[Rounder]

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.

I don't think that's the true problem.  He has numbers which appear to be time stamps in column B.  In the morning he has angles greater than 90 degrees for angle "a", which means the math should get him good lengths for legs X and Y.  The (first) problem is, lengths X and Y are not the sun's height, they are the distance at an angle.  It is easy enough to calculate height from those numbers, but he didn't finish it.  The bigger problem is that, as you mention:

You need to take into account both the sun's azimuth and altitude. Your current calculations only take into account the sun's altitude.

His method could work, but only at one specific time of day: whenever it happens to be that an observer at the city farthest from the sun is looking directly at both the sun and the other city.  Only at that moment do the angles from earth to the sun form a triangle in the vertical plane.

Careful, now: if you quote me you'll find yourself back on the Naughty List! 
Do with that what you will.

[TotesNotReptilian]

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.

I don't think that's the true problem.  He has numbers which appear to be time stamps in column B.  In the morning he has angles greater than 90 degrees for angle "a", which means the math should get him good lengths for legs X and Y.  The (first) problem is, lengths X and Y are not the sun's height, they are the distance at an angle.  It is easy enough to calculate height from those numbers, but he didn't finish it.  The bigger problem is that, as you mention:

You need to take into account both the sun's azimuth and altitude. Your current calculations only take into account the sun's altitude.

His method could work, but only at one specific time of day: whenever it happens to be that an observer at the city farthest from the sun is looking directly at both the sun and the other city.  Only at that moment do the angles from earth to the sun form a triangle in the vertical plane.

Correct on all counts. My bad. I actually noticed that he didn't project X and Y vertically, but I figured one problem at a time was enough...

Careful, now: if you quote me you'll find yourself back on the Naughty List! 
Do with that what you will.

[rabinoz]

In another thread, I did these calculations from 5 cities, in three pairs.
First, assuming the earth is flat, and calculating the sun's height - and get no consistence.

Then using Eratosthenes' method to calculate the earth's circumference - this time with quite good consistency.

here is the link: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « Reply #30 on: Today at 02:07:06 AM »

[İntikam]

In another thread, I did these calculations from 5 cities, in three pairs.
First, assuming the earth is flat, and calculating the sun's height - and get no consistence.

Then using Eratosthenes' method to calculate the earth's circumference - this time with quite good consistency.

here is the link: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « Reply #30 on: Today at 02:07:06 AM »

I believe that calculation is a lie. So how we calculate it true for flat and wrong for round.

[Rounder]

I believe that calculation is a lie. So how we calculate it true for flat and wrong for round.

How can calculation be a lie?  I understand how people can lie (for example, one could use false data in the math) but calculation is straightforward.

[CableDawg]

In another thread, I did these calculations from 5 cities, in three pairs.
First, assuming the earth is flat, and calculating the sun's height - and get no consistence.

Then using Eratosthenes' method to calculate the earth's circumference - this time with quite good consistency.

here is the link: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « Reply #30 on: Today at 02:07:06 AM »

How did you get off the list and how did George make it on the list with all his vowels intact?

[rabinoz]

In another thread, I did these calculations from 5 cities, in three pairs.
First, assuming the earth is flat, and calculating the sun's height - and get no consistence.

Then using Eratosthenes' method to calculate the earth's circumference - this time with quite good consistency.

here is the link: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « Reply #30 on: Today at 02:07:06 AM »

How did you get off the list and how did George make it on the list with all his vowels intact?

If I told I'd have to. . . .  (you know what!)

Probably just released on a "good behaviour bond".

[Venus]

Hello everybody,

After a short holliday i was at, we are together with the reality again.

Today we'll see how is the sun moving away and how is the popular science / fake astronomy a tomfool.

These images from a video while sun is setting.

This is the first one.



A few minutes or hours later. (We don't know what the video x speed) Same sun and same location.



We see the sun as significant shrunken. Compare two suns before sunset and while sunsetting.



I wonder which idiotly science will try to explain this situation with what? 

The video on the below you can find out these pictures on it.

Intikam... broken links... there are 3 of them in your first post ... is this just me... ??

[cel]

Where are the videos? they're all gone. Why can't the GEs and FEs calculations be based on empirical data, info that have been taken or seen from real time observations, not on theory or assumptions. Math calculation should only follow from given empirical data. We don't have to assume that the earth is a globe at the start. How can one prove or get the correct sun's distance if the initial assumption is a global earth. So i think it's better to base math calculation on something observed in real time like the sun rays' angle, etc..  be a truth seeker...

[İntikam]

Hello everybody,

After a short holliday i was at, we are together with the reality again.

Today we'll see how is the sun moving away and how is the popular science / fake astronomy a tomfool.

These images from a video while sun is setting.

This is the first one.



A few minutes or hours later. (We don't know what the video x speed) Same sun and same location.



We see the sun as significant shrunken. Compare two suns before sunset and while sunsetting.



I wonder which idiotly science will try to explain this situation with what? 

The video on the below you can find out these pictures on it.

Intikam... broken links... there are 3 of them in your first post ... is this just me... ??

Videos are gone. I don't know why and i don't know the owner. Anyway. There is nothing to do. 

[TotesNotReptilian]

Where are the videos? they're all gone.

The video claimed the sun was getting smaller near the horizon, but no measurements were done. Just a compilation of videos at various unspecified levels of zoom of the sun being obscured by clouds/fog or the amount of glare decreasing as it nears the horizon.

Why can't the GEs and FEs calculations be based on empirical data, info that have been taken or seen from real time observations, not on theory or assumptions.

Wish granted... again (by rabinoz earlier in this same thread). You have now used up all 3 of your wishes. Please find another magical evidence granting genie if you want 3 more.

Math calculation should only follow from given empirical data. We don't have to assume that the earth is a globe at the start. How can one prove or get the correct sun's distance if the initial assumption is a global earth.

This is how you test if a model is incorrect:

1. Assume model is correct.
2. Make a prediction based on the model.
3. Compare prediction with real world observation.
4. If the predictions are wrong, the model is probably wrong.

When assuming the earth is flat, the predictions are consistently wrong. When assuming the earth is a globe, the predictions are consistently correct.

[Southernhemispere]

Where are the videos? they're all gone. Why can't the GEs and FEs calculations be based on empirical data, info that have been taken or seen from real time observations, not on theory or assumptions. Math calculation should only follow from given empirical data. We don't have to assume that the earth is a globe at the start. How can one prove or get the correct sun's distance if the initial assumption is a global earth. So i think it's better to base math calculation on something observed in real time like the sun rays' angle, etc..  be a truth seeker...

Sun's 3D rays and angles cannot be measured in real time with a 2D photo or vision from a person. What looks like a ray going out to the right, could be angled towards you or away from you in reality, usually towards you. Not knowing where the hole or holes in the clouds are also creates a problem. There are many pictures taken in forests which show similar divergent rays, yet the sun is not located 100 yards behind the tree as the angles may infer! Even pictures taken inside a dust filled room with sunlight coming in can show clearly diverging rays, so you cannot use this to locate the sun's position.