[CableDawg]

Why can't we doubt the Wiki? Those writings come from a number of sources. It's a user editable online encyclopedia.

Why do so many (including yourself) point to it as the end all be all?

Does it come down to a matter of convenience?  If it supports your argument it's fine and valid.  If it doesn't it's questionable and invalid.

FE apologists and Christian apologists.  Is there really any difference?  Both groups rely on the same tactics and logic.

Of course the similarity is not surprising considering that FE ideas sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place.

[CableDawg]

It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.

FE supporters have insulated and protected themselves from peer review though.

They don't accept the scientific method as valid so they discount any results from a scientific background.

They can't even come to a consensus and build a peerage amongst themselves.

How can FE have any kind of peer review when they discount the majority of people who would be their peers and can't form a peerage amongst the minority left over?

[rabinoz]

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.

It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.

The whole point we are all trying to make is that the method used by Voliva and Rowbotham (they are essentially the same) cannot ever give valid results.

The height you get depends on the baseline used!

Whenever we ask the height of the sun, either we told it a bit over 3,000 miles or "Look up the Wiki!", we do that and clearly the answers are quite inconsistent.

Now, surely the sun must at one height. I know why the answers vary, but since the answer might cause you cognitive dissonance problems, I will refrain from pointing that out!

Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?

[CableDawg]

Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?
[/quote]

The height of the FE sun will never be know for certain because it is relative to the speed of relativity which is of course relative to the relative asked for input factors.

[rabinoz]

Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?

The height of the FE sun will never be know for certain because it is relative to the speed of relativity which is of course relative to the relative asked for input factors.

Besides, you deleted a "{quote author=rabinoz}" (now fixed) which probably upset the generalness of the relativity, making it all special and hence not properly relative - get it?
No, neither do I, but since I am not related (generally or specially), I have no idea what you (or I) are talking about!

[Tom Bishop]

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

Rowbotham states, "The foregoing remarks and illustrations are, of course, not necessary to the mathematician; but may be useful to the general reader, showing him that plane trigonometry, carried out on the earth's plane or horizontal surface, permits of operations which are simple and perfect in principle, and in practice fully reliable and satisfactory."

Why do you think Rowbotham would be endorsing "that Ancient Greek nonsense math where things are continuous and divide or stretch into infinities?" Was he not "assuming conclusions based on an Ancient Greek fantasy model where things are continuous, rather than an experience of the real world."?

Yes, Rowbotham is using Trigonomety. No, he didn't read my post written over 150 years later. In Earth Not a Globe Rowbotham does question some elements of trigonometry, however, specifically what happens at very long distances with perspective.

Why can't we doubt the Wiki? Those writings come from a number of sources. It's a user editable online encyclopedia.

Why do so many (including yourself) point to it as the end all be all?

Does it come down to a matter of convenience?  If it supports your argument it's fine and valid.  If it doesn't it's questionable and invalid.

FE apologists and Christian apologists.  Is there really any difference?  Both groups rely on the same tactics and logic.

Of course the similarity is not surprising considering that FE ideas sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place.

I link to the Wiki because it would be tiring to write pages of text over and over again when someone asks a question. As a user contributed resource it's as right or wrong as any user who posts to this forum may be right or wrong.

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

Do you really want to defend his results?  He calculated the sun to be a mere 700 miles up, and the subsolar point only 400 miles away.  The Wiki, so beloved by FE proponents, has the sun over four times as high, and the nearest the subsolar point EVER gets to London is over the Tropic of Cancer, some two THOUSAND miles away, more than five times as far.

Rowbotham may be ultimately incorrect, sure, but it is the only measurement backed up with explicit observations I've seen. That makes it the strongest claim for now.

As far as discrepancies go, your criticism is misplaced. On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.

[Tom Bishop]

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.

It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.

The whole point we are all trying to make is that the method used by Voliva and Rowbotham (they are essentially the same) cannot ever give valid results.

The height you get depends on the baseline used!

Whenever we ask the height of the sun, either we told it a bit over 3,000 miles or "Look up the Wiki!", we do that and clearly the answers are quite inconsistent.

Now, surely the sun must at one height. I know why the answers vary, but since the answer might cause you cognitive dissonance problems, I will refrain from pointing that out!

Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?

I think the height of the sun changes over the course of the year, but I am unsure of what the heights might be.

[rabinoz]

Are those real world observations, or hypothetical ones?

Rowbotham claims to have made real world observations.  Quoting directly from the flat earth bible, Earth Not A Sphere, Chapter V The True Distance of the Sun:

If so, then that makes Rowbotham's evidence stronger than the litany of hypothetical observations suggested by others.

You don't know that Rowbotham's observations were real or hypothetical.

It's certainly stronger than a hypothetical proposition. To make it even stronger we need to have peer review. I would be curious to see what the journal Earth Not a Globe Review found on this subject when they did their review of the work.

The whole point we are all trying to make is that the method used by Voliva and Rowbotham (they are essentially the same) cannot ever give valid results.

The height you get depends on the baseline used!

Whenever we ask the height of the sun, either we told it a bit over 3,000 miles or "Look up the Wiki!", we do that and clearly the answers are quite inconsistent.

Now, surely the sun must at one height. I know why the answers vary, but since the answer might cause you cognitive dissonance problems, I will refrain from pointing that out!

Over to you. What is the height of the Flat Earth sun?

I think the height of the sun changes over the course of the year, but I am unsure of what the heights might be.

The variations I was showing (using the same method used by Voliva and essentially the same as the Wiki) had nothing whatever to do with any possible variations over the course of a year, but measurements which can be taken at any one time.

[Tom Bishop]

The variations I was showing (using the same method used by Voliva and essentially the same as the Wiki) had nothing whatever to do with any possible variations over the course of a year, but measurements which can be taken at any one time.

Would that be the method of not actually observing the sun at these different places for your estimate of its position?

[rabinoz]

The variations I was showing (using the same method used by Voliva and essentially the same as the Wiki) had nothing whatever to do with any possible variations over the course of a year, but measurements which can be taken at any one time.

Would that be the method of not actually observing the sun at these different places for your estimate of its position?

I really couldn't care less about the supposed height of the flat earth sun. I have seen no evidence that Voliva actually making any measurements to calculate the height of the sun. He may have. His writings give the sun height as 2,700 miles. The 3,000 miles comes from a Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931 article referring to Voliva's "work".
Rowbotham did make measurements and his figure was 700 miles and I showed you where he went wrong.

So over to you again, I have pointed out the simple fact that TFES has no idea of the sun height.

There is another "minute problem".
You say that possibly the sun's height is higher, presumably during the southern summer. BUT, the sun's intensity during the southern summer is quite significantly higher than during the northern summer^[1]. How does this higher sun fit with an almost 7% higher solar intensity? It is interesting that in the Globe Earth the sun's minimum and maximum distances are 91 and 94.5 million miles -  allowing for the square law it fits pretty well! What a co-incidence.
 
And no, I did not measure these myself! I do, however, look carefully into these matters as we have Solar Power and I do monitor the output regularly.

But there are innumerable things in your model^[2] neither you nor any TFES member have personally measured!

Sometimes I really think that you should shut up shop for a few years and sort all these gross inconsistencies out (including map), then re-open with a whole bright and shiny new model, not one dreamt up quickly to help counter Darwinism.

[1] The "Solar Constants" are 1.412 kW/m² compared to 1.321 kW/m²)
[2] Sun height, UAcceleration rate, orbits of planets, distances to "stars", the refraction in the atmosphere making the sun look as though it sets behind the horizon, etc, etc.

[rabinoz]

This is resurrecting an old thread, but it was my thread. You can look up the OP at: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « on: April 15, 2016, 01:58:07 AM » for a background. This time, I will present the sun elevations and azimuth from five locations all close to longitude 70°W. These are shown on the Google Earth map on the right.

Locations for Sun Height Calculations

The following table gives the data for each location. All sun elevation was obtained from Sun Earth Tools as close as possible to the local midday on the last equinox. The time was UTC 20/Mar/2016  16:48.

Location	Latitude	Longitude	Sun Elev	Dist from Vaupes	Flat Sun Ht	Angle from Vaupes	Calc Circum
Kimmirut, NU X0A, Canada	62.847°	-69.869°	27.36°	7,034 km	3,609 km	63.58°	39,828 km
Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic	18.486°	-69.931°	71.72°	2,107 km	6,077 km	19.22°	39,465 km
Municipio de Taraira, Vaupes, Colombia	-0.565°	-69.634°	89.06°	0 km	------
Chupa District, Peru	-15.109°	-69.998°	74.69°	1,610 km	6,256 km	14.37°	40,334 km
Punta Arenas, Chile	-53.164°	-70.917°	36.63°	5,830 km	4,388 km	52.43°	40,031 km

These locations and the directions to the sun on a flat earth are shown in the left hand  diagram below:
Once we have the angles from two sites the height of the sun can be calculated from: h = d/(1/tan(A₁) + 1/tan(A₂)).

Sun Height on Flat Earth along 70°W Long

Sun Height on Globe Earth along 70°W Long

Using this method to find the height of the sun on the Flat earth gives measurements from 3609 km (for Kimmirut and Vaupes) to 6256 km (for Chupa District to Vaupes) depending on the spacing of the measurement sites.

In other words, claiming that the Flat Earth sun is at about 5,000 km altitude has no foundation.

Now, if instead of using these measurements to determine the Flat Earth sun height, we use them as Eratosthenes did, assuming a distant sun and use this data to calculate the circumference of the earth. T

The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)

This time we get far better consistency. The estimated figures for the circumference of the earth range from 39,465 km to 40,334 km.

Certainly these figures would indicate that the earth is a globe with a distant sun.

<< This is done in a bit of a hurry, will review when I get a chance - but it is pretty close >>

[İntikam]

oh wiki then okay. what a source .

[Pete Svarrior]

Why do so many (including yourself) point to it as the end all be all?

Who does that? I've never seen it be referred to as "the end all be all". If anything, it's pointed towards as a good starting place to answer common questions.

Another benefit of linking to the Wiki is that it can be edited post-factum. If you ask how, say, the day and night cycle works, and we link you to the Wiki, you get a link to a reasonably up-to-date representation of FE beliefs. If someone finds your question 5 years later, they can click on the same link and still find something that's reasonably up to date, assuming someone continued to work on it. It's simply the more appropriate resource for some purposes.

Does it come down to a matter of convenience?  If it supports your argument it's fine and valid.  If it doesn't it's questionable and invalid.

Hopefully the above explains what's going on reasonably well. In general, I would recommend that you do not follow your questions by an immediate accusation of wrongdoing. It's a rhetorical device that seems very palatable at the time when it's used, but in retrospect it just makes you look closed-minded.

FE apologists and Christian apologists.  Is there really any difference?

Yes.

Both groups rely on the same tactics and logic.

But then so do you - see my criticisms of your rhetoric above.

Of course the similarity is not surprising considering that FE ideas sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place.

The Flat Earth Theory predates the Bible by quite some time. If anything, the implications that the Earth might be flat contained in the Bible are an indication of the widespread belief of these time periods. I'm sure it helped perpetuate it, but FE ideas have most certainly not "sprung, whole cloth, from the bible in the first place".

[rabinoz]

oh wiki then okay. what a source .

By "the Wiki" I mean the TFES Wiki! What better authority?

And I believe the method I used for the Flat Earth sun height is almost the same as the method you used.

If I read your post correctly, you got different answers (3594 km, 5067 km, 7270 km, 5456 km and 4984 km) for each pair of locations.

That is exactly what I claim is wrong with Flat Earth sun height calculations. You get a different answer for each different spacing of pairs of points.

But if we take the earth to be a globe we do get consistent answers.

[İntikam]

oh wiki then okay. what a source .

By "the Wiki" I mean the TFES Wiki! What better authority?

And I believe the method I used for the Flat Earth sun height is almost the same as the method you used.

If I read your post correctly, you got different answers (3594 km, 5067 km, 7270 km, 5456 km and 4984 km) for each pair of locations.

That is exactly what I claim is wrong with Flat Earth sun height calculations. You get a different answer for each different spacing of pairs of points.

But if we take the earth to be a globe we do get consistent answers.

I got the shape as curve. If i get it as flat there is no contradiction.

[Rounder]

Another benefit of linking to the Wiki is that it can be edited post-factum...assuming someone continued to work on it.

That WOULD be a good point, if only somebody would actually DO that.  For quite a while now people have ponted out a glaringly basic factual error on the Bishop Experiment page:

The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles.

The true distance is closer to 23 miles, nowhere near 33.4 given by the wiki.  If you're going to use the word "exact" right there in the sentence, and provide a number 'exact' enough to include tenths of a mile, you should maybe get an ACTUAL exact distance?

[Pete Svarrior]

That WOULD be a good point, if only somebody would actually DO that.

We do. Our resources are limited, and most of us don't read angry ramblings from the likes of you (for the same reason - limited resources mean we'd rather focus on someone worthwhile). Don't be surprised that your complaint was simply ignored in the sea of rants.

The true distance is closer to 23 miles, nowhere near 33.4 given by the wiki.

Granted, this appears to be a clerical error - clearly it was meant to read "23.4" rather than "33.4". If your greatest worry (one that makes you CAPITALISE words SEEMINGLY at RANDOM) is that someone's finger slipped once a few years ago, I would recommend finding a hobby.

Of course, none of this matters since:





Unless, of course, you're suggesting that a 352-feet wall of water is not a problem here...

[Rama Set]

Granted, this appears to be a clerical error - clearly it was meant to read "23.4" rather than "33.4".

Clearly not, otherwise it would have been a) corrected or b) brought up as an explanation at some point before this.

[Pete Svarrior]

a) corrected

Yeah, yeah, I'll sort it out when I have a moment, don't get your panties in a twist.

b) brought up as an explanation at some point before this.

p. sure I've done that in the past now that you mention it...

Looking at the actual body of text, it also says "See this map" without providing any map at all. Clearly it could do with some copy-editing - I'm not sure why you find it so unbelievable that someone would hit a "3" instead of a "2" and then carry on with their calculations for this mistaken figure. And, again, it's not like it affects the validity of the experiment in any way.

[Rama Set]

Yeah, yeah, I'll sort it out when I have a moment, don't get your panties in a twist.

Can't wait, this error has been persistent for years. 

p. sure I've done that in the past now that you mention it...

How sure?  You are usually pretty speedy at providing sources, one would do well in this case.

Looking at the actual body of text, it also says "See this map" without providing any map at all. Clearly it could do with some copy-editing - I'm not sure why you find it so unbelievable that someone would hit a "3" instead of a "2" and then carry on with their calculations for this mistaken figure. And, again, it's not like it affects the validity of the experiment in any way.

An incident of sloppy editing in one case is not proof of sloppy editing elsewhere.  Considering the source of the entry, and that the entry in the wiki, continues the same error, it seems far more likely that there was no review of the experiment at all, and that it was take at face value for some reason.