181
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Sun
« on: February 28, 2017, 02:59:35 AM »
TheTruthIsOnHere, what method does TFES use to calculate the suns distance?
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
182
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Sun
« on: February 25, 2017, 02:18:39 AM »
Actually we do see stars moving in relation to other stars. One motion is the back and forth motion called parallax which is caused by the earth's orbit. These comparisons are taken when the earth is at opposite ends of its orbit. The other is relative proper motion which is a comparison of movement compared to more distant stars at the same time each year or many years later. Google Bernard's star for one example. It's been moving about 10 arc seconds per year compared to the distant background stars. The motion is most recognizable because it's one of the closest stars to the sun.
Astronomers from all over the world have been taking measurements of thousands of stars and have measured their parallax and their proper motion. You can also take an astronomy class and take some measurements yourself. I took a class and measured Bernard's star from the previous years class measurements and found movement of 10 arc seconds. Many star catalogs will give the measured parallax motion and proper motion (change per year) . It's pretty cool stuff. You can Google "proper motion" for more information. Many sites will show pictures of the difference over time.
Astronomers from all over the world have been taking measurements of thousands of stars and have measured their parallax and their proper motion. You can also take an astronomy class and take some measurements yourself. I took a class and measured Bernard's star from the previous years class measurements and found movement of 10 arc seconds. Many star catalogs will give the measured parallax motion and proper motion (change per year) . It's pretty cool stuff. You can Google "proper motion" for more information. Many sites will show pictures of the difference over time.
183
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Sun
« on: February 24, 2017, 03:22:02 AM »Please explain how the blue and red shift velocities fit within the flat earth model. Secondly, if the earth were stationary and everything else is moving, why do we see shift occurring consistently in the same manner regardless of the objects location in our sky. If the flat earth model is correct wouldn't we see red shift and blue shift happening with the same objects as they move closer and farther away from the observer? That isn't what we observe.To claim any sort of victory you will need to explain why we observe red and blue shift while being motionless. I'm eager to your explanation.There are 3 predominate ways that we know our solar system is moving.
1) We look at the light from old stars through a prism and see red shift and blue.
2) We look at the microwave background and see consistent shift in two directions indication movement.
3) Observations of the edge of the heliosphere for waves indicating movement.
You can Google search these things for more info on how the observations are made and what they mean.
The claim: "Moving through space but motionless in reference to the earth and the planets."
So, you attempt to resolve this contradiction by stating it is not motionless relative to the Earth through "observation."
That seems to support an argument the Earth is indeed flat and motionless.
Another victory for FE!
Just because the "old stars" are moving does not mean the Earth is moving.
And it certainly does not mean the Sun is doing anything else other than making its daily circle over our heads.
184
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Sun
« on: February 23, 2017, 02:36:30 AM »To claim any sort of victory you will need to explain why we observe red and blue shift while being motionless. I'm eager to your explanation.There are 3 predominate ways that we know our solar system is moving.
1) We look at the light from old stars through a prism and see red shift and blue.
2) We look at the microwave background and see consistent shift in two directions indication movement.
3) Observations of the edge of the heliosphere for waves indicating movement.
You can Google search these things for more info on how the observations are made and what they mean.
The claim: "Moving through space but motionless in reference to the earth and the planets."
So, you attempt to resolve this contradiction by stating it is not motionless relative to the Earth through "observation."
That seems to support an argument the Earth is indeed flat and motionless.
Another victory for FE!
185
Flat Earth Community / Re: The Sun
« on: February 22, 2017, 02:22:59 PM »On the round earth , the sun stands still...
Oh, really...
The Sun is motionless in RE?
Moving through space but motionless in reference to the earth and the planets.
In relation to the planets, the sun is motionless less to the planets. The planets revolve around the sun.
Oh, so the Sun is not moving relative to the, "planets," but it is moving through space.
At the same time while the Sun is moving the, "planets," are revolving around the Sun.
Interesting...
Do you have any proof of this wild cockamamie claim?
If the Sun is motionless relative to the, "planets," as you claim, how is it the Sun's motion could be detected?
Do you even read what you write?
There are 3 predominate ways that we know our solar system is moving.
1) We look at the light from old stars through a prism and see red shift and blue.
2) We look at the microwave background and see consistent shift in two directions indication movement.
3) Observations of the edge of the heliosphere for waves indicating movement.
You can Google search these things for more info on how the observations are made and what they mean.
186
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What causes high/low tide in a FET
« on: February 22, 2017, 02:29:14 AM »
Please explain how evaporation effects tides.
187
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the Bishop Experiment
« on: February 20, 2017, 04:55:56 AM »There are other small beaches in that area that point towards Santa Cruz.500x? What was aperture? All telescopes have inverted images unless a erecting prism is used.
I believe I used a reflecting telescope of about 500x. Everything was upside down.
What else would you like to know?
188
Flat Earth Theory / Re: How do things fall?
« on: February 19, 2017, 10:00:29 PM »
It only matters for people who have to calculate falling things. If a person doesn't have do that, then one can postulate all they want. They don't have to make calculations to solve a real problems or make life better. The same goes for the shape of the earth. The reality is for some people knowing the proper shape of the earth is absolutely necessary in order to make proper calculations for real life scenarios.
189
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Foucault Pendulum
« on: February 15, 2017, 01:42:55 AM »
The wiki states that gravity doesn't exist. Are you telling me that the stars have gravity but the earth doesn't?
190
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude
« on: February 14, 2017, 07:36:08 PM »
Yea, it's called a Solar Analemma. It's on nearly every globe. It's plotable based on the orbital mechanics of the earth around the sun. It's seems as if TFES is unable to calculate or predict beyond the equinox. Is the science of the TFES generating something usable to navigate?
191
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mathematical calculations
« on: February 12, 2017, 10:55:01 PM »
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.
How do you explain anti-crepuscular rays if it's not due to perspective? The same rays will get closer together at both horizons.
192
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mathematical calculations
« on: February 12, 2017, 03:09:27 PM »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.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.
193
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Mathematical calculations
« on: February 12, 2017, 07:22:49 AM »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.Crepuscular Rays appear angled due to perpective.you sure about that? if you ever witnessed crepuscular rays yourself - you'd notice that the perpective doesn't work that way.
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htm
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.
194
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude
« on: February 12, 2017, 07:06:36 AM »
Are you saying that days of an equinox are the only days that the FE version of the experiment ever work properly? Why is it that the RE version works just fine on any day of the year?
Actually, the method described in the article works for RET as well. There are several ways to get your latitude, that is only one of them.
You are right, Tom, it does say equinox. I mis-applied the wiki latitude formula to a time that wasn't at equinox. My bad.
Can you please explain how it works on a flat earth? The north pole for example is 6215 statute miles from the equator. If the sun is 3,000 miles above the flat earth right over the equator on equinox then its elevation angle would be 25.8 degrees at the poles. Real observations show the sun to be right on the horizon during the equinox at both poles simultaneously.
How does the flat earth model explain it? How has TFES derived its latitude formula?
To me, the observations are explained by the spherical earht heliocentric model.
195
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Explain this video
« on: February 12, 2017, 12:08:40 AM »
The Ballon popped when it hit the electromagnetism of the firmament.
196
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude
« on: February 12, 2017, 12:02:05 AM »The spherical earth formula and explanation does work. The observations and measurements I made resulted in my latitude according my gps, Google Earth, and USGS map location. The formula and explanation given in the TFES wiki yielded an incorrect latitude calculation. Honestly, I can't figure out how the wiki explanation can even be plausible with any flat earth theory I have seen or the one explained in the wiki. For the wiki latitude calculation to work the sun would have to be over the north pole and at a significant distance from the earth. Definitely not 3,000 miles....unless you subscribe to the curving light theory.What is the explanation?
If i understand your post correctly i think that you would be correct in your calculations , I mean it seems perfectly plausible that using basic math and then checking it against itself would result in knowing for sure that you have calculated your position on earth correctly . Are you wrong ? Could you have missed something ? . I can't seem to get any of my calculations to work out my position to be accurate on a flat earth map as compared to a globe . I too must be missing something .
197
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do you think that every planet or star is flat?
« on: February 07, 2017, 02:06:51 AM »Do you think every planet or star is flat? Just wanna know
I have already suggested that you read the FAQ and wiki in another thread. This question is covered in those resources. Please attempt to make an effort if you are going to discuss FET in the upper fora. Thanks.
I just searched the wiki for "planets" and all of them by name. I couldn't find anything that specified the shape of the planets. The wiki does clearly state the sun and moon are spherical. I suppose it could be implied by the Q&A potion.
"Q. If the planets are round, why isn't the earth?
A. The earth is not a planet"
198
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus
« on: February 06, 2017, 02:00:06 PM »
Your link for how genocentrism explains the phases of Venus just goes to a photo of the phases of Venus. No explanation what so ever. Please explain to me how the Ptolemaic model could ever show the full phase of Venus.
Saying that the Sagnac effect explains for the non-symmetric pattern of the top and bottom half of the Solar Analemma makes absolutely no sense at all. Please explain.
As for numbers be faked. I just did the math Mars and got 1.5 Au which is accurate. Nothing hard there.
Saying that the Sagnac effect explains for the non-symmetric pattern of the top and bottom half of the Solar Analemma makes absolutely no sense at all. Please explain.
As for numbers be faked. I just did the math Mars and got 1.5 Au which is accurate. Nothing hard there.
199
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus
« on: February 06, 2017, 12:59:21 AM »
I didn't know that a Zetetic scientist could use ancient documents. I though it had to presently observable. Of course, I may be improperly assuming that you ascribe to the Zetetic method.
I have concluded that Kepler's laws are observable. Law one states that the planets have elliptical orbits. I have a observed small changes of sun's angular diameter through out a 9 month period. These changes correlate with the change in distance in the elliptical orbit. This was part of a college astonomy course. We took measurements both throughout a given day and throughout a 9 month period.
Keplers second laws states that planets speed up in their orbits when they are closer to the sun in their elliptical orbit. This can be observed in the Solar Analemma pattern. The spherical math and associated observation fits with Keplers 2nd law.
Keplers 3rd law relates the orbit duration with the distance from the sun. Casini's parallax observation was very close to Kepler's 3rd law prediction. More recent radar measurement also confirm it. Newtons gravitational constant works very nicely with Kepler's 3rd law. I won't call this irrefutable, but the observations fit the laws and their predictions.
So what is your explanation of the phases of Venus?
I have concluded that Kepler's laws are observable. Law one states that the planets have elliptical orbits. I have a observed small changes of sun's angular diameter through out a 9 month period. These changes correlate with the change in distance in the elliptical orbit. This was part of a college astonomy course. We took measurements both throughout a given day and throughout a 9 month period.
Keplers second laws states that planets speed up in their orbits when they are closer to the sun in their elliptical orbit. This can be observed in the Solar Analemma pattern. The spherical math and associated observation fits with Keplers 2nd law.
Keplers 3rd law relates the orbit duration with the distance from the sun. Casini's parallax observation was very close to Kepler's 3rd law prediction. More recent radar measurement also confirm it. Newtons gravitational constant works very nicely with Kepler's 3rd law. I won't call this irrefutable, but the observations fit the laws and their predictions.
So what is your explanation of the phases of Venus?
200
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Phases of Venus
« on: February 04, 2017, 04:08:36 PM »The phases of Venus constitute an advanced topic in FET.
It is not covered in any FE wiki/faq.
This is very explainable with the heliocentric model.
But it is not. The Schroeter effect shows that the phases of Venus cannot be explained within the heliocentrical context.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427
So, you seem to implying the Schroter effect is one of geometry. Why don't we see the effect happening on Mercury then? I've read many articles on the subject and have observed the effect myself. To say that there are not any explanations is not true.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1996JBAA..106...16M&ved=0ahUKEwj6gtjq6PbRAhVDzGMKHT55D6cQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNFgMvq8cBoUnaK1xocWqg0S_5yWIA&sig2=k5bVretqtY8TZFUa-8KqmQ
Dr. Jones geostatic model only accounts for 2 days difference than the heliocentric model. The observations are often 4 days earlier. He has discredited other explanations based on heliocentric models because they don't account for all of the difference between observed and predicted. Ironically, his model doesn't either.