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?
QuoteIf 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. QuoteHow 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?QuoteSince 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
Quote from: Venus on January 13, 2017, 12:47:01 AMCrepuscular Rays appear angled due to perpective.http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/ray1.htmyou 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.
Quote from: Flatout on February 12, 2017, 07:22:49 AMI 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.
Except the diameter of the beam that is hitting the earth is significantly larger than the earth.