Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: The Sun
« Reply #20 on: February 23, 2017, 02:36:30 AM »
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!
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. 
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 02:48:48 AM by Flatout »

Re: The Sun
« Reply #21 on: February 23, 2017, 08:07:19 AM »
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!
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.

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.

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1212
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: The Sun
« Reply #22 on: February 23, 2017, 10:41:56 AM »
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!
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.

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.
You claim that "Just because the "old stars" are moving does not mean the Earth is moving." and you have previously claimed that "red shift" is not problem for the Flat Earth.
Yes, it might "not mean the Earth is moving", but it sure is a problem, for which you don't seem to have an answer.

Not only is the constellation Andromeda moving, it is moving towards the earth at about 190 miles/second! It actually has a "blue shift".

I'll let you work out how long before it collides with the earth. Though strangely enough it's still there year after year.

Maybe  the Flat Earth really does have big, big problems with these measured red (and blue) problems.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #23 on: February 23, 2017, 11:55:23 AM »
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!
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.

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.
You claim that "Just because the "old stars" are moving does not mean the Earth is moving." and you have previously claimed that "red shift" is not problem for the Flat Earth.
Yes, it might "not mean the Earth is moving", but it sure is a problem, for which you don't seem to have an answer.

Not only is the constellation Andromeda moving, it is moving towards the earth at about 190 miles/second! It actually has a "blue shift".

I'll let you work out how long before it collides with the earth. Though strangely enough it's still there year after year.

Maybe  the Flat Earth really does have big, big problems with these measured red (and blue) problems.

What problem(s)?

There are no problems for FE in this instance.

The problems are with a supposed rotating, revolving globe...

And contradictory explanations involving no "up," or "down," and "right," or "left," when it comes to relativity.

Of course people can see with their very own eyes everything but the Earth is moving.

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: The Sun
« Reply #24 on: February 24, 2017, 03:22:02 AM »
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!
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.

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.
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.   
« Last Edit: February 24, 2017, 03:34:04 AM by Flatout »

Re: The Sun
« Reply #25 on: February 24, 2017, 04:42:47 PM »
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!
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.

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.
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.

Another thing we don't observe is the stars moving in relation to other stars. If everything is moving, your assertion is that we are all moving in such perfect unison, regardless of any known laws of physics that could possible reckon that notion with reality, and other than some obscure radiology, we never observe stars moving in relation to one another. A little odd that a 580 million mile journey around the Sun doesn't really produce a dramatic shit in parallax of the stars, unless of course we just accept modern Science's explanation that basically boils down to "They're just like, really, really far out dude." Otherwise you have to accept the highly implausible explanation that everything is moving in relation to one another so perfectly that their motion is imperceptible.

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: The Sun
« Reply #26 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.
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 07:54:52 AM by Flatout »

Re: The Sun
« Reply #27 on: February 27, 2017, 09:34:48 PM »
... unless of course we just accept modern Science's explanation that basically boils down to "They're just like, really, really far out dude." ...

Exactly. What is wrong with this explanation?

Re: The Sun
« Reply #28 on: February 27, 2017, 09:40:36 PM »
... unless of course we just accept modern Science's explanation that basically boils down to "They're just like, really, really far out dude." ...

Exactly. What is wrong with this explanation?

That's just too convenient, and very unscientific isn't it?

Re: The Sun
« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2017, 09:48:10 PM »
... unless of course we just accept modern Science's explanation that basically boils down to "They're just like, really, really far out dude." ...

Exactly. What is wrong with this explanation?

That's just too convenient, and very unscientific isn't it?

I have no idea what you mean. How is it "too convenient" and "unscientific"?

Re: The Sun
« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2017, 10:06:25 PM »
The sun has changed position numerous times since science has begun declaring intimate knowledge of the actual distance. Each time something comes up and challenges that they just arbitrarily change the distance again. It is a giant exercise that is built upon previous assumption and confirmation that is not scientific in the least, in the sense that it is supported by replicable experimentation.

Also another happy coincidence is that our moon and sun only appear the same size because "They're like, totally, completely coincidentally, like the perfect distance and size combination for eclipses to occur, cool right!?"

Re: The Sun
« Reply #31 on: February 27, 2017, 10:46:59 PM »
The sun has changed position numerous times since science has begun declaring intimate knowledge of the actual distance. Each time something comes up and challenges that they just arbitrarily change the distance again. It is a giant exercise that is built upon previous assumption and confirmation that is not scientific in the least, in the sense that it is supported by replicable experimentation.

You are going to have to be more specific. They "arbitrarily change the distance" when they receive more accurate information. Earlier experiments tend to be less accurate than later experiments, because scientists tend to try to learn from earlier mistakes. You also seem to believe that they don't replicate experiments. This is false. Modern measurements can be made using a variety of different methods, all of which agree with each other. I can provide examples if you want.

Quote
Also another happy coincidence is that our moon and sun only appear the same size because "They're like, totally, completely coincidentally, like the perfect distance and size combination for eclipses to occur, cool right!?"

What does that have to do with distances? It's just as big of a coincidence whether the earth is flat or round.

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: The Sun
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2017, 02:59:35 AM »
TheTruthIsOnHere, what method does TFES use to calculate the suns distance?

*

Offline rabinoz

  • *
  • Posts: 1212
  • Just look South at the Stars
    • View Profile
Re: The Sun
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2017, 11:15:06 PM »
The sun has changed position numerous times since science has begun declaring intimate knowledge of the actual distance.
Please document exactly when your supposed "numerous" "changed positions" "since science has begun declaring intimate knowledge of the actual distance"
otherwise I will have to accuse you of gross deception.

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
Each time something comes up and challenges that they just arbitrarily change the distance again. It is a giant exercise that is built upon previous assumption and confirmation that is not scientific in the least, in the sense that it is supported by replicable experimentation.
Quite unsubstantiated rubbish!

Quote from: TheTruthIsOnHere
Also another happy coincidence is that our moon and sun only appear the same size because "They're like, totally, completely coincidentally, like the perfect distance and size combination for eclipses to occur, cool right!?"
Well, eclipses do occur! And why is it any more a coincidence than the sun and moon supposedly the same size on the (er which) Flat Earth Model?

But, I have to inform you, as I believe, you have been informed before, claiming that "the perfect distance and size combination for eclipses to occur" is quite meaningless.

Over the course of a year the angular size of the sun varies from 0.52° up to 0.55°, a change of 4% and
over the course of about a month the angular size of the moon varies from about 0.49° to 0.56°, a change of about 13%.
And you claim "the perfect distance and size combination for eclipses to occur". Care to revise your comments in the face of a few easily verifiable facts.

But, you are being grossly hypocritical when you make claims like this. What is the distance to the sun on the Flat earth? The following is part of a post to YOU:
Quote
And how much of "Earth Not a Globe" have you read? You have a copy of course, l have.

So maybe you could explain how Rowbotham manages to prove that the sun's height cannot be more than 700 miles as in:
Quote
If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
I guess you can find that bit in your copy and explain how it is that now they say the sun is a "bit over 3,000 miles".

And Flat Earthers complain that we "change the distance between the earth and the sun".

You are so critical of all the Globe "theories, what about looking at what the Flat Earthers really "believe? [/size]

So, I repeat,  please document exactly when your supposed "numerous" "changed positions" are supposed to have occurred.
I will not accept the improvements in accuracy with improved methods as being "changed positions".

Re: The Sun
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2017, 04:36:17 PM »
You're missing the point. No one KNOWS how far away the Sun is, or even what it is made of. We can theorize all that we want, and make assumptions all that we want. Here is an excerpt on methods of measuring the distance to the sun, which none of it seems very exact.

Quote
Methods of measurement

Even today, the best method of measuring the distance of a distant astronomical object is to determine its trigonometric parallax. You know the underlying effect from everyday life: When you move by bike, car or train, all things around you seem to move in the opposite direction - the nearer they are, the more quickly they move. You will find an excellent description of the method of parallax measurement in the Astronomy On-Line project on the Solar Eclipse on October 12, 1996.

If one tries to measure the sun's parallax in this way, this implies that you must measure its position in the sky from different places on the Earth. In fact, you will have to measure angles in a triangle with a ratio of length of about 24.000:1. Try to draw such a triangle and you will be able to imagine the corresponding difficulties! Indeed, up to now it is impossible to measure the Sun's parallax in this way directly.

There are three principal alternatives:

    Aristarchus had the idea to measure the distance of the Sun, not as a multiple of the Earth's radius, but of the radius of the Moon's orbit. This requires angular measurements in triangle with a ratio of length of "only" 400:1. If the Moon's distance is known (and Aristarchus knew a quite good value!), you can calculate the Astronomical Unit as a multiple of the Earth's radius.

    The second possibility to get larger and therefore more easy-to-measure angles is to measure a distance that is smaller than the distance to the Sun. As described above, it is then possible to derive the Sun's distance from this.

        The smallest distance between Mars and Earth is about half as large as the Sun's distance. The first modern measurements therefore made use of parallax measurements on Mars (Kepler ca. 1600, Cassini 1671).
        The closest distance of Venus is only a quarter of that of the Sun. Unfortunately, it is then in "inferior conjunction" and therefore above the horizon simultanously with the Sun. But very seldom (once every 110 years approximately, next time in 2006), it passes in front of the Sun's disc (a transit), thus allowing precise measurements of its position relative to the Sun's position. This method is very similar to that used to determine the Moon's distance during a solar eclipse in Solar Eclipse on October 12, 1996. Until the end of the 19th century, the best results were due to observations of transits of Venus.
        Some minor planets come even closer to the Earth (within 0.1 AU). Parallax measurement on the minor planet Eros during its opposition in 1930 yielded the best value of the Astronomical Unit up to that time.
    The third alternative uses physical laws, thereby opening the possibility of deriving the Sun's distance from measurements of other physical quantities:
        When the speed of light is known, one can substitute geometric methods by measurements of time effects. Examples are the observations of the occultations of Jupiter's moon Io by Roemer (who argumented the other way round) and the discovery of the aberration of light by Bradley. Today the best results are due to run-time measurements with radar signals between Earth and Venus.
        Newton's law of gravity allows to derive the Sun's parallax from precise observations of the perturbations of the Moon's orbit by the Sun. At the beginning of our century, this was the most exact method.
        Finally, the Doppler effect due to the Earth's motion gives the possibility of deriving the Astronomical Unit from the spectra of a star, taken when the Earth is moving directly towards or away from it.
http://www.eso.org/public//outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/solpar/

Distance to the sun revisions by astronomers
Copernicus: 3,391,200 miles
Johannes Kepler: 12,376,800 miles
Isaac Newton: Of the Opinion the Distance is Inconsequential
Benjamin Martin: 82,000,000 miles
Thomas Dilworth: 93,726,900 miles

And so on and so on.

This is not science. This is guesswork.

Re: The Sun
« Reply #35 on: March 01, 2017, 05:47:29 PM »
So, I repeat,  please document exactly when your supposed "numerous" "changed positions" are supposed to have occurred.
I will not accept the improvements in accuracy with improved methods as being "changed positions".
Improvements in accuracy = revisions in math.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 05:50:57 PM by totallackey »

Re: The Sun
« Reply #36 on: March 01, 2017, 09:04:56 PM »
You're missing the point. No one KNOWS how far away the Sun is, or even what it is made of. We can theorize all that we want, and make assumptions all that we want. Here is an excerpt on methods of measuring the distance to the sun, which none of it seems very exact.

Quote

...
http://www.eso.org/public//outreach/eduoff/aol/market/collaboration/solpar/

Distance to the sun revisions by astronomers
Copernicus: 3,391,200 miles
Johannes Kepler: 12,376,800 miles
Isaac Newton: Of the Opinion the Distance is Inconsequential
Benjamin Martin: 82,000,000 miles
Thomas Dilworth: 93,726,900 miles

And so on and so on.

This is not science. This is guesswork.

Much better! This is a good start. If you are truly looking for the truth of the matter, do the following for each of the estimates you listed above:

1. Understand the exact process that they went through to obtain their estimate.
2. What is the biggest flaw in their estimate? Be specific.
3. What SHOULD they have done to get a better estimate? Be specific.

Edit: I've never heard of Martin and Dilworth, and can't find any references to how they came up with their estimates. Perhaps you should use some better sourced examples.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2017, 09:25:00 PM by TotesNotReptilian »

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: The Sun
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2017, 03:07:08 AM »
Again, the TFES has a stated distance to the sun.  How did they determine the distance?

Re: The Sun
« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2017, 05:56:16 PM »
Again, the TFES has a stated distance to the sun.  How did they determine the distance?

A sextant, I believe.



This video shows that the calculations would work out the same on a flat plane with a close sun as on a round earth with a far sun.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 06:03:00 PM by TheTruthIsOnHere »

Offline Flatout

  • *
  • Posts: 238
    • View Profile
Re: The Sun
« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2017, 08:11:40 PM »
Have you done the calculation yourself to see if that statement is true? 

During equinox on the spherical earth, the sun is directly overheard (90 degrees) at the equator and right on the horizon (0 degrees)  at the north pole.  On the flat model,  with the sun 3000 miles above the earth,  the sun would be 25 degrees above the horizon at the poles during equinox. 

They are not the same. 
« Last Edit: March 02, 2017, 08:15:56 PM by Flatout »