Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I would like to point out that the metabunk experiment of triangulation of the sun is not equivalent to triangulation to Polaris .Globe theory has the earth rotating whilst orbiting around the sun - triangulation from moving points as observed ( according to metabunk ) is problematic to say the least - a fact which is ignored by metabunk and the experimenters . Also globe defenders seem to assume that the sun revolves on a flat trajectory over the flat earthAllAroundTheWorld pointed out that attempting to determine the distance to the moon or sun by triangulation falls apart once you use more than two points and gives inconsistent results on a flat earth. AllAroundTheWorld then provided a link to a metabunk article about an experiment measuring solar noon sun angles on the September equinox. The experiment clearly shows that on a flat earth, attempting to triangulate the sun's position simply doesn't work, debunking the idea of a flat earth. Somerled apparently won't accept this result because it was done on an equinox. This has shifted the goalposts somewhat.Yes, the definition of what an equinox is a diversion. I should really have reported the post as off topic but the moment has gone now.
This is why triangulation doesn't work on a FE, and why by extension the earth cannot be flat:
The angle of Polaris is the roughly the same as your latitude. Take an observation at 80 degrees north latitude and it'll be at 80 degrees. Take an observation at 60 degrees north and it'll be at 60 degrees and so on. So you can take two observations and triangulate, assuming a flat earth, to find the height of Polaris. The issue is when you add a 3rd point.
The diagram shows why this is an issue. The 3 lines don't meet at a single point.
This is effectively what the metabunk experiment did, taking observations of the sun by people all round the world. With a globe model these observations all point in a common direction which is what you'd expect with a distant sun. Try and plot those observation on a flat earth and they point all over the place. Now, you could say that the flat earth map isn't known. And in the above you could move the 3 points to different distances and make them converge at a common point but the more points you add the more challenging that becomes to the point you are surely forced to conclude that the model of a flat earth is incorrect.
Somerled, as a (I assume) flat Earther, do you then accept or not accept the distances for the Moon that timeanddate.com quotes?
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/distance.html
These distances are somewhat different to that which FET claims, by method of triangulation or whatever. The same applies to the Sun. The distances quoted are rather different to those that FET claims. To quote from FE Wiki...Quote“ Using the values 50 degrees and 60 degrees as measured on the trip, with b=1000 miles, we find that h (distance to Sun) is approximately 2000 miles. This relatively close sun would have been quite plausible to the ancients.
You seem confused - the scientific definition of the equinox , which I quoted , is taken from the timeanddate website . The two instances when the earth tilt is not angled toward or away from the sun , six months apart .No confusion on my part. Your definition of an equinox in terms of earth tilt I entirely agree with. But you then follow up with "And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night". No, no, no. You are just making this assertion, this hasn't come from any scientific description of equinox. You seem quite fond of time & date as a source for accurate and reliable information, so let me quote from them:
And this should give ,as near as possible , equal day and night . All in any scientific dictionary and a consequence of earth orbiting the sun with a tilt of 66.6 degrees .
The fact is these days of equal day/night are increasingly farther apart for corresponding N-S latitudes . Now refraction , scientific term form for abracadabra, is given as an attempt to explain this . But where is this magic effect at solstice . No refraction at solstice !! No waffle required .
So solstice days fit the heliocentric model nicely , however you can't fit equinoxes within the heliocentric model without waffle .
The reason I use time and date is that those sunrise/set times are not theory , they are direct observation , or reality .
Wikipedia is another site with a well known aversion to reality so I tend to ignore that .QuoteEven if the name suggests it and it is widely accepted, it is not entirely true that day and night are exactly equal on the equinox.And I've already given you a link to a full explanation as to why this is the case and as markjo has pointed out you are confusing equliux with equinox.
