# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: dichotomy on September 08, 2019, 08:02:14 PM

Title: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 08, 2019, 08:02:14 PM
Under the Sun section of FE Wiki it says..

Quote
The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth.

That is just a statement.  How have these values been reached?

Given that we can now study the Sun in a lot of detail and have several satellites continually scanning the Sun at wavelengths right across the spectrum, figures like these are simply ridiculous. The Suns distance is well known to science now and has been measured to a high degree of accuracy. To so suddenly to make a claim that the Suns distance is only 3000 miles away without a very good explanation as to why you think that is unjustified.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 09, 2019, 10:28:47 AM
You can utilize this method.

Start at noon.

Find out the position of the sun at http://timeanddate.com (http://timeanddate.com)

For instance, it is found at this website:

"Position of the Sun
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:00:00 UTC the Sun is at its zenith at Latitude: 5° 19' North, Longitude: 0° 39' West"

Find an object of known height.

Position yourself so the top of the object barely obscures the bottom of the sun.

Measure the distance between you and the object and you and the coordinates provided, then do the math relative to similar triangles.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 09, 2019, 10:33:53 AM
How was the Sun's distance measured with any degree of accuracy ? As far as I'm aware it was originally deduced from measurements taken six months apart and referencing eclipses of the moons of Jupiter . Triangulation of moving objects from other moving objects seems like pseudo-science to me .

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 09, 2019, 10:47:43 AM
How was the Sun's distance measured with any degree of accuracy ? As far as I'm aware it was originally deduced from measurements taken six months apart and referencing eclipses of the moons of Jupiter . Triangulation of moving objects from other moving objects seems like pseudo-science to me .

Different methods have been used over time. A potted history here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit
As methods and instruments have improved the accuracy has improved, as you would expect.
What methods have the FE community to calculate the distance to the sun? If the sun is as close as most FE models suppose it should be easy to work out the distance by triangulation.

Edit:

Some experiments were done with people in different latitudes taking observations of the sun. The observations were consistent with a globe, not a flat earth.

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: ChrisTP on September 09, 2019, 11:44:41 AM
a while back I made myself a basic 3d model of the sun and earth in Blender with the currently accepted figures for sizes and distances, then animated the sun to scale to 0 in size while moving toward the earths surface. Strangely enough it visually adds up to the same as ~32 miles in diameter by the time it gets to 3000 miles away. So you could theoretically do the same in the opposite direction and say the sun is even further away and even bigger than scientists say it is, visually you'd never be able to tell where where you're standing on earth
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 09, 2019, 11:59:45 AM
Totallackeys method is assuming a flat base line. In this case the Earths surface. However if you introduce an error in your method or calculation then that error will be carried through and you finish up with an incorrect answer.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 09, 2019, 12:46:49 PM
Totallackeys method is assuming a flat base line. In this case the Earths surface. However if you include an error in your method or calculation then that error will be carried through and you finish up with an incorrect answer.
I'm also interested how you would calculate the distance between you and the sun.
You could use Google Earth of course but that's based on the globe earth...
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 09, 2019, 04:05:39 PM
Flat Earth Theory is based on a pre-assertion that the Earth is flat. Fair enough but that has never been absolutely proved. The distance of the Sun has been calculated by using radar among other methods which has consistently provided accurate and consistent results. Of course because the modern radar measurements provide different figures about the distance of the Sun to those quoted by the FE theorists they are automatically dismissed.

However by using the modern science figure of 1AU for the distance of the Sun, that makes the similar triangles method that Totallackey describes as completely wrong.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 09, 2019, 04:32:51 PM
Globe earth model is based on the assumption that earth is a sphere . Metajunks experiment uses the perfect sphere/parallel light ray model that also uses the assumptions that the position of the equator is equi-distant  to the poles and that latitudes are equidistant from the equator. This fits his agenda .
However the current fashionable model is either pear shaped or oblate spheroid , neither fits his video representation . I could carry on picking  this "experimental proof " apart but no need to carry on.
Interesting bit of info about Zhoubi Suanjing though - thanks for that wiki link AATW

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 09, 2019, 07:14:37 PM
Quote
Globe earth model is based on the assumption that earth is a sphere
I think that's a fair assumption!

The physical properties of the Sun that we know about - such as the method of producing energy - make the figures that FE theory has come up with plain and simply ridiculous. No other way I can put it. But if it make you happy to believe that then fair enough.  As long as you insist on making the Earths surface flat, which you always will then you will get the wrong answers.

Modern methods of measuring the distance to the Sun include using radar to measure the distance of Venus first and then using trig to work out the distance of the Sun at a time when the elongation between Venus and the Sun means positions of the Sun, Venus and the Earth make a right angle. Being covered in highly reflective cloud means that radar signals bounce of Venus rather nicely giving us an accurate figure. Radio waves as you know travel at the same speed as light (being an other form of electromagnetic radiation) and the return journey takes just a few seconds.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 09, 2019, 08:29:38 PM
Metajunks experiment uses the perfect sphere/parallel light ray model that also uses the assumptions that the position of the equator is equi-distant  to the poles and that latitudes are equidistant from the equator. This fits his agenda.
It doesn’t use or assume anything.
People in different latitudes took a measurement of the angle of the sun.
All he’s done is then map out what that would look like we’re the earth flat. Yes, he’s assumed that the degrees of latitude are equidistant, if that’s not correct in your FE model then you could try mapping the observations on to your model.
The point is the lines point all over the place, so where is the sun? The sun must physically be in a place so the lines should all point to a common place, but they do not.

So he’s tried to map the observations on to a spherical earth and with that model they all point in the same direction and are parallel which implies a distant sun.

Flat Earthers often misunderstand the oblateness thing. While the earth IS oblate it only bulges slightly at the equator. If you look at photos of the whole earth from space you can’t see it with the naked eye (although if you count pixels across and up and down on a good enough resolution picture you’ll see a difference). So the oblate nature of the earth isn’t going to change the way he’s mapped the results on a sphere enough to make a difference.

This is not "experimental proof” of a globe earth and the scientific method isn’t about proving anything. It’s about testing and disproving things. This experiment shows that a globe earth model fits the observations better than a flat earth one - or the flat earth one he has used, as I said maybe there is a flat earth model where the lines do point to a common point. Or maybe there’s another explanation, light bending perhaps.

If the sun is close then you should be able to take observations from a few different places and triangulate to calculate its distance. I have yet to see any evidence that experiment has been done.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 10, 2019, 10:44:19 AM
Totallackeys method is assuming a flat base line. In this case the Earths surface. However if you include an error in your method or calculation then that error will be carried through and you finish up with an incorrect answer.
I'm also interested how you would calculate the distance between you and the sun.
You could use Google Earth of course but that's based on the globe earth...
The distance of the Sun has been calculated by using radar...
However by using the modern science figure of 1AU for the distance of the Sun, that makes the similar triangles method that Totallackey describes as completely wrong.
The claim it is based on a globe earth is merely that.

A claim.

There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Go ahead and assume the chord if you want.

You still won't arrive at anywhere near 93 million miles.

"There never has been a direct measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The best we can do is measure the distance between the Earth and the other planets, and from that infer the distance between the Earth and the Sun."

So, looks like that statement is highly bogus...
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 10, 2019, 04:01:49 PM
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Quote
There never has been a direct measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun

As I said radio waves reflect off the top of the clouds that surround Venus very nicely and this gives us a very accurate measurement of the distance of Venus. We can then determine the distance of the Sun by simply mathematical deduction.  There is another method of determining the distance of the Sun by using similar triangles and a reflected image of the Sun. Doesn't involve radar, just a mirror and a piece of card with a small hole. Two competely different methods but both provide the same answer.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 11, 2019, 09:36:45 AM
How does a radar signal from a rotating object moving through space at 66,000mph travel billions of miles to another rotating moving object ? - which then is supposed to reflect this incredibly weak signal back to the origin which is nowhere near where it was and the signal , which all the while , obeying the inverse square law and optical laws of reflection from a sphere must be next to nothing in strength .  Incredible .

Metajunk assumes whichever latitudes are used by whichever model and applies these triangulations , from and to moving objects to a perfect sphere . Then he assumes flat earth is just the globe model placed onto a flat map keeping the same long/lat coordinates.
It's pseudo science.

Maybe you could radar range the planets and the sun , especially if they are only a few thousand miles away .
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 11, 2019, 09:56:05 AM
Billions? Who said Venus is billions of miles away?
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 11, 2019, 10:09:13 AM
How does a radar signal from a rotating object moving through space at 66,000mph travel billions of miles to another rotating moving object ? - which then is supposed to reflect this incredibly weak signal back to the origin which is nowhere near where it was and the signal , which all the while , obeying the inverse square law and optical laws of reflection from a sphere must be next to nothing in strength .  Incredible.

The way it was done is documented here

Your argument is basically an argument from incredulity, which isn't an argument at all. You not understanding something doesn't mean it's not possible.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 11, 2019, 10:34:57 AM
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Same reason surveyors assume it.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 11, 2019, 10:49:27 AM
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Same reason surveyors assume it.

I wasn't very clear before. What I meant before was if you're going to use a method of similar triangles to calculate the height of the sun you need to know the horizontal distance from yourself to the sun.
You said use timeanddate.com to find the location of the sun but how do you know how far that is from you without referring to globe based world maps?
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 11, 2019, 10:55:05 AM
How does a radar signal from a rotating object moving through space at 66,000mph travel billions of miles to another rotating moving object ? - which then is supposed to reflect this incredibly weak signal back to the origin which is nowhere near where it was and the signal , which all the while , obeying the inverse square law and optical laws of reflection from a sphere must be next to nothing in strength .  Incredible.

The way it was done is documented here

Your argument is basically an argument from incredulity, which isn't an argument at all. You not understanding something doesn't mean it's not possible.

The assumption that Venus has a magic atmosphere with special reflective properties surfaces in the introduction along with the supposed fact that optical measurements have already provided accurate distances to the planets - all based on the assumption of a globe .

Second page we have the " expected round trip echo delay which varied between 283 - 449 " . That's conformation bias .

Third page we have " individual returning echo pulses were much weaker than the overall system noise , they could not be seen " .

Seen these type of "proofs" before - all based on circular arguments . It's looking for what you expect rather than what you actually find . I suppose the background noise will be filtered out around the expected delay time and the frequencies you seek will appear , that's the usual procedure .

It's picking up reflected signals from the ionosphere , or dome imo.

Work out from the given signal strength of signal how much will return .

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 11, 2019, 11:58:23 AM
The assumption that Venus has a magic atmosphere with special reflective properties surfaces in the introduction along with the supposed fact that optical measurements have already provided accurate distances to the planets - all based on the assumption of a globe.

We know Venus is reflective because we can see it. It's illuminated by the sun so it must be reflecting that light and it's very bright in the sky so we know it reflects well.
You can tell it's being illuminated and not generating its own light because it has phases.
Optical measurements gave us decent enough measurements, the idea was to get a more accurate value. If a globe earth is assumed then it's because we know the earth to be a globe.
Any doubt about that had long since been removed by the time these experiments took place, Sputnik had been launched into orbit, Gagarin had been into space.

Quote
Second page we have the " expected round trip echo delay which varied between 283 - 449 " . That's conformation bias .

It assumes the other ways of measuring the distance were reasonably accurate, from that you can calculate the round trip time.

Quote
Third page we have " individual returning echo pulses were much weaker than the overall system noise , they could not be seen " .

And then goes on to explain how that problem was solved.

Quote
It's picking up reflected signals from the ionosphere , or dome imo.

Why would there have been any delay in the return signal then?

I'm interested to know what your education and professional experience is which means you think you can refute their work.
It's interesting you mention confirmation bias because that's what I see going on here...
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 11, 2019, 12:33:54 PM
There won't be a delay in the signal - any signal before the expected delay is ignored/filtered out . That's how confirmation bias works . It's present in all these type of confirmation proofs .

Venus is at it's brightest when at it's slimmest phase  - magic atmosphere . How far is it - it is thousands of miles away or we would not see it .

Saturn is (top o me head) 9AU from the sun .  Earth at 1AU receives about 1370W/m insolation . Use the inverse square law and see how much Saturn receives .
Use optic reflection laws to see how little sunlight is reflected then apply the inverse square law to see how much of that remains after travelling 8AU back to earth  - where we can see Saturn visible with the naked eye. Saturn does not even twinkle lol.

All mainstream astronomical observations based on the globe model are a fiction.

My Qualifications (whatever they are ) - bonafide member of the free thinking human race and life long student of most aspects of this wonderful world we live in .

Specialize to much and you disappear up your own arris - another method of mind control .
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: ChrisTP on September 11, 2019, 12:52:56 PM
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Same reason surveyors assume it.
There are youtube videos out there that take the suns angles from various positions and shows those vectors on a flat disk earth, then morphs into a globe to show the differences, What are your thoughts on what these visual representations are conveying?

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 11, 2019, 04:48:55 PM
Quote
Saturn does not even twinkle lol.

lol actually Saturn does 'twinkle' or scintillate to give it the technical term. Unlike the stars, the planets are not true point sources of light and so the twinkling effect is not as obvious as it is for the stars.  The twinkling effect as I'm sure you know is entirely caused by the atmosphere and since light from the planets passes through the atmosphere on its way to the observers eye just as it does for the stars, then it follows that the planets are affected as well. The behaviour of light as it passes through the atmosphere is different between a point source and a disk and those differences are the reason why 'twinkling' is far less apparent for planetary disks than it is for point sources.

At the moment the planets Jupiter and Saturn which are easily visible to the S (northern hemisphere) or N (southern hemisphere) are well to the south of the celestial equator. So from mid northern latitudes (40-50 degrees say) then there may be a slight twinkle visible because they only rise a few degrees above the horizon. For latitudes near the equator and especially to the south where the planets will be higher up in the sky the twinkling effect will be negligible and best suited for imaging.

Yes Venus is brightest when at it is visible as a thin crescent phase and that is for two reasons. Firstly the disk size is greatest when Venus is at is closest so it follows that it would be brighter compared to when it is on the far side of its orbit compared to the Earth. It is then also very small and much further away. As you will know if you have watched Venus through a telescope, just prior to inferior conjunction (Venus between the Sun and Earth) the disk size can exceed a minute of arc where as close to superior conjunction (Sun between Venus and the Earth) it shrinks to slightly less that 10 seconds of arc. If you take the total area on the sky that Venus covers when a thin crescent, it is still greater than it is when a very small (and much fainter) disk.  Just because most of the disk is not illuminated when a crescent that is irrelevant as far as how bright it looks from Earth.

Quote
Same reason surveyors assume it.

Over the sort of distance scales that surveyors are typically working at of course you can assume a flat baseline.  A bit different to working with the distances involved in interplanetary space!

Quote
The assumption that Venus has a magic atmosphere with special reflective properties

Nothing magic about an atmosphere that has an albedo of 0.75 compared to the Earth at just 0,39.  Sulphuric acid, which is a major component of the Venetian atmosphere is highly reflective. Venus is a classic example of a runaway greenhouse effect which is why the surface is hotter than that of Mercury.

Quote
All mainstream astronomical observations based on the globe model are a fiction.

Is that right?  My experience and yours are obviously very different but whatever you say my friend.

In short, Somerled is very good at being dismissive about a subject that they evidently don't actually know much about.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 12, 2019, 06:22:29 AM
I am aware of all the theory and I notice that you ignore the point about the inverse square law and reflective properties of a sphere ( which scatters light ) . You can add the albedo into your calculations if you want . How much light do these planets reflect ?

The planets are luminaries .

Are you aware of the effect the conjunctions you mention have on pendulums ? Oppositions too . Happens for all bodies of what you call the solar system at syzygy . They are all close to earth - beneath the dome imo .

You should read about syzygy effects . The conclusion of those scientists involved is that the current cosmology/gravity based model the universe is wrong .

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 12, 2019, 08:50:24 AM
The planets are luminaries .
You mean they generate their own light?
Why do they have phases then? That is a characteristic of something being illuminated by a light source, not something generating its own light.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 12, 2019, 09:19:16 AM
Just because I don't directly refer to something that is mentioned in a previous post doesn't mean I have ignored to as you put it.

FE theorists seem to think that the stars are all a lot closer than they are in reality. Th inverse square law that you mention is evidence that they are much further away.

As I'm sure you will agree, the fact that we can see a particular star means that we are receiving energy from it. Many stars are emitting far more energy than the Sun. So the fact that we are receiving so little light from them, compared to the 1.3kW that you correctly quote as being tbe solar constant means by vitue of the inverse square law that those stars are a very long way away.

If the stars were all as near as FE theory claims they are the night sky would never be dark!
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 12, 2019, 10:03:08 AM
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Same reason surveyors assume it.

I wasn't very clear before. What I meant before was if you're going to use a method of similar triangles to calculate the height of the sun you need to know the horizontal distance from yourself to the sun.
You said use timeanddate.com to find the location of the sun but how do you know how far that is from you without referring to globe based world maps?
They are flat maps.

All maps are flat.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 12, 2019, 10:06:16 AM
Olber's paradox I believe they call it - the dark sky thingy .

Once took a 4hr return flight from Turkey to UK at 12.30 am back in the day when I knew the earth was a globe .

Beautiful clear starlit skies at takeoff . All disappeared at altitude in a clear sky . Saw two objects that may have been planets. Nothing but dark skies . Never  been shown a glimpse of a star from a space craft .

Flat earth is a theory based on measurement and observation - see Lackeys post.

Globe earth is not reality - it is globe earth theory  . The stars have to be at silly distance to support the theory . This globe earth theory was not based on any new knowledge - did not explain anything that was not already explained .

At some point science has to verify it's claim that earth is a globe. If it doesn't then all you have is heap upon heap of math models which don't conform to reality .

I'd say that's what we have now .

We know nothing about the stars - we have theory only .

I have two scopes of my own and access to three more . I think now that these are just microscopes use to observe the nearby vault of the sky . The stars are in the same place now as they were 50 yrs ago .

I understand your viewpoint - it's been hammered into everyone - but please don't confuse theory with reality .

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 12, 2019, 10:06:39 AM
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Same reason surveyors assume it.
There are youtube videos out there that take the suns angles from various positions and shows those vectors on a flat disk earth, then morphs into a globe to show the differences, What are your thoughts on what these visual representations are conveying?

Well, I am unable to view these videos at the moment, but my initial response focuses on the word "morphing."

When I think of "morphing," I think of something transforming to something else.

In other words, it is not what it is supposed to be.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 12, 2019, 10:13:01 AM
The inverse square law that you mention is evidence that they are much further away.

I'd say the lack of parallax is better evidence. The ancients believed they were infinitely far away because of that, we have more precise way of measuring things now which means some parallax can be measured for nearer stars, but were the stars or moon as close as FE supposes you'd see a significant parallax which could be measured in cities a few hundred miles apart.

Oh, and lackey yes, of course maps are flat by definition. But Google Maps now changes its representation to a sphere as you zoom out to avoid the distortion you get over large distances when you try to project the spherical earth onto a flat plane. This only becomes an issue on the scale of countries or continents so for most practical purposes flat maps are usable.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 12, 2019, 10:14:18 AM

Quote
Same reason surveyors assume it.

Over the sort of distance scales that surveyors are typically working at of course you can assume a flat baseline.  A bit different to working with the distances involved in interplanetary space!

Neither of us currently occupy any position other than the surface of the flat earth plane.

Correct?

That is why surveyors use flat plane trigonometry when estimating the height of objects above.

There is nothing different about it.

The height of any object above you can be estimated to a high degree of accuracy using the similar triangles method.

Surveyors have long known this.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 12, 2019, 10:36:25 AM
Who said the Earth is a flat plane? I certainly didn't and never would because I know that it isn't.

I have had dealings with a number of surveyors during my life time and on a few occasions they have said for certain projects (bridges is a common example) the curvature of the Earth needs to be taken into account.

Now obviously you wont accept that because you don't believe the Earths surface is curved but those are people who are qualified and experienced in what they do so someone is wrong somewhere.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 12, 2019, 10:40:01 AM
Neither of us currently occupy any position other than the surface of the flat earth plane.

Correct?

No. Incorrect. Because the earth is not a flat plane.

Quote
That is why surveyors use flat plane trigonometry when estimating the height of objects above.

They use it because on the scales they work at it gives accurate results. In the same way that relativistic effects are rarely taken into account when doing calculations on motion.
For most practical purposes Newton's laws work just fine. For most practical purposes for surveyors assuming a flat earth works just fine.
In both cases the maths is much simpler and gives good enough results to be usable, there is no need to complicate things at these scales.

The method you outline would work IF the earth is flat. But you'd still need to know the horizontal distance between yourself and the point that the sun is "above".
You can use Google Maps to do this of course, but as discussed that transforms into a globe as you scale out for the sake of accuracy, it avoids any projections necessary when one tries to map the globe earth onto a flat plane. If you try and peel an orange and lay the peel flat you'll see the problem.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: ChrisTP on September 12, 2019, 11:48:16 AM
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Same reason surveyors assume it.
There are youtube videos out there that take the suns angles from various positions and shows those vectors on a flat disk earth, then morphs into a globe to show the differences, What are your thoughts on what these visual representations are conveying?

Well, I am unable to view these videos at the moment, but my initial response focuses on the word "morphing."

When I think of "morphing," I think of something transforming to something else.

In other words, it is not what it is supposed to be.
Well by morph I just mean it shows the data on a flat map then shows the same data on a globe map to compare. I chose my words quite specifically that you'd give your opinion on the actual point the videos are making as opposed to (pre)judging the presentation style.

Also side note, you mentioned all maps are flat which is IMO a pointless argument. No one is debating that a picture of land is flat. With your same logic you could say any photo of yourself makes you flat (which I mentioned before). Anyway, here you go;

(https://selency.imgix.net/e2b0006a-3b81-4a4a-bdd8-dc5d9ec12783/picture_original.png?bg=FFF&fit=fill&auto=format%2Ccompress&w=579&h=475&meta_format=product_gallery_main&fm=jpg)
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 12, 2019, 12:04:49 PM
The video I watched from that dude was about satellite TV. He took some data from a site which helps you align dishes from different cities.
He then showed how if you use that data using a a flat earth map then the dishes point all over the place.
If you wrap the map into a globe though then they all point to a common point, the geostationary satellite.
The only possible FE explanations I see are that the FE map he's used is wrong - so if you move the cities to the "correct" places then maybe they do all point to the same place.
Or maybe there isn't just one satellite, maybe the dishes really are all pointing at different things. What those things are remains to be explained.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 12, 2019, 02:39:01 PM
Neither of us currently occupy any position other than the surface of the flat earth plane.

Correct?

No. Incorrect. Because the earth is not a flat plane.

Quote
That is why surveyors use flat plane trigonometry when estimating the height of objects above.

They use it because on the scales they work at it gives accurate results. In the same way that relativistic effects are rarely taken into account when doing calculations on motion.
For most practical purposes Newton's laws work just fine. For most practical purposes for surveyors assuming a flat earth works just fine.
In both cases the maths is much simpler and gives good enough results to be usable, there is no need to complicate things at these scales.

The method you outline would work IF the earth is flat. But you'd still need to know the horizontal distance between yourself and the point that the sun is "above".
You can use Google Maps to do this of course, but as discussed that transforms into a globe as you scale out for the sake of accuracy, it avoids any projections necessary when one tries to map the globe earth onto a flat plane. If you try and peel an orange and lay the peel flat you'll see the problem.
Google earth renders it as a globe, but that does mean those distances are provided are globe distances.

Go ahead and assume the chord if you like.

And we are on a flat earth plane.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: TomInAustin on September 12, 2019, 03:30:50 PM
The video I watched from that dude was about satellite TV. He took some data from a site which helps you align dishes from different cities.
He then showed how if you use that data using a a flat earth map then the dishes point all over the place.
If you wrap the map into a globe though then they all point to a common point, the geostationary satellite.
The only possible FE explanations I see are that the FE map he's used is wrong - so if you move the cities to the "correct" places then maybe they do all point to the same place.
Or maybe there isn't just one satellite, maybe the dishes really are all pointing at different things. What those things are remains to be explained.

Very interesting, yet another way to draw a flat earth map.  Place the cities based on the satellite data.  This uses a known dataset that can be demonstrated.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 12, 2019, 04:00:42 PM
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: TomInAustin on September 12, 2019, 05:43:57 PM
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.

Exactly.  The standard around here is this

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 12, 2019, 07:15:20 PM
Google earth renders it as a globe, but that does mean those distances are provided are globe distances.

I really don’t know what “globe distances” means. The only issue, surely, is if they are correct distances.
If Google Maps is accurate, gives correct distances beteeen cities, and at a large scale models the earth as a globe then what does that tell you about the true shape of the earth?
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: dichotomy on September 12, 2019, 07:32:11 PM
Google renders the Earth as a globe for one reason and one reason only. Because the Earth is a globe. The flat Earth theorists can think what they like about this and dispute it for ever more if they wish to but they cannot change what is true. Argue it and protest about it all you wish.

Google is not the only search engine that renders the Earth as a globe. All the others do as well.  Can anyone point me to a link which presents a map of the real world as a flat plane?
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 13, 2019, 10:45:12 AM
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.

Exactly.  The standard around here is this

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
The evidence is the earth, when viewed by every human on the earth, looks flat.

That is evidence, no two ways about it.

I have made no claim without evidence.

You can verify the evidence yourself.

Open your eyes, look out your window.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 13, 2019, 10:48:42 AM
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 13, 2019, 10:53:44 AM
The evidence is the earth, when viewed by every human on the earth, looks flat.

Not the humans in the ISS. But you said on the earth so yes, from the ground yes it looks flat.
Here is why using that observation alone is not sufficient for determining the shape of the earth:

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Midnightsun on September 13, 2019, 04:34:43 PM
Quote
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!

Really? The size of a human compared to the size of the Earth is a bit like comparing a microbe sitting on the surface of a snooker ball.  You can see with your own eyes that the snooker ball is spherical but it won't seem to be from the point of view of the microbe. To them it will seem to be flat.

So hypothetically speaking, if you got a chance to go up into orbit as a space tourist and you saw the world was round with your own two eyes (just as every other astronaut has) would you then accept that it actually is?
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: obiba on September 13, 2019, 05:00:56 PM
Under the Sun section of FE Wiki it says..

Quote
The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth.

That is just a statement.  How have these values been reached?

Given that we can now study the Sun in a lot of detail and have several satellites continually scanning the Sun at wavelengths right across the spectrum, figures like these are simply ridiculous. The Suns distance is well known to science now and has been measured to a high degree of accuracy. To so suddenly to make a claim that the Suns distance is only 3000 miles away without a very good explanation as to why you think that is unjustified.

I think that most of the old experiments should be redone because they are maybe lies
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Midnightsun on September 13, 2019, 08:59:00 PM
I don't think lies is the right word. Old experiments were done as well as they could be with the equipment and knowledge that people had available to them at the time. That's why the results of experiments change and improve with time. You wouldn't expect the ancient Greeks to get as accurate results as we do today.  The methods were sound enough and the results they got offered hints and insights into the figures and proportions that we get today.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: pricelesspearl on September 14, 2019, 03:05:19 AM
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Have you ever heard of Gravity Hills...where it looks like cars and balls and water will roll up hill?

They are optical illusions and the slope that looks like it is going up, is actually going down.

Your eyes can play some pretty wicked tricks on you.

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: J-Man on September 14, 2019, 01:50:25 PM
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Have you ever heard of Gravity Hills...where it looks like cars and balls and water will roll up hill?

They are optical illusions and the slope that looks like it is going up, is actually going down.

Your eyes can play some pretty wicked tricks on you.

This is trickery or deception, what Satan is a pro at, like science know it alls. Remember God created man in his image. In other words God doesn't Mess up, his creations are perfect with the exception of the ability to be deceived by the great deceiver Satan. When one looks at these illusions the perfect brain knows something is wrong and doesn't except the deception. Just like the fake astro Nutz who continue to fight in their simulated weightlessness, the head always trying to find up. That's the perfect body working and they must fight the obvious, so when someone knows the earth is flat because it not only looks flat, it's perfectly built.....IT IS !
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 14, 2019, 03:43:23 PM
There is a straight forward way , in principle , of deducing the shape of earth based on the proven method of trigonometric survey , triangulation . No assumptions are required - it is based on the observation that the only motionless object in the sky is the pole star , Polaris .

There is no assumption of a rotating or stationary earth in this test .

Survey northward a meridian of longitude from around 40 degrees north . Take regular readings of latitude noting the surveyed distance during the northward progression .

If the earth is a perfect sphere then if degrees of latitude will be equally spaced if the pole star is of sufficient distance that its light rays are parallel ( globe model ) .

If earth is an oblate sphere , Newtonian model , then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the North and again this suggests a distant pole star.

If earth is flat then degrees of latitude will shorten to the North and the pole star must be close since it is at true north where ever we view it from in the North.

It is limited by atmospheric conditions in how far you can survey and still see the pole star but will produce results which will enable a test of the shape of the land up to the point where we lose sight of this star.

This removes the problem of triangulation involving moving objects - the pole star is always stationary and rotation of earth , or not , is of no consequence .
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Midnightsun on September 14, 2019, 03:54:42 PM
I have read several times through Somerleds post above but I still can't get it to make any sense.  Someone  please help me out here!  What does the distance of Polaris have to do with how lines of latitude are spread out on Earth?

There is a reason why the angular elevation (altitude) of Polaris over the horizon is equivalent to the observers latitude. From where I am for example, I set my telescope mount to 51.5D north and that places Polaris just off the centre of the FOV of my polar alignment finderscope. The polar alignment scope has a cross at the centre which marks the NCP and then a circle around that cross which is the path that Polaris traces around it.  I then use a simple piece of software to determine the position angle of Polaris relative to the NCP. If you were at the north pole an equatorial mount would effectively become an alt-az mount because Polaris would be (almost) directly overhead.  If I were at the equator I would set my latitude scale to zero degrees because Polaris would be resting on the north horizon. All the degree markings on my mount from zero to 90 degrees are all equally separated just like on a protractor.  What does that tell you?  It tells me that we should opt for this one...

Quote
If the earth is a perfect sphere then if degrees of latitude will be equally spaced if the pole star is of sufficient distance that its light rays are parallel ( globe model ) .

Actually, now the previous post does make a bit of sense now - at least this option does anyway.  Although there is a 43km difference between the equatorial and polar diameters (polar being the lesser) so is not a perfect sphere. Just very near perfect.

Quote
it is based on the observation that the only motionless object in the sky is the pole star , Polaris .

Incorrect - if you look at a photo of star trails centred on the North Celestial Pole you will notice that Polaris traces out a small circle.  That's because Polaris is located around 40' away from the actual NCP. Or just over the apparent diameter of the full Moon. So Polaris is not truly motionless.  There is no naked eye star actually marking the NCP itself.

Also Polaris is a classic Cepheid variable star so we can tell its distance simply from measuring its period of variability.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 16, 2019, 09:41:22 AM
If you think that Polaris traces out a tiny circle in the sky then it would not be a problem to adjust any calculations to include that .

If you believe there is a 43 km difference between the polar and equitorial axis of the supposed oblate spheroid then this will be picked up by observation in the survey of latitude outlined in the earlier post.

No need to use the theory of Cepheid variables to give a theoretic distance to any star .

The point of this experiment is to determine which shape fits the observations of latitude characteristics observed by scientific observation .

The shape of earth will reveal itself .
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: totallackey on September 16, 2019, 11:11:58 AM
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Have you ever heard of Gravity Hills...where it looks like cars and balls and water will roll up hill?

They are optical illusions and the slope that looks like it is going up, is actually going down.

Your eyes can play some pretty wicked tricks on you.
They sure can.

But flat is not a slope.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: ChrisTP on September 16, 2019, 01:10:17 PM
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Have you ever heard of Gravity Hills...where it looks like cars and balls and water will roll up hill?

They are optical illusions and the slope that looks like it is going up, is actually going down.

Your eyes can play some pretty wicked tricks on you.
They sure can.

But flat is not a slope.
But a big enough curve can look flat to the naked eye. (also slopes can be flat too)
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Midnightsun on September 16, 2019, 02:12:41 PM
Quote
No need to use the theory of Cepheid variables to give a theoretic distance to any star

Why is that then? Not entirely sure what you mean by 'theoretic' distance because there are several ways of measuring the distances of stars now. The use of brightness curves for Cepheids is just one and that has become so reliable that they are known as 'standard candles'.  Polaris is such a cepheid so it I don't see how you would dismiss the use of Polaris' brightness curve as a means of measuring its distance. It deals with observations of physical properties of the star so it could hardly be described as 'theoretic'.

Quote
The point of this experiment is to determine which shape fits the observations of latitude characteristics observed by scientific observation.

I know what the point of the experiment is.  The observations I have made compare most closely with what you describe the latitude characteristics would be if the Earth is a (near) perfect sphere.

Quote
The shape of earth will reveal itself .

And indeed it did with the first flights into space.  If you ever get the chance to go into space then you will see it for yourself.

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 17, 2019, 09:30:22 AM
The use of theory of Cepheid variables to measure the theoretic enormous distances to stars to allow you to say everything is correct and agrees with the theory of earth  as a globe , is a circular argument .

Celestial latitudes are not terrestrial latitudes . They show the positions of the stars in the vault of the sky . They do not change which is why , despite the whole theoretic spinning expanding never stationary cosmos , simple programs can predict exactly where and when,  the stars will be year after year , century after century .

Terrestrial latitudes are taken from Polaris . NCP being directly above terrestial North pole - since it is at ,or near enough according to some ,the centre of rotation of the vault of the heavens . Easy to observe and triangulate with good optical instruments and independent of any programme or given tables based on any theoretic shape of earth .

I would be extremely interested in any results of observations you have made along with details of methods and instruments etc.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Midnightsun on September 17, 2019, 11:13:33 AM
Why is the theory of Cepheid variables a 'circular argument' as you put it? How does the shape of the Earth affect the apparent or actual brightness of stars?

What you call celestial latitude is actually called declination. We can take terrestrial latitude and project it onto the sky. Thus, as you say the NCP represents 90N declination and would be directly overhead if you were standing at the North Pole. Conversely if you were standing at the equator then the east-west line will be the celestial equator. If you were located at say 45N then a star which has a declination of 45N will pass through your local zenith. Declination figures do not change because the celestial 'sphere' appears to be spinning (it is the Earth actually spinning of course) and the stars remain fixed over short periods of time in position on that sphere.  A slight change in position of the stars does occur over a time scale of centuries due to proper motion.  That's why you get star positions quoted for Epoch 1950, 2000 2019 etc depending on when they were measured.  Nortons Star Atlas for example was correct for Epoch 1950 but Wil Tirions Uranometria 2000 is correct - not surprisingly - for Epoch 2000 positions.

So I agree with you that the NCP is directly above the terrestrial north pole.  If you check the declination of Polaris you will find it is not exactly 90N but 89d 15m north. That is not a massive amount and is 'near enough' for aligning telescope mounts for visual use but not for imaging.  I understand that your belief system about the nature of the Earth and the Universe as a whole for that matter is clearly and significantly different to mine. I sense that you are one of those who won't believe something that you cannot directly observe your self or test out yourself.  I don't personally agree with that approach as there are many things which I cannot directly 'prove' to myself but I know are true and genuine.

The correlation between the period and the luminosity in Cepheid variables was noticed before the distance to them was worked out.  What was needed was a method of calibration. Once the distance to one Cepheid was determined by method of parallax and its period and luminosity known, that opened the box so to speak and it allowed the distances of other Cepheid variables to be measured by direct comparison.  As long as we can see a Cepheid variable, whether in our galaxy or beyond and determine its brightness curve, we can now calculate its distance.  Because we are only taking account of physical features of a star, the relationship will work regardless of what shape the Earth is.  We have observed Cepheids in our own Galaxy which we have been able to determine are just a few hundred light years away and we have observed Cepheids in other galaxies which we have similarly identified are millions of light years away. Hence we know that the Milky Way is just one of billions of other galaxies. FE theory on the whole seems to be very vague on how far away it thinks the stars are and the reasons why it takes that view.

I haven't done any accurate photometry myself but I could easily do so with the equipmemt I have. That would enable be to do some distance calculations myself.  Happy to list that for you if you're interested.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 17, 2019, 08:53:04 PM
Celestial latitude is just known as celestial latitude .

Who brought the brightness of stars into the debate ? It adds nothing .

Of course I can't accept your view the earth is spinning - where is the scientific experimental proof ?

If you can't grasp the significance of the survey of latitude to the Pole star , and what it tells you about the shape of the land across the survey , then you don't know the model you defend .

It is a simple test/experiment based on proven geometric principles and can be carried out with precision engineered optical and measuring equipment . No theory required .

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Midnightsun on September 17, 2019, 10:22:57 PM
Quote
Celestial latitude is just known as celestial latitude .

What you call celestial latitude is what I call declination.

Quote
Who brought the brightness of stars into the debate ? It adds nothing .

You were asking about a method of determining the distance of Polaris from Earth. Polaris is a classical cepheid so it follows that the brightness curve allows us to determine its luminosity and therefore its distance. The Cepheid law uses a method which is completely independent of the shape of Earth. So I would disagree that it 'adds nothing'.  Rather it provides information based on observational evidence. You dismiss the Cepheid variable approach because it provides a result that you don't want to agree with. Instead you are looking for an experiment or method that does provide you with the answer or 'proof' that you are looking for.

Quote
If you can't grasp the significance of the survey of latitude to the Pole star , and what it tells you about the shape of the land across the survey , then you don't know the model you defend .

I'm not defending any model. I'm just trying to discuss something with you. If you are not interesting in listening to what I'm saying (because you don't want to believe it) then just say so and I won't waste any more time with you on it. Discussing things means taking into account and respecting both points of view. So far it seems you are only respecting your own point of view.

In a few thousand years Polaris won't be anywhere near the NCP any more so we will have to designate a different star to perform your latitude experiment with.  But since that will be well after both yours and my lifetime you will probably regard that as irrelevant.

Reading back I can see two intriguing comments that you have made...

Quote
We know nothing about the stars - we have theory only .

I have two scopes of my own and access to three more . I think now that these are just microscopes use to observe the nearby vault of the sky . The stars are in the same place now as they were 50 yrs ago .

We actually know a lot more about the stars now that we did say a century and a half ago. Spectroscopy is now a well established branch of astronomy and I can easily create my own HR diagram using the equipment I have in my back garden. You can see spectral lines in stars directly so how is that theory only?  I guess we only accept something if it tells you what you want to hear.  We can match the positions of spectral absorption lines in stars with the positions of emission lines we observe from gas tubes in a lab. Direct correlation so it doesn't take a lot of genius to work out that the spectral lines in stars are caused by gases absorbing light. Equally we can use redshift to measure how far way celestial bodies are.  So your claims about the ridiculously large distances predicted by RE or globe theory don't seem to be quite so ridiculous after all.  Trust me, I know what I'm talking about on this subject.

Secondly I also have a couple of telescopes...well nine actually. All used for specific purposes including two specialised solar telescopes. What do you use your telescopes/microscopes for? If you are trying to use microscopes for astronomy then you are not going to see much, I can promise you that!
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 18, 2019, 10:51:05 AM
You cannot see emission/absorption lines directly , you use a spectrometer for that . Do you seriously believe light travels all those silly distances without absorption and re-emission .

I'd say all star emmission lines are just the result of passing through various gases in the upper atmosphere. Red shift is just phase difference in lightwave length/frequency -another use of theory to produce theoretical distance that's all.

I have outlined an experiment that uses no assumptions or theory - just proven geometric techniques . This experiment frightens globe defenders .

I can only trust you to deflect from that straightforward point.

Telescopes/microscopes - different focal length and lens size .
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on September 18, 2019, 10:59:02 AM
I'd say all star emmission lines are just the result of passing through various gases in the upper atmosphere.

And yet the Hubble telescope, above the atmosphere, has a spectrograph...

https://www.nasa.gov/content/hubble-space-telescope-space-telescope-imaging-spectrograph
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Midnightsun on September 18, 2019, 11:07:34 AM
Quote
You cannot see emission/absorption lines directly , you use a spectrometer for that

So what?  What does that prove?  You cannot see atoms directly either. The reason in both cases is that the sizes involved are far too small for them to be detectable with the naked eye. In the case of emission/absorption lines we are talking about nanometres (10^-9m) and even smaller of course in the case of atoms. That's why we have developed equipment that is designed to enable us to see things in nature which are beyond the standard and natural capability of the human eye.

It seems to me that you are being deliberately obstructive because you only want to see things from a single point of view. You are dismissing any and all evidence presented to you that suggests a different version of the Earth and the Universe to the one that exists in your mind.  You are creating boundaries that don't actually exist.  For example take the quote below:

Quote
Do you seriously believe light travels all those silly distances without absorption and re-emission .

No I don't believe there is no absorption or re-emission of light over the vast distances of space. In fact I know there is.  Take dark nebulae for example (Horsehead nebula to name but one). Those nebulae are made up of cold (therefore dark) dust and gas which absorbs light from the more distant stars. The average diameter of the dust particles and gas molecules is greater than the wavelength of the light passing through so the light gets partly absorbed and partly scattered depending on wavelength.  You may have heard of the famous Coal sack nebula which can be found in Crux (the Southern Cross). If a dark nebula made mostly of dust is drifting through space and encounters a star, the light from the star is reflected off the dust particles and we get a reflection nebula.  The nebulosity surrounding the Pleiades is a classic example. Reflection nebulae are characterised by their blue hue compared to red (Ha) for hydrogen emission nebulae such as the Orion Nebula. In this case the hydrogen gas has actually given birth so to speak to the stars within them and the energy from the stars ionises the atoms causing them to emit light. Most of the atoms are either hydrogen (red) and oxygen (green/blue).

Interstellar gas and dust (collectively called the Interstellar Medium) does scatter light to greater and lesser extents according to wavelength. There is the effect of interstellar reddening which means blue (short wavelength) light has been scattered more than red light.  The extent of reddening over various distances is measurable and so we can adjust for it in calculations.

Emission nebulae are a fantastic example and very colourful example of light re-emission.  Light can travel over infinite distance so there is nothing 'silly' about the vast distances across space. When I start talking to people about the vast distances involved in space they seem to get 'blown away' about them. Not because they think I'm lying to them (what would I gain from lying?) but just because they are not used to thinking about distances on those scales.  That's what learning is about - telling people about things they didn't previously know about or understand.

In another comment you made at some point...

Quote
This experiment frightens globe defenders .

Not that I'm a globe defender as such but no experiment that you have mentioned so far frightens me..  why should it?  If you describe an experiment I agree with I will say so. If you describe an experiment I don't agree with, likewise I will say so. It is not a question of being frightened by anything
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on September 19, 2019, 09:37:24 AM
Then what is your opinion of the outlined experiment ? Why do seek to divert from it's simple premise based on proven geometric survey methods ?

At some point the assumptions of spherical spinning earth has to verified because everything based on those assumptions is rendered useless science fiction otherwise .

So far ,in the 500 years or so since it's introduction with no new evidence , science has provided not one proof of rotation or curvature .

Why delve of into theory of stupendous stellar distance which is a requirement of globe theory only - and which is impossible to verify ?
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Midnightsun on September 19, 2019, 10:27:07 AM
If you look back through the discussion I think you will find I did provide an opinion about the outlined experiment.

In reply #49 you listed some options. One of them said "if the earth is a perfect sphere...etc etc" and in reply #50 I said that is the best option based on my own real world observations and experience. So that is my opinion of the outlined experiment.

The rest of your latest reply is just more of your own personal opinions. At least I am providing evidence and specific examples of real world observations which is more than you have up to now.

Quote
Why delve of into theory of stupendous stellar distance which is a requirement of globe theory only - and which is impossible to verify ?

You are quite keen to dismiss the 'stupendous' distances that are as you say a 'requirement' of globe theory. What evidence can you provide yourself that the stars are actually as near as you say they are?  After all the stars are just pinpoint of light to the human eye. So how can you tell how far away they are? Convince me and I will be happy to believe you.  I have already explained how stellar distances can be measured using brightness curves such as you get with Cepheids. That is based on real data. Hardly impossible to verify!
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on October 31, 2019, 07:36:21 PM
So far ,in the 500 years or so since it's introduction with no new evidence , science has provided not one proof of rotation or curvature .
Laser ring gyros? Foucault's Pendulum? Actual pictures from space, taken every single day by satellites? Gravity being weaker at the equator?
Sorry if I'm being a broken record here - I know you've heard all of these before and dismissed them offhand for XYZ meaningless reason.
"NASA is fake blah blah"
"I don't understand how lasers work blah blah"
"Foucault's pendulum has errr motors in or something"

Distract, dismiss, ignore. But some youtube video of a dude with a P900 is concrete evidence, right?
Please provide me the maths that shows that a laser ring gyro doesn't show rotation of the Earth, and show me you're not like the rest of them. I'm sick and tired of flat earthers just dismissing stuff without even the slightest understanding of how it even works.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on October 31, 2019, 08:52:07 PM
You can't invoke Foucault's pendulum or gyrocompasses, since they are caused by the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

RLGs also measure the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

The Coriolis effect can be caused either by Earth's rotation OR by the rotation of the ether drift above the surface of the Earth.

The deciding factor is the SAGNAC EFFECT.

That is why Michelson claimed that his CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, in order to assert ROTATION as well.

It is now acknowledged (Cambridge University) that the Coriolis effect is responsible for the Sagnac effect on neutrinos:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2211156#msg2211156 (includes the correct formula for the SAGNAC EFFECT derived in accordance with Stokes' theorem)

Stationary Earth proofs:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1956136#msg1956136 (Hoek and Mascart experiments)

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on October 31, 2019, 09:15:39 PM
That is why Michelson claimed that his CORIOLIS EFFECT formula is actually the SAGNAC EFFECT formula, in order to assert ROTATION as well.
Ahhh yes, there could be an as-yet-undetected ether rotating at exactly the same frequency as the Sun rotating over the top of the flat Earth, how silly of me! I'll have to retract my previous statement, and instead just rely on pictures of the round Earth of evidence that it is in fact round. /s

p.s. How would the ether effect an Foucault pendulum?

p.p.s. long time no speak
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on October 31, 2019, 09:25:02 PM
Ahhh yes, there could be an as-yet-undetected ether rotating

There has to be, since Michelson only detected the Coriolis effect AND NOT the Sagnac effect on the MGX interferometer.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 04, 2019, 01:11:07 AM
There has to be, since Michelson only detected the Coriolis effect AND NOT the Sagnac effect on the MGX interferometer.

I am, as ever, sorry for my ignorance, Sandokhan. I have no idea what that means or why this means there must be an ether :-)

You truly rise above other flat eathers.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 04, 2019, 06:44:01 AM
According to Stokes' rule an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A is substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area:

(https://i.ibb.co/FB8ysCD/stokes.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/cbvB7f6/stokes2.jpg)

(https://www.phys.uconn.edu/~mallett/main/images/mallett_ring_laser.jpg)

Now, apply Stokes' theorem to this interferometer (center of rotation does not coincide anymore with its geometrical center):

(http://image.ibb.co/j7Q3hc/kel12.jpg)

(https://i.ibb.co/Z6XdKTY/sagjpg.jpg)

We already know the formula which is proportional to the area of the interferometer:

4AωsinΦ/c2

This simplifies to:

4Aω/c2

Ask yourself this very important question now: what is the form/nature of the SAGNAC FORMULA which, according to Stokes' theorem, is proportional to the translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area?

V = radius of earth x angular velocity, of course

Obviously, it must be of the form:

Δt = 2vL/c2

A SAGNAC INTERFEROMETER WILL ALWAYS RECORD/REGISTER BOTH THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND THE SAGNAC EFFECT, if the Earth is rotating around its own axis. This is the huge omission which Michelson, perhaps intentionally, forgot to mention in his 1925 paper (MGX).

So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: somerled on November 04, 2019, 11:20:42 AM
Have a look at the pendulum experiments carried out when syzygy occurs .

https://file.scirp.org/Html/6-4500258_43416.htm

Gravitational/cosmological model of the universe is wrong .
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 04, 2019, 01:52:59 PM
So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 04, 2019, 02:27:19 PM
Have a look at the pendulum experiments carried out when syzygy occurs .

https://file.scirp.org/Html/6-4500258_43416.htm

Gravitational/cosmological model of the universe is wrong .

Exactly.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1939662#msg1939662
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 04, 2019, 02:35:52 PM
So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?

Very easy.

4AωsinΦ/c2

Houston latitude: 29.7604°

Fill in the figure for the area of the interferometer.

Then, you can compute the SAGNAC EFFECT for the same interferometer.

Find the radius of the spherical Earth at that latitude, the velocity of rotation (using the same latitude), and fill in the value of the length of the interferometer.

2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 05, 2019, 07:36:08 PM
So, according to Stokes' theorem, you must have TWO formulas for each interferometer: one is proportional to the area, the other one is proportional to the velocity.

No doubt! Could you perhaps use your formulas to calculate the effect of Coriolis force on a ring laser gyro in, say, Houston, Texas?

Very easy.

4AωsinΦ/c2

Houston latitude: 29.7604°

Fill in the figure for the area of the interferometer.

Then, you can compute the SAGNAC EFFECT for the same interferometer.

Find the radius of the spherical Earth at that latitude, the velocity of rotation (using the same latitude), and fill in the value of the length of the interferometer.

2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Ok! For a triangular ring laser gyro of arm length 0.8inches in Houston, I got...
delta-t from Coriolis of 1.3e-20 s
delta-t from Sagnac of 1.6e-14 s

So I guess a ring laser gyro measuring 15 degrees an hour has an error of around 0.0000015 degrees per hour if it wasn't taking into account the Coriolis effect... am I missing something?
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 05, 2019, 08:29:54 PM
For a triangular RLG the formulas are slightly different:

Coriolis effect (dt = 4ωAsinΦ/c2, where A the area of the triangle):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1982635#msg1982635

Sagnac effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2154991#msg2154991

Now, with these formulas (delta t), you then use the delta fringe formula (which also features the wavelength): you have an expected fringe shift, you measure the registered shift from the RLG, and then you compute the angular velocity of rotation.

http://signallake.com/innovation/andersonNov94.pdf

https://agenda.infn.it/event/7524/contributions/68390/attachments/49528/58554/Schreiber.pdf

RLGs record only the Coriolis effect fringe shift, and NOT the Sagnac effect fringe shift which is thousands of times greater in magnitude.

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 06, 2019, 08:46:53 AM
In order to dispense with further calculations here are the fringe shift/phase difference formulas:

Δφ = Δt x c/λ

Rectangular RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = L x h

Sagnac formula

2VL(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/cλ

Square RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = L2

Sagnac formula

4VL((cosΦ1 + cosΦ2)/cλ

Triangular RLG

Coriolis formula

4ωAsinΦ/cλ
A = 1/2(L x h)

Sagnac formula

2VL(2cosΦ1 + cosΦ2))/cλ

Dividing the Sagnac formula by the Coriolis equation, we obtain:

O(VL)/O(Aω) = O(R/h), where h usually equals 1 - 4 meters, (V = R x ω)

SAGNAC EFFECT FORMULA/CORIOLIS EFFECT FORMULA = O(R), where R = radius of Earth at the latitude of the laboratory/RLG experiment.

The difference amounts to a factor of O(n x 16), where n ~<= 6.378

Here is how to calculate the radius of the Earth at a certain latitude:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150919165338/http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/comp.infosystems.gis.html (section 5.1b)

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 06, 2019, 06:28:06 PM
The difference amounts to a factor of O(n x 16), where n ~<= 6.378

Here is how to calculate the radius of the Earth at a certain latitude:

https://web.archive.org/web/20150919165338/http://www.usenet-replayer.com/faq/comp.infosystems.gis.html (section 5.1b)
Hey! That's what I said, right? So since Coriolos effect on a RLG is negligibe, it has no effect on my initial statement.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 06, 2019, 06:51:34 PM
The Coriolis effect would be negligible if, and only if, the interferometer also registers the Sagnac effect upon the velocity of the light beams.

Otherwise, you need the Coriolis effect to correctly calculate the fringe shifts, which in turn leads to the computation of the angular velocity.

Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 06, 2019, 07:01:34 PM
The Coriolis effect would be negligible if, and only if, the interferometer also registers the Sagnac effect upon the velocity of the light beams.

Otherwise, you need the Coriolis effect to correctly calculate the fringe shifts, which in turn leads to the computation of the angular velocity.
I thought RLGs register the Sagnac effect as their main method of calculating rotation.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 06, 2019, 07:15:21 PM
They only register the Coriolis effect, which is proportional to the area of the interferometer.

The Coriolis effect has two possible sources: either the Earth rotates, or the ether drift rotates above the surface of the Earth.

In order to claim the rotation of the Earth, the deciding factor is the Sagnac effect, which however was never registered by Michelson and Gale, nor was it recorded by any RLG.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1110.0392.pdf

The influence of Earth rotation in neutrino speed measurements between CERN and the OPERA detector

Markus G. Kuhn
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge

For the first time ever, it was acknowledged that the SAGNAC EFFECT measured for the neutrino experiment is actually the CORIOLIS EFFECT.

"As the authors did not indicate whether and how they took into account the Coriolis or Sagnac effect that Earth’s rotation has on the (southeastwards traveling) neutrinos, this brief note quantifies this effect.

And the resulting Coriolis effect (in optics also known as Sagnac effect) should be taken into account."

Remember, you will ALWAYS have two formulas for any interferometer, as proven by Stokes' theorem: one is proportional to the area (Coriolis), the other one is proportional to the velocity of the light beams (Sagnac).
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 06, 2019, 10:01:15 PM
[...]
This paper just says they are the same thing? So is this 'Coriolis force' on a RLG just the same as the Sagnac effec? That's what this paper says #confused
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 06, 2019, 10:16:07 PM
You are witnessing the damage done by Albert Michelson when he claimed that the formula published in 1925 was actually describing the Sagnac effect.

To this very day, the best physicists have been unable to realize that the formula which features the area is the Coriolis effect formula.

However, in the past twenty years, for the first time, the topological considerations of the Sagnac interferometer have been taken into account.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area.

Thus, there will always be two formulas for any Sagnac interferometer.

Imagine this: the physicists at Cambridge University are confusing the Coriolis effect with the Sagnac effect, even though they describe very different physical situations.

The Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area.

Yet, Michelson, most likely intentionally, took advantage of the state of affairs in light interferometry at the beginning of the 20th century, and infused into mainstream science a huge misrepresentation.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 07, 2019, 11:07:58 PM
You are witnessing the damage done by Albert Michelson when he claimed that the formula published in 1925 was actually describing the Sagnac effect.

To this very day, the best physicists have been unable to realize that the formula which features the area is the Coriolis effect formula.

However, in the past twenty years, for the first time, the topological considerations of the Sagnac interferometer have been taken into account.

According to Stokes' rule can an integration of angular velocity Ω over an area A be substituted by an integration of tangential component of translational velocity v along the closed line of length L limiting the given area.

Thus, there will always be two formulas for any Sagnac interferometer.

Imagine this: the physicists at Cambridge University are confusing the Coriolis effect with the Sagnac effect, even though they describe very different physical situations.

The Sagnac effect is distributed along a line and not over an area.

Yet, Michelson, most likely intentionally, took advantage of the state of affairs in light interferometry at the beginning of the 20th century, and infused into mainstream science a huge misrepresentation.

Stokes' theorem gives you two equations for the same thing. Your two integrals are by definition the same thing if you're using Stokes' theorem.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: sandokhan on November 08, 2019, 02:30:02 PM
Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979

Formula:

(https://i.ibb.co/GW6FXrn/corsag5.jpg)

Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation no longer coincides with its geometrical center (MGX, RLGs):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208660#msg2208660

Formula:

(https://i.ibb.co/Byy1jQn/corsag4.jpg)
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Conceptual Cartographer on November 08, 2019, 04:26:55 PM
In fact, this distance and size does not check out with the radiation spectrum the sun emits (it suggests a certain minimal temperature, which we'd probably feel a lot more then we do if it was this near), and by checking visually (just looking at the sun with dark sunglasses) one can only figure out the apparent size, which is just the relation between the distance and the diameter of the sun, not actually a numerical value for one or the other.
So, yes, the figures in the wiki are very, very strange speculation and are basically the same as saying "I think I have reason to believe that the figures found on wikipedia don't represent reality, but I do not have any idea what they should be instead."
However, one could try to triangulate the sun's distance by having two people at a southern and a northern location face in the same direction and write down the sun's apparent location relative to their field of view, for example relative to the center of their vision. Then, you actually have the data to "draw" a triangle with the two people's distance as a base that has two lines attached with an angle corresponding to the position in the two people's field of view. If you have that, you can measure how far away the pointy end of the triangle aka the sun actually is.
If you do that, you'll most likely find out that the sun is so far away that you have problems getting a reliable distance because your measuring errors will matter too much. With that said, figuring that out will still give you a minimal distance. So, for example, you'll find that the sun is somewhere between infinitely far away (= you go two times the exact same angle) and only very far away (= you take one time the angle you got minus your estimated measuring error and one time the angle plus you got plus your estimated measuring error).
If you get some extra equipment to refine that you'll actually be able to confirm the wikis data if it is correct (against the odds) or get the lower end of your results range (which depends on your measuring error) high enough to proof that the wikis distance is too low.
Title: Re: Size/distance of Sun
Post by: Tim Alphabeaver on November 09, 2019, 03:39:27 AM
Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation coincides with its geometrical center:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2023979#msg2023979

Formula:

(https://i.ibb.co/GW6FXrn/corsag5.jpg)

Stokes' theorem applied to an interferometer whose center of rotation no longer coincides with its geometrical center (MGX, RLGs):

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2208660#msg2208660

Formula:

(https://i.ibb.co/Byy1jQn/corsag4.jpg)

I'm glad we agree