Secret Scientific significance of the Yin Yang

As I've mentioned before, I am well aware of perspective. A full consideration of perspective adds nothing to my understanding of our cosmological situation. To the extent that perspective is required for my world view, it already is, and always have been, taken into account.

But here we have some tangible claims for once, which is nice. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7SbCs6CoU1w

Let's have a look.

First things first. While he has a lot of examples of perspectives, which would be arguments for his interpretation, he only gives one argument against the current explanation and that argument is the one about the clouds lit after sunset. This is of course easily refuted using a basic geometric consideration. It is geometrically possible (and even inevitable) for the sun to shine from a position below the plane of the observer to the plane of the clouds (existing a bit above the plane of the observer) without first hitting the earth (which would have put the clouds in shadow). Here's a nice picture (actually, it's a pretty horrid picture). In that picture, rays from the sun (1) are hitting and lighting the clouds despite the fact that ray 2 does not hit the little stick figure, which means the sun has set for the stick figure. Thus, the only reason he has given to disregard the current explanation is not valid.

That being said, that does not invalidate his explanation, so let's take a look at that. It is true, as he says that the perspective will make a receding sun look as if it is moving downwards. However, it also has a bunch of other effects. For instance, in his video at 8:13 (as well as in reality) it is shown that a receding object looks smaller after a while, whereas a sun rotating as in the classical explanation, it will have a much smaller change in size. We can then confirm that since the sun has approximately the same apparent angular diameter (30 arcminutes) at sunset as at noon, the classical explanation conforms much better to data. In practice, there is another effect that enters into the equation, and that is refracted light (ie, just like it looks like an oar halfway underwater is bent, light from the sun bends when it enters the atmosphere) but that's more complicated than basic perspective, so I'll not go too much into it unless prompted.

It should also be noted that the explanation he gives would completely mess up our calculations for sun rise and sunset times, and since those have been shown to be pretty accurate, that's a point for the classical view. One should also mention that even if the sun receded very far, it would still be visible as a star in all the photos he showed, but since he seems to have some other idea of what stars are, I'm going to let that one slide.

He also mentions redshift, and it is true that the light from a receding object is redshifted, but in order for that to be the case, it would have to travel at speeds so large that our days would be no more than milliseconds long. Also, the same reddening happens at sunrise, whereas an appeal to colourshift would expect the sun to look blue instead. In fact the reddening of the sky depends more on the atmosphere and the refraction of light in it.

An aside, at 10:15, he suggests that the moon is situated above the sun, something which is easily refuted by solar eclipses of the sun.

At 10:35 he shows what the map would look like if the world was flat. It shows Australia and South America being as far from one another as possible (whereas a spherical version would put them both fairly close to the south pole and therefore one another). I did a quick check on Qantas, a global flight company, who offers flights between the two, taking about 5 hours. If this was an accurate map, it would take little shy of 20 hours to get from one side to the other.

That's all I can think of off the top of my head. It should be plenty for the moment, though.