Nathan's False Premise - "You Can't Derive Geometry from an Apparent Horizon"
22Let's make this abundantly clear. It is not a precondition of geometry to have a "geometric horizon." In fact, most applications of geometry don't have any kind of horizon at all.
And when he says "derive geometry from," he actually should be saying, "apply geometry to."
Nathan has no clue what he is talking about is purely tolling The Rumpus here. I'd go so far as to say Nathan knows he's talking bollocks and knows perfectly well what the difference is between the apparent and geometric horizons.
After all, the horizon in the flat Earth model is even more "apparent" than it is in the globe model, to the point where they're completely unable to make any useful predictions whatsoever or apply it in any useful way at all.
Source
------------
"Can We Use the Apparent Horizon? - Nathans being Nathan"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i17ZLSKKU4
containing clips from FED hosted by Nathan Oakley.