly?
So gravity could be a movement in the ether field, perhaps comparable to magnetism or light, but of a different order. It indicates also the 'position' of the wave 'particle' because it occupies that place, and if it 'fits' better somewhere otherwise, then it goes there.
Excuse my language if it seems strainge to you. I am Dutch

 

[otl2021]

What if gravity takes place in the erher? Each 'particle' (packet of energy in the form of a wave field) would then dance on the web of the ether. The atoms and photons, for example, are pure energy, which because of their specific form of motion have their special aspects? Why does one not think so? Because of the inability to measure the ether, then indirectly?
So gravity could be a movement in the ether field, perhaps comparable to magnetism or light, but of a different order. It indicates also the 'position' of the wave 'particle' because it occupies that place, and if it 'fits' better somewhere otherwise, then it goes there.
Excuse my language if it seems strainge to you. I am Dutch

What gravity?

 

[grav]

I would say the Heliocentric model has been forced upon us rather than the Tychonic model being comprehensively rejected by everyone. The heliocentric model does not stand up to scrutiny , perhaps because it uses the spinning ball assumption as its basis.

You make an excellent point.
Though you don't point specifically to the FIC (Freemasons In Charge) as the architects of our false reality, you clearly expose their idiotic model as a deliberate scheme to keep humans happily ignorant.

I maintain that astronomers and astrophysicists all collude with this diabolical plot.
No way can any educated scientist go along with the foolish speeds and behaviors of the space balls. Because they're all balls. The Brits would say bollocks. The sun and stars, planets, moon -- all balls, all in motion, all hocus pocus.
Keep your eye on the ball, children.

- end rant -
- begin Electric Universe

The closest we have to honest scientists are, maybe, who knows, the Thunderbolts, physicists who propose electromagnetism as the only true force.
But even they will not deny the modern balls-in-space nonsense. Fear is a great motivator, don't you know.

The Concave Earth Theory? I see it as an inside-out view of the Cosmic Egg, which itself is an electric torus in which earth sits embedded in the accretion disk at mid-point, perhaps one of multtiple Infinite Planes.

 

[AntiSoof]

What gravity?

What gravity? Well, the power that, according to my theory, resides in the atoms. A 'kinetic' force. Compare a stone that you lift. Why does it fall when you let go of it? Because you put that kinetic energy into it by lifting it. And so weight seems to be like a force in an object relative to other objects or air, water. But the 'connection' between those atoms in one object with another object may exist in the field. And since that field permeates everything and is extremely small, it cannot be measured. One cannot measure oneself with oneself (the meter). For the meter exists and is in the same field as the thing to be measured. The smallest, according to some, turns out to be the ultra-fine web of pure energy. (Zero point?) That seems to be quite a lot of energy, but so fine and so small that it cannot be measured or observed. That gravity.

 

[ThomasVonDerBosch]

My first post here and very happy to find this forum.

I had a friend tell me, "The earth is flat and I can prove it!" My immediate response was,"Whatever your smoking, stop!! " lol

We have a beginners telescope at the cottage in Waubashene Ontario. I mounted it in the water approx. 16"-18" out of the water and looked out 15kms. I could see a cormorant sunning himself and water lapping on the rock he was perched on approx. the same height out of the water as my telescope.

The battleship Bismarck could accurately hurl a shell to a distance of 30kms using only optical rangefinders. The Hood could not. An observable fact given the outcome of their meeting.

Line of sight can be distorted by heat shimmer, clouds, smoke, particulate in the air etc., however on a clear calm day when the water is cooler than the air with no heat shimmer you can see an extraordinarily far distance.

Less dense gases float right up to the firmament. As the suns waves begin to vibrate these gases they glow blue! Same principal as neon lights.

You can't see the sun from the other side of the "disc" at night because of all the particulate, humidity, clouds etc between yourself and the sun.

Observations in the desert where the clearest line of sight is available show the sun gets smaller as it goes away from the observer not down.

All observations that seem to show the sun going below the horizon are from the refraction of light from the heat, humidity, clouds or particulate in the atmosphere. Hence no two examples of this are exactly the same as the likelihood of these being exactly the same is slim. Note the brilliant sunsets on a hazy day.

Using time lapse photography it is easy to see the sun and moon are visibly smaller at their dawn/dusk times than at their noon(in case of the sun) positions.

Observing Mars or stars through a telescope we see a constantly moving ball of light. Hard to describe this. Plasma ball of light?

I have given up on all sources of information save my own observances.