[Gulliver]

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.

Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.

Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20^o N and 50^o S please. Why don't you get the same value?

[Tom Bishop]

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.

Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.

Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20^o N and 50^o S please. Why don't you get the same value?

What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?

[markjo]

The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.

Not entirely true.  Parallax only works for relatively close deep space objects (up to about 100 ly).  A variety of other techniques involving various standard candles are used for more distant objects.

[markjo]

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.

Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.

Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20^o N and 50^o S please. Why don't you get the same value?

What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?

It doesn't really matter, but for simplicity, assume that it's solar noon on the day of an equinox.

[Tom Bishop]

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.

Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.

Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20^o N and 50^o S please. Why don't you get the same value?

What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?

It doesn't really matter, but for simplicity, assume that it's solar noon on the day of an equinox?

So what is the angle of the sun at those latitudes?

[markjo]

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

Nope. FET distance measurement techniques are just wrong. Rowbotham can't use trigonometry correctly in EnaG. The Wiki entry uses only two latitudes and just ignores the other possibilities that provide inconsistent results.

Also if you're using the wrong model, you're using the wrong method.

Show us your calculation for the distance to the sun on the equinox from 20^o N and 50^o S please. Why don't you get the same value?

What is the angle of the sun at on those latitudes?

It doesn't really matter, but for simplicity, assume that it's solar noon on the day of an equinox?

So what is the angle of the sun at those latitudes?

What does FET say that the angle of the sun should be at those latitudes at solar noon on the day of an equinox?  Are they supposed to be different from what RET predicts?

[Rama Set]

The deep space data is fake, but the distance of celestial bodies is competed via trigonometry, using 19th century methods which assume a round earth and big solar system. We get different values if the triangles in the parallax calculations use a flat surface.

Okay, so then you should be able  to show that the 19th century methods assume a round earth and get a "big" solar system, say the earth orbits the sun at about a radius of 93 million miles, but these process in EnaG should be more accurate and produce much smaller distances.

Please show us the correct way to measure the distance between the earth and the sun. Remember we've already reviewed EnaG and found Rowbotham totally wrong when we critiqued EnaG.

The methods are correct for both RET and FET distances to the sun. If the earth is round, one distance is computed to get the Round Earth value and if the earth is flat another distance is computed to get the Flat Earth value, using the same method. It's not a matter of an incorrect method -- it's a matter of an incorrect model.

Radar bounce is used to calculate the distance to Venus and from there the trigonometry to calculate the distance to the sun has nothing to do with a RE.  It assume the Earth is a vertex on the triangle, nothing more.

[Gulliver]

...

Radar bounce is used to calculate the distance to Venus and from there the trigonometry to calculate the distance to the sun has nothing to do with a RE.  It assume the Earth is a vertex on the triangle, nothing more.

Just to try to help here... RS is right, RADAR bounce is one accepted and RET-consistent method to measure the distance to Venus and the sun. Tom Bishop is trying (and rather weakly) to claim that the transit technique (see: http://www.space.com/18529-distance-to-venus.html)would apply in either case of a flat or global earth. However, he should note that both results are disproof of FET.

[jroa]

RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes.  I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. 

[Gulliver]

RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes.  I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. 

You attack a straw man. Show your evidence that the measurement failed to consider RADAR's varying velocity according to medium and that such an oversight results in a value that does not disprove FET. See, for example, http://www.astroevents.no/distance.html

[jroa]

RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes.  I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. 

You attack a straw man. Show your evidence that the measurement failed to consider RADAR's varying velocity according to medium and that such an oversight results in a value that does not disprove FET. See, for example, http://www.astroevents.no/distance.html

Any kind of EM signal will pass through a constantly changing medium if pointed from the Earth to any of the celestrial objects. 

Or, are you denying this? 

[markjo]

RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes.  I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. 

What does RADAR have to do with using the transit of Venus to measure the solar system? 

[jroa]

Poor markjo.  I am referring to the RADAR bounces.  I know your age is getting to you, but please, try to stay on track with us young falks. 

[Gulliver]

Any kind of EM signal will pass through a constantly changing medium if pointed from the Earth to any of the celestrial objects. 

Or, are you denying this?

Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?

Do point us to the method the FET has used to measure the distance from earth to the sun given that the media constantly change.

Please cease the personal attacks.

[jroa]

Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?

There is no air between the Earth and sun at midnight?  Are you just making stuff up again? 

[Gulliver]

Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?

There is no air between the Earth and sun at midnight?  Are you just making stuff up again?

You do need to recall that objects like the earth can prevent the propagation of EM signals.

Again, regardless, so what?

Again, I kindly ask that you to refrain from personal attacks.

[jroa]

Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?

There is no air between the Earth and sun at midnight?  Are you just making stuff up again?

You do need to recall that objects like the earth can prevent the propagation of EM signals.

Again, regardless, so what?

Again, I kindly ask that you to refrain from personal attacks.

It is a personal attack when I call bull shit on you? 

[Gulliver]

Technically you're wrong. An EM signal could be pointed at the sun at local midnight and not pass through any medium. Regardless, so what?

There is no air between the Earth and sun at midnight?  Are you just making stuff up again?

You do need to recall that objects like the earth can prevent the propagation of EM signals.

Again, regardless, so what?

Again, I kindly ask that you to refrain from personal attacks.

,
It is a personal attack when I call bull shit on you?

I'll let your good conscience guide you on that trip of self-reflection. Happy trails.

Now to the topic: How does RADAR's having to pass through various, even constantly changing, media correct the RADAR-based measurements to celestial objects to no longer disprove FET?

[Rama Set]

RADAR signals do not travel at the same speed when the medium changes.  I know you RE'ers like to think it does, though. 

Considering refractive indices could not even get the AU down one order of magnitude, this does nothing to help the FE case.

[Tom Bishop]

Radar bounce experiments are typically government funded or NASA affiliated.