[lancetop]

If the sun is only 3000 miles away, wouldn't mathematicians have noted it centuries ago?
How are the calculations of "the Universe being 13 billion light years across" faked?
Since astronomy is so top-heavy with mathematics, wouldn't astronomers discover a fakery?

[Krishnas Prophet]

If the sun is only 3000 miles away, wouldn't mathematicians have noted it centuries ago?

Not if they had started out by assuming that the sun is large and faraway. Applying calculations to the natural universe presupposes that those calculations accurately reflect what reality is. However, determining what reality is requires a more complex inclusion of one's fundamental conceptions of reality. One must use not only math, but rationally informed empirical observation as well. The globularists start out with faith in the scientific method, and then apply math towards what they think science predicts what reality should be. Mathematicians did not notice that the sun is much closer to the surface of the earth because their system of belief led them to assume it was faraway, and they based their calculations on that improper assumption. But in reality, using simple geometry shows that the sun is close to the surface of the earth:

Using the crepuscular rays pictured above, simply measuring the the angle of the rays shows geometrically that the sun is not 93,000,000 million miles away.

How are the calculations of "the Universe being 13 billion light years across" faked?

I am not personally aware of tfes official position on the size of the universe. But as a Planar Theorist I can say that any facts put forth by nasa, or studies based on information disseminated by nasa should be regarded with a grain of salt. But again, nasa's "calculations" are based on a system of belief that presupposes the universe is large. What observations have shown this?

Since astronomy is so top-heavy with mathematics, wouldn't astronomers discover a fakery?

Again, what is the assumed structure of reality to which the mathematics are being applied? Math is always true. But just because you assume reality happens to exist in a certain way, applying math to that conception does not make it true. I could cite you the blue prints of the the Enterprise from Star Trek, and the math underlying its architecture and engineering would "work". But that does not make the Enterprise real.
 
 

[rabinoz]

If the sun is only 3000 miles away, wouldn't mathematicians have noted it centuries ago?

Not if they had started out by assuming that the sun is large and faraway. Applying calculations to the natural universe presupposes that those calculations accurately reflect what reality is. However, determining what reality is requires a more complex inclusion of one's fundamental conceptions of reality. One must use not only math, but rationally informed empirical observation as well. The globularists start out with faith in the scientific method, and then apply math towards what they think science predicts what reality should be. Mathematicians did not notice that the sun is much closer to the surface of the earth because their system of belief led them to assume it was faraway, and they based their calculations on that improper assumption. But in reality, using simple geometry shows that the sun is close to the surface of the earth:

Using the crepuscular rays pictured above, simply measuring the the angle of the rays shows geometrically that the sun is not 93,000,000 million miles away.

How are the calculations of "the Universe being 13 billion light years across" faked?

I am not personally aware of tfes official position on the size of the universe. But as a Planar Theorist I can say that any facts put forth by nasa, or studies based on information disseminated by nasa should be regarded with a grain of salt. But again, nasa's "calculations" are based on a system of belief that presupposes the universe is large. What observations have shown this?

Since astronomy is so top-heavy with mathematics, wouldn't astronomers discover a fakery?

Again, what is the assumed structure of reality to which the mathematics are being applied? Math is always true. But just because you assume reality happens to exist in a certain way, applying math to that conception does not make it true. I could cite you the blue prints of the the Enterprise from Star Trek, and the math underlying its architecture and engineering would "work". But that does not make the Enterprise real.

I understood that the "flat earth sun" was supposed to be about 3,000 miles above the earth and never moves further north than the Tropic of Cancer, at 23.4°N.

That photo, or some almost the same, is taken over a loch in Scotland - around 3,600 km north of northern most excursion of the sun!
It is a frame at 5:42 in this  video

So whatever you try to say, that sun has to be at the very closest 3,600 km away, and in reality must be more than that!

So all you experts, are you going to tell me that it is very close, when we KNOW it simply cannot be over that lake - just NOT POSSIBLE, even for a Flat Earth!

You simply have to agree that it is simply some perspective effect - the sun certainly cannot be only a couple of miles above that lake.

Now, I will certainly accept that this photo does not prove a distant (ie 93,000,000 miles away) sun, but it certainly does not indicate a sun only a couple of miles up either.

I made another post on this topic, and it may (or may not) help Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory « Reply #44 on: March 30, 2016, 04:33:31 AM ».

[LuggerSailor]

These pictures of Sun Beams don't prove anything.

You could just as easily estimate the apparent angle between these rails and calculate how far away the next station is;

[fliggs]

If the sun is only 3000 miles away, wouldn't mathematicians have noted it centuries ago?

Not if they had started out by assuming that the sun is large and faraway. Applying calculations to the natural universe presupposes that those calculations accurately reflect what reality is. However, determining what reality is requires a more complex inclusion of one's fundamental conceptions of reality. One must use not only math, but rationally informed empirical observation as well. The globularists start out with faith in the scientific method, and then apply math towards what they think science predicts what reality should be. Mathematicians did not notice that the sun is much closer to the surface of the earth because their system of belief led them to assume it was faraway, and they based their calculations on that improper assumption. But in reality, using simple geometry shows that the sun is close to the surface of the earth:

Using the crepuscular rays pictured above, simply measuring the the angle of the rays shows geometrically that the sun is not 93,000,000 million miles away.

How are the calculations of "the Universe being 13 billion light years across" faked?

I am not personally aware of tfes official position on the size of the universe. But as a Planar Theorist I can say that any facts put forth by nasa, or studies based on information disseminated by nasa should be regarded with a grain of salt. But again, nasa's "calculations" are based on a system of belief that presupposes the universe is large. What observations have shown this?

Since astronomy is so top-heavy with mathematics, wouldn't astronomers discover a fakery?

Again, what is the assumed structure of reality to which the mathematics are being applied? Math is always true. But just because you assume reality happens to exist in a certain way, applying math to that conception does not make it true. I could cite you the blue prints of the the Enterprise from Star Trek, and the math underlying its architecture and engineering would "work". But that does not make the Enterprise real.

That image of 'sun rays' would suggest the sun is about 1500FEET above the surface. Even at 3000 miles the suns 'rays' at any point on earth would be pretty close to parallel.

Did no one stidy reflection, refraction or any science in school?

[Venus]

If the sun is only 3000 miles away, wouldn't mathematicians have noted it centuries ago?

Not if they had started out by assuming that the sun is large and faraway. Applying calculations to the natural universe presupposes that those calculations accurately reflect what reality is. However, determining what reality is requires a more complex inclusion of one's fundamental conceptions of reality. One must use not only math, but rationally informed empirical observation as well. The globularists start out with faith in the scientific method, and then apply math towards what they think science predicts what reality should be. Mathematicians did not notice that the sun is much closer to the surface of the earth because their system of belief led them to assume it was faraway, and they based their calculations on that improper assumption. But in reality, using simple geometry shows that the sun is close to the surface of the earth:

Using the crepuscular rays pictured above, simply measuring the the angle of the rays shows geometrically that the sun is not 93,000,000 million miles away.

How are the calculations of "the Universe being 13 billion light years across" faked?

I am not personally aware of tfes official position on the size of the universe. But as a Planar Theorist I can say that any facts put forth by nasa, or studies based on information disseminated by nasa should be regarded with a grain of salt. But again, nasa's "calculations" are based on a system of belief that presupposes the universe is large. What observations have shown this?

Since astronomy is so top-heavy with mathematics, wouldn't astronomers discover a fakery?

Again, what is the assumed structure of reality to which the mathematics are being applied? Math is always true. But just because you assume reality happens to exist in a certain way, applying math to that conception does not make it true. I could cite you the blue prints of the the Enterprise from Star Trek, and the math underlying its architecture and engineering would "work". But that does not make the Enterprise real.

Crepuscular Rays appear angled due to perpective.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htm

The distance to the sun was not calculated by NASA but by observation of the transit of Venus, first in 1761 and 8 years later in 1769.
Astronomers sailed and travelled to distant places on earth to time the duration of the transit. The data was all collected by French Astronomer Jérôme Lalande and his calculation was within 2% of the most recent calculations
Seeing you believe that "Math is always true" this is how the calculations were made
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/29363/how-did-halley-calculate-the-distance-to-the-sun-by-measuring-the-transit-of-ven

As our telescopes have gained in strength we have been able to see further into space and therefore more detail of our universe.
NASA is not the only institution that makes calculations such as the size of the universe. There are many independent observatories all over the world who make the observations and calculations which NASA then uses.
NASA's observatories are all in space !! eg Hubble, Chandra, Compton and Spitzer https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_NASA_Great_Observatories_PS.html
But of course you will just say that they are all fake and that all the images beamed back to earth by them are CGI !!!

Ignorance is bliss !!

[catus]

Crepuscular Rays appear angled due to perpective.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htm

you sure about that? if you ever witnessed crepuscular rays yourself - you'd notice that the perpective doesn't work that way.

[dailyroach]

I love the sun its the most awesome big burning ball of gas 149.6 million km from earth in our solar system . Every time i get up in the morning it never ceases to amaze me how fantastically huge is is with a radius of over 695,000 km and a surface temperature of of over 5000 k . You have to respect the sun . Without it i we would not be living on a very nice world .

[Flatout]

Crepuscular Rays appear angled due to perpective.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htm

you sure about that? if you ever witnessed crepuscular rays yourself - you'd notice that the perpective doesn't work that way.

I saw them this evening shining through the clouds.  They are optical illusions.   To say that they show the sun to be close is not thought through very well.

Are you implying that if I stood in the left-most ray the sun would be up and to my right?   If I moved just 3 miles to the right-most ray would the sun be up and to my left?    I have never seen the suns apparent location change in my field of view by only moving a few miles.

[catus]

I saw them this evening shining through the clouds.  They are optical illusions.   To say that they show the sun to be close is not thought through very well.

it's not an illusion. and i'm not saying that it shows that the sun is close. i'm saying that every source that explains crepuscular rays through the effects of the perspective is flat wrong. and it's awfully lot of sources.

[Flatout]

I saw them this evening shining through the clouds.  They are optical illusions.   To say that they show the sun to be close is not thought through very well.

it's not an illusion. and i'm not saying that it shows that the sun is close. i'm saying that every source that explains crepuscular rays through the effects of the perspective is flat wrong. and it's awfully lot of sources.

So what are you saying is the correct explanation?    I've concluded that the actual rays are very near to parallel.  The realization was when I saw curpuscular rays that came out of the western horizon during sunset, went completely overhead and then came back together in the eastern horizon.   Parallel rays that appear to come together in each horizon as they move farther away from the observer.   

[catus]

So what are you saying is the correct explanation?    I've concluded that the actual rays are very near to parallel.  The realization was when I saw curpuscular rays that came out of the western horizon during sunset, went completely overhead and then came back together in the eastern horizon.   Parallel rays that appear to come together in each horizon as they move farther away from the observer.   

you can use a cheap laser pointer to emulate the sun, a few sheets of paper to emulate the clouds, and some dust/flour/muddy water to make rays visible. place the first paper on the path of the laser, if you're doing it in the dark you'll instantly notice that it now can illuminate a larger area. effectively, our clouds serve as a lense that disperses the light beam from our light source to cover a larger area. you can then use another sheet of paper with some holes in it to achieve the crepuscular rays effect. as expected, the rays will be pointing to wherever they got dispersed, not to the actual light source. parallel crepuscular rays just didn't get through the dispersion phase. it is fairly obvious and easily testable, yet almost every article, wiki or youtuber says that it's due to perspective. does anyone ever checks the data?

[Flatout]

Except the diameter of the beam that is hitting the earth is significantly larger than the earth.

How do you explain anti-crepuscular rays if it's not due to perspective?   The same rays will get closer together at both horizons. 

[catus]

Except the diameter of the beam that is hitting the earth is significantly larger than the earth.

that's due to another cloud higher up limiting that beam before it hits the cloud. repeat the previous experiment, only this time use a very bright lamp at a significant distance (or the sun itself) instead of a laser, and add another sheet of paper with a hole in it just before the first one. results will be roughly the same, only harder to notice due to excessive light. the role of the perspective is not that significant, though it might not be true for each and every case.

[rabinoz]

I made this post on crepuscular rays earlier Re: How Clouds Once Again Prove Flat-Earth Theory « Reply #44 on: March 30, 2016, 04:33:31 AM ».
It may or may not help.

It is possible that in some cases these are caused by another brightly illuminated cloud above, but then I saw the video in that post.

But whether you take the sun to be 3,000 miles or 93,000,000 miles away the explanation is the same.
The apparently diverging crepuscular rays are simply perspective - the same as with railway tracks.

Simply projecting the rays back to a point only a mile or two above the earth clearly does not fit either model.
Just imagine the clouds not being there and those same points being illuminated.
The sun's rays would appear to follow exactly the same path that we see when they shine through the holes in the cloud.

The bottom line is that it is not evidence in favour either a 3,000 mile or 93,000,000 mile distant sun.