[jimbob]

I have been to two places, Lapland and North Canada that are thousands of miles appart (assuming the pilot of the plane didnt fly in circles for 11 hours-I probably would have noticed) in their mid winter and experienced 24 hours of dark (for quite a few weeks) and tryed to picture how this happens above a flat earth.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

It's clearly answered in the Wiki: the Sun is farther away from the North Pole in the winter.

[Tontogary]

It's clearly answered in the Wiki: the Sun is farther away from the North Pole in the winter.

So what makes the sun speed up to cover the vastly larger path travelled in the winter then? Or why does the sun not appear much smaller in the winter to someone in the northern hemisphere? Perspective means it should be much much smaller in the winter as it is farther away.
Why does the sun not fly off into space as it travels faster in the winter during its extended orbit?
What keeps the sun from flying off into space in the first place? It cant be gravity, as the earth doesn’t have any.

None of those points are answered in the Wiki.

Eagerly awaiting some answers to the above.

[Tom Bishop]

Unknown.

[9 out of 10 doctors agree]

Unknown.

That's a major hole in your theory then, because RE has an explanation that can be explained to a 7-year-old.

[Tontogary]

Unknown.

Rather unsatisfactory response, therefore no evidence offered for the defence, so the flat earth debate lost........

Rather much like all the other difficult questions that are posted here, either Unknown or no answer.

Occams Razor should be applied, (as suggested by the Wiki) which cuts out any possibility of a flat earth as there are so many assumptions or unknowns. I suggest practicing what is preached.

All of the above questions are easily answered by RE model.

[Tom Bishop]

Unknown.

That's a major hole in your theory then, because RE has an explanation that can be explained to a 7-year-old.

The sun maintaining its size at different distances is explained in the Cosmos -> Sun section. What moves the sun and bodies in the sky is unknown.

[Tom Bishop]

Unknown.

Rather unsatisfactory response, therefore no evidence offered for the defence, so the flat earth debate lost........

Rather much like all the other difficult questions that are posted here, either Unknown or no answer.

Occams Razor should be applied, (as suggested by the Wiki) which cuts out any possibility of a flat earth as there are so many assumptions or unknowns. I suggest practicing what is preached.

All of the above questions are easily answered by RE model.

Show me the real observational reports made which show that the sun matches up to what RET predicts.

Show me an RET calculator that verifies those observations.

Also show that that the calculator is truly based on RET and not on equations based on patterns and trends.

[Tontogary]

Unknown.

Rather unsatisfactory response, therefore no evidence offered for the defence, so the flat earth debate lost........

Rather much like all the other difficult questions that are posted here, either Unknown or no answer.

Occams Razor should be applied, (as suggested by the Wiki) which cuts out any possibility of a flat earth as there are so many assumptions or unknowns. I suggest practicing what is preached.

All of the above questions are easily answered by RE model.

Show me the real observational reports made which show that the sun matches up to what RET predicts.

Show me an RET calculator that verifies those observations.

Also show that that the calculator is truly based on RET and not on equations based on patterns and trends.

I have shown measurements and observations i have made, in other threads, its up to you to go look at them.

For the size of the sun, i have made observations throughout the day, and posted them here. The suns diameter does not change as the day gets longer, which it should do under FE theory.

At present my ship is in 17 degrees south, and over the next week we are going to 30 degrees north. IF the sun is circling the earth at about 3000 miles altitude, and is only about 30 miles wide, then as i take the diameter of the sun at noon each day, then the suns diameter should change, Yes? Therefore i will show you observations and evidence, which no doubt you will reject for some reason........
The wiki explanation for change in size of the sun is full of holes in any case, but also only attempts to explain why the sun does not get smaller the lower the altitude is. This is different.
The suns declination is about 14 North today, and we will be at about 15N next week, so the sun will be overhead, which is something i can measure and observe. As it will be overhead at noon, it MUST be closest to me, and therefore at its largest. If the suns diameter over the next week does not alter, then the distance away from me MUST be constant, or nearly so. Do you agree?

If the suns diameter does not change, then it firsts in with RE actuality.

What calculator do you need to show what part of RE ?
Going by your answer of “unknown” all i have to do is answer in the same, and you should accept it, however providing one scrap of evidence and observation will make FE theory fail with Occams Razor, as you are unable to show any evidence. Only “unknown” (which reads as “assumed”)

The almanacs for sun and stars are calculated, as was shown in a previous thread, (regarding the time of sunset) and you argued that it is not acceptable, as it was NOT based on “actual observations and trends” Are you now saying you will ONLY accept calculations now? You argued that the time of sunset was calculated on RE theory, so why are you now asking for something contrary?

Please be at least consistent in your arguments, and not be so contrary!

[Tom Bishop]

You are going to need to irrefutably  prove RET or irrefutably disprove FET. You have not met that level.

Your self claimed surveying victory is a low bar, as all surveying has errors. All surveying methods and tools are in error in some manner. Yet you claim to be able to measure the furthest thing on earth that could possibly be measured accurately.

[Tontogary]

You are going to need to irrefutably  prove RET or irrefutably disprove FET. You have not met that level.

Your self claimed surveying victory is a low bar, as all surveying has errors. All surveying methods and tools are in error in some manner. Yet you claim to be able to measure the furthest thing on earth that could possibly be measured accurately.

How do you know i cannot use a sextant?

Are you able to prove i am unable to do so?

I have a professional qualification that says i know how to use it, where is your credentials to show i am unable? Without it your claim is useless.

I can measure the arc of an angle (including the suns) to about 0.1 minute of arc accuracy, and as i have demonstrated in previous threads, my measurements are able to be verified by calculation, and cross checking.

IF the sun is about 3000 miles away as clearly stated on the wiki, then the change of size will be easily measured as it gets further away. It is called perspective, a subject about which you obviously get greatly confused.

Where is you ability to measure the same, and prove you can do so? Surely in order to cast doubt upon my abilities you must be able to show, and prove that i cannot measure an arc angle to within 0.1 minute.

When you say all surveying is in error, then the statement is invalid, as i am talking of navigation, not surveying.

Please state the accepted level of accuracy for navigation? And we will see if you know what you are talking about.

Your statements have no authority, carry no weight and are worthless without credentials. You will have to do better or accept that you have no basis for an argument other than “unproven” 

[AATW]

You are going to need to irrefutably  prove RET or irrefutably disprove FET. You have not met that level.

But that is only because "that level", in your mind, is summed up by a Wiki page which I see has now been deleted.
It was on this page, which is now blank:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Place_of_the_Conspiracy_in_FET

I'm not sure why it has been removed because it perfectly summed up your mindset. It said:

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The Flat Earth is an obvious truth

You declare the flat earth as an obvious truth (you provide no basis for claiming that) and so all the evidence which shows you to be wrong has to be fake or wrong.
The laser and boat experiment you spent ages trying to prove fraudulent or wilfully misunderstanding it. You finally understood it and conceded that point but have declared it fake anyway because it shows you wrong.
You have been shown three different ways of measuring horizon dip and have dismissed all of them on spurious grounds because they show you to be wrong.
Worse, you refuse to conduct your own experiment even though the equipment to do so would cost you virtually nothing.

The level of proof you require doesn't exist. Or rather, it does but you repeatedly dismiss it because the flat earth is an "obvious truth" so everything contradicting it must be fabricated. You're not an empiricist, you're not a "free thinker", it's just denial. You can prove anything to yourself if you ignore or dismiss any evidence showing you to be wrong.

 

[Westprog]

When you say all surveying is in error, then the statement is invalid, as i am talking of navigation, not surveying.

Please state the accepted level of accuracy for navigation? And we will see if you know what you are talking about.

All measurements are within a degree of accuracy. It's a question of how accurate they need to be for a particular purpose. The difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is so vast that the accuracy of theodolites, sextants etc is entirely sufficient for purpose.

The insistence that a given measuring device is inaccurate is just obfuscation designed to confuse.

[jimbob]

It's clearly answered in the Wiki: the Sun is farther away from the North Pole in the winter.

Actually, what I mentioned isnt in the wiki. I have been to these two places in the same winter (within a week and a half of each other), 1000's of miles apart (judging by the length of time of the flight) and experienced permanent dark. Since the distance between them precludes that they arent experiencing the same absence of sun (magic flying lamp) could this mean there are actually two suns.

[Tontogary]

When you say all surveying is in error, then the statement is invalid, as i am talking of navigation, not surveying.

Please state the accepted level of accuracy for navigation? And we will see if you know what you are talking about.

All measurements are within a degree of accuracy. It's a question of how accurate they need to be for a particular purpose. The difference between a flat Earth and a round Earth is so vast that the accuracy of theodolites, sextants etc is entirely sufficient for purpose.

The insistence that a given measuring device is inaccurate is just obfuscation designed to confuse.

I agree.

As you say all measurements, whether they be to determine a flat earth or round earth are subject to an amount of accuracy. If you want absolutes, it cannot be possible, because there are always refinements. We can measure a distance to a millimetre, or micro meter, but a nanometer? Or a billions of a micron? Or a second of arc, to a 100/th of a second, or a billionth of a second of arc? To say that you cannot measure the distance from one point to another because you cannot measure it to the nth degree is just ridiculous.

Read EnaG, which seems to be the reference bible for the flat earth, and nothing in there is quoted as being so minutely accurate, and for sure the bible wasn’t, and neither were ancient scriptures, therefore we can throw that lot out as rubbish.........

The measurements i made today were that the suns diameter was 31.85 minutes of arc, and reached a maximum altitude of 59 degrees apparent altitude when passing the meridian to the North, at Midday.

I will take the suns diameter every day at noon, so as we get closer to its global position, ie when it is at our zenith it will be closer to us, according to FE theory. That will be in about 1,800 miles time, when we get there, so the sun should be so much bigger then.

Certainly i can do maths as well as anyone else, and by my recoding if the sun is 3000 miles above the earth and using the diameter arc i measured today, the suns diameter is 32.68 miles.

When we are below the sun, and it is 3,000 miles away using the same diameter the arc of the same sun would be 37.5 minutes of arc, which is nearly 6 minutes of arc bigger. I can certainly measure that arc to a much closer accuracy than that.
As i said i can measure an angle of arc to about 1/10th of a minute.
Let’s see shall we?

Unless Tom can explain why i cannot measure that accurate, it think it will prove that the sun is far away and much bigger than the FE believers think.

[Westprog]

Unknown.

That's a major hole in your theory then, because RE has an explanation that can be explained to a 7-year-old.

The sun maintaining its size at different distances is explained in the Cosmos -> Sun section. What moves the sun and bodies in the sky is unknown.

I actually went to read the relevant section. There's absolutely no evidence that the atmosphere magnifies the Sun in the fashion described - coincidentally keeping the apparent size exactly the same as it moves away - but at least it's sort of consistent with itself. The next section - explaining why even though the sun appears the same size as it moves away, it somehow disappears because perspective - that's nonsensical gibberish. Try reading Sidawg's excellent explanation of how perspective actually works, and then read the section about how the Sun disappears from the bottom up when it reaches the vanishing point.

The difference between the Sidawg explanation of perspective and the idiotic explanation in Cosmos/sunset is that Sidawg actually shows how the light reaches the eye and how that produces the visual effect of perspective. No such explanation is possible to show a magnified Sun vanishing when it reaches a certain distance in the sky. None will be furnished. It's the big hole in flat Earth theory, and it's the point at which flat Earth ceases to become a kind of incorrect belief, and becomes a complete disconnect from reality.

[hexagon]

Still don't get what RET should be... That the Earth is a globe is an observation, not a physical theory. It's nothing you can study at any university, there are no books about it, etc. Just exists in the mind of flat Earth believers...