[geckothegeek]

The sun is part of a reflection, a daemon in a figure of a screen that show us a sun which we don't know what exactly this sun.
the sun could be the size of an ant. but the most important thing is that everybody has a distinguish frequency his sighting works on,
and he see a big screen 40-50 meters ahead of him and what he sees is a reflection of the agenda and the will of the human beings in this world.
the sun is just a reflection of our mind, it could rise it could get down it could blown away its all about our wishes of the world.
This a daemon which erected on our sighting which show us the sun, but it is only a reflection, a "mirage" not a real thing.

I consider myself a fairly intelligent person. I am no genius.My last IQ number was only 135 and that was several years ago.
But with all the known and readily available information about the sun  I find it incredible that any reasonably intelligent and sane person would post the things in your post.
I doubt even the most ardent flat earth believer would agree with them either.
Can you cite the source for your information on your post ?
Or are you just another sceptimatic  ? LOL ?

[geckothegeek]

"Unprincipled and disrespective"
While some were indeed rude to you, others, at least myself, did not intend to be rude. In fact, you elected to ignore me because I said you shouldn't ignore people for having different opinions in the debate forum. One could even stretch to say that I claimed your actions to be in and of themselves, unprincipled. And yet I found myself promptly ignored, which I can say is disrespectful to both myself, and the debate forum.

Aside from that, you say Intikam means revenge. You signed on with that name, with suggests either your presence itself is vindictive in nature, or that you intended to be terribly rude to anyone here who slighted you. The latter, of course, being the worst since it implies you came here with the intent (retaliatory or not) to be disrespectful to those of us here.

Don't condemn us for not adhering to principles you yourself never intended to follow.

I think it's pure nonsense and I haven't the foggiest why anyone should post the stuff that we see from intikam.

Well.........to be honestly truthful......and not using the word "truth" in jest.....I haven't the foggiest why anyone would even say they think that they believe in this flat earth nonsense. ?

[Pete Svarrior]

My last IQ number was only 135 and that was several years ago.

That number is entirely useless unless you state the scale (standard deviation). If you lack the knowledge to properly articulate yourself, your intelligence will not serve you at all.

[İntikam]

Hey Jura, there is someone waiting for a reply. 

If someone find a time to change avatar can find a time to reply isint' it?

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Rude of me, apologies.

But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.

[İntikam]

Rude of me, apologies.

But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.

I mean the laser effect and the sun effect have no difference with regard to "where they are really exist.".

To understand what i mean lets look to first image:


Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection  points of laser beams"

Now lets look the second one:



The sun is placed on where the intersection points of sunlight rays.

In my opinion there is no difference.

I don't think about you are a rude. You are not. I think it was a misunderstanding between us, i'm sorry about it. As you know that i have no so good english caused by it is hard to find a good and reliable teacher in Istanbul to teach good and practical english. 

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Rude of me, apologies.

But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.

I mean the laser effect and the sun effect have no difference with regard to "where they are really exist.".

To understand what i mean lets look to first image:


Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection  points of laser beams"

Now lets look the second one:



The sun is placed on where the intersection points of sunlight rays.

In my opinion there is no difference.

I don't think about you are a rude. You are not. I think it was a misunderstanding between us, i'm sorry about it. As you know that i have no so good english caused by it is hard to find a good and reliable teacher in Istanbul to teach good and practical english. 

Hi,

When you say "Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection  points of laser beams"

No it isn't, the lasers are behind the photographer (see the green writing on the page), so the beams fan out towards you and then shrink away from you, to show that it is just a perspective effect.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Rude of me, apologies.

But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.

I mean the laser effect and the sun effect have no difference with regard to "where they are really exist.".

To understand what i mean lets look to first image:


Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection  points of laser beams"

The sun is placed on where the intersection points of sunlight rays.

In my opinion there is no difference.

I agree that the sun is definitely at the intersection point of the rays.

Here's the problem: how far away is that intersection point? How can you tell? Please try to calculate the distance to the intersection point based on the angle of the lasers in the photograph. Is it possible?

(Hint: it isn't possible. It could be one foot away. It could be a billion feet away. The same is true with the sun's rays.)

[İntikam]

Rude of me, apologies.

But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.

I mean the laser effect and the sun effect have no difference with regard to "where they are really exist.".

To understand what i mean lets look to first image:


Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection  points of laser beams"

Now lets look the second one:



The sun is placed on where the intersection points of sunlight rays.

In my opinion there is no difference.

I don't think about you are a rude. You are not. I think it was a misunderstanding between us, i'm sorry about it. As you know that i have no so good english caused by it is hard to find a good and reliable teacher in Istanbul to teach good and practical english. 

Hi,

When you say "Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection  points of laser beams"

No it isn't, the lasers are behind the photographer (see the green writing on the page), so the beams fan out towards you and then shrink away from you, to show that it is just a perspective effect.

This first one has a source that near to us:



But the second one isn't.



Calculate the angels of the rays, they seems like same the otherselves. But we see they are so different.

The first one; the rays coming to up to us. But if he stay at top point, the intersection point directly shows where is is stay. on. Yes this caused by perspective.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Hi Inti’
Try this;

 
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)

When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
 
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.

Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.

[İntikam]

Hi Inti’
Try this;

 
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)

When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
 
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.

Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.

I'm thinking that the act of "to see" is more reliable than your estimated in nature. Because we have "two" eyes for check the distance. I'm sure you know what causes we have the second eye? It's working to estimate the distance and size of the objects. First one sees the object as 2d without size and distance, and second one coverts it to 3d object has distance and size.

So the rays, or clouds, or moon, or sun, the result is not so different what your eyes estimated.



One eye sees the object but can't estimate it's size and distance. But with two eyes, the brain estimates them. human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Hi Inti’
Try this;

 
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)

When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
 
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.

Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.

human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.

No, it does get tricked!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg

[İntikam]

Hi Inti’
Try this;

 
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)

When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
 
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.

Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.

human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.

No, it does get tricked!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg

Optical illusions are exceptions, does not change the main rules.

[rabinoz]

Hi Inti’
Try this;

 You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)

When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
 
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.

Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.

human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.

No, it does get tricked!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg

I know I am butting in, but i dare not reply to . . . . . when he is "talking" to you. I hope I am forgiven.

As you say the eye can easily be fooled and binocular depth perception is only useful up to a few tens of metres.

Estimates vary, but these references seem certainly to agree that it is useful only over short distances:
Binocular depth discrimination and estimation beyond interaction space..
Stereoscopic perception of real depths at large distances.

No-one suggests that our binocular vision could estimate the distance to clouds. Maybe he will read this, maybe not.

[İntikam]

Hi Inti’
Try this;

 
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)

When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
 
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.

Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.

human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.

No, it does get tricked!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg

Do you know why do we say the sun is about 3.000 miles altitude?

We are calculating an angle from city A and another angle from city B. Then we calculate the distances around the cities. So the distance and the size of the sun occurs. It is same method with see of the two eyes.

no wrong in our eyes , and in our measurements.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Do you know why do we say the sun is about 3.000 miles altitude?

We are calculating an angle from city A and another angle from city B. Then we calculate the distances around the cities. So the distance and the size of the sun occurs. It is same method with see of the two eyes.

no wrong in our eyes , and in our measurements.

Please oh please, show us those calculations. Make sure you use at least 3 cities.

(Yes, I know he is ignoring me. Other flat earthers are welcome to try as well.)

[rabinoz]

Do you know why do we say the sun is about 3.000 miles altitude?

We are calculating an angle from city A and another angle from city B. Then we calculate the distances around the cities. So the distance and the size of the sun occurs. It is same method with see of the two eyes.

no wrong in our eyes , and in our measurements.

Please oh please, show us those calculations. Make sure you use at least 3 cities.

(Yes, I know he is ignoring me. Other flat earthers are welcome to try as well.)

Try 5 locations!

Something that no Flat Earther seems to take seriously is that the answer you get depends entirely on what spacing you take the measurement over.  For example at an equinox, if one observer is on the equator and the other observers are on the same longitude and at various latitudes, we get the following figures for sun height.

Latitude	Ground Distance	Sun Elev	Sun Height
30.0°	2,071 miles	60.0°	3,587 miles
45.0°	3,107 miles	45.0°	3,107 miles
60.0°	4,142 miles	30.0°	2,392 miles
75.0°	5,178 miles	15.0°	1,387 miles

Note that these are purely calculated figures, based on a globe earth.  What is needed is some keen Flat Earthers living in suitable locations to actually measure these angles on the real earth to see what agreement there is.

The height you get for the sun depends entirely on how your long your baseline is!

<< Tidied up table a bit. >>

[İntikam]

I clear you two Temporary ignore.  If you divide my conversation again, then I'll show nomercy to ignoring you again.

[İntikam]

Do you know why do we say the sun is about 3.000 miles altitude?

We are calculating an angle from city A and another angle from city B. Then we calculate the distances around the cities. So the distance and the size of the sun occurs. It is same method with see of the two eyes.

no wrong in our eyes , and in our measurements.

Please oh please, show us those calculations. Make sure you use at least 3 cities.

(Yes, I know he is ignoring me. Other flat earthers are welcome to try as well.)

This working done about 6 months - 1 years ago. So probably had a bit mistake. But if i do it again nowadays i'm sure i'll do it better.



This is a Turkish working shows the method.



These are some calculations.

And the last one is the result as kilometres.



As you see that i calculated it about 5.500 kilometres. If we changes to miles  it converts to 3417.5 miles.

If you say that this calculation not reliable, so we can calculate it online by step by step.

This calculation made with method the earth pre accepted as a curve. There was a working as the earth pre accepted as flat but the result is not so different. It doesn't make a big sence if the chosen cities  are not so far.

[TotesNotReptilian]

I clear you two Temporary ignore.  If you divide my conversation again, then I'll show nomercy to ignoring you again.

It's a public forum. No one needs your permission to comment.

This working done about 6 months - 1 years ago. So probably had a bit mistake. But if i do it again nowadays i'm sure i'll do it better.

Assuming the sun is directly between the two cities, these diagrams are correct. Good job.

This is a Turkish working shows the method.

<tiny table removed>

Even if I knew Turkish, the table is way too small to read.

These are some calculations.

And the last one is the result as kilometres.



As you see that i calculated it about 5.500 kilometres. If we changes to miles  it converts to 3417.5 miles.

If you say that this calculation not reliable, so we can calculate it online by step by step.

This calculation made with method the earth pre accepted as a curve. There was a working as the earth pre accepted as flat but the result is not so different. It doesn't make a big sence if the chosen cities  are not so far.

I noticed that only one of your results was 5500 km. Your results ranged from 3300 km to 7000 km depending on the time of day.

Here is the problem: the math assumes the sun is directly between the two cities. However, both cities (Ankara and Istanbul) are North of the Tropic of Cancer, so it is impossible for the sun to ever be between them.

You need to take into account both the sun's azimuth and altitude. Your current calculations only take into account the sun's altitude. This is why you are getting random values.