The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: TierraPlana on October 12, 2019, 07:54:28 PM
-
In his book ‘Zetetic Astronomy’, SBR describes in chapter 5 an investigation in which he sets out to 'prove' that the distance of the Sun above a flat Earth is just 700 miles. He uses observations of the Suns altitude (elevation) from two different locations in London and Brighton.
For London he states that at 12noon on a given day the Sun is seen to have an altitude of 61 degrees. For the date given (13th July 1870) this turns out to be about right. At the same time and on the same date (it would only be fair) the Suns altitude as seen from Brighton, about 50 miles to the south is given by SBR as 64 degrees. This is a little bit off as the difference is actually less than 1 degree.
Using simple trig, if we take the cos of 60 degrees (0.5 - near enough given the likely accuracy of SBRs measurement, Cos 61 degrees is 0.48) and SBRs quoted length of what is the hypotenuse of his triangle which is 800 miles (16x the distance between London and Brighton) that gives the distance LD (D being the point on the flat Earths surface where the Sun would be seen overhead at the same time) as 400 miles. So far so good.
Now we know that on the 13th July the Sun has a declination of +21 degrees. Therefore the Sun will actually be overhead on that date as seen from any point on the Earths surface which has a latitude of 21 degrees north. That can be directly verified by observation by anyone who happens to be located on the 21 degree north latitude circle on the 13th July during any year.
400 miles directly south from London takes us to a point in France just to the east of Saintes. Saintes has a latitude of 45 degrees N which means the Sun will actually be to the south of directly overhead by a considerable amount. Measurements will show for example that the Suns altitude is only 65 degrees at UK noon on 13th July as seen from 45 degrees north. According to SBR, the Sun should be directly overhead. The difference can be accounted for if we factor in that the Earth surface is curving away from a tangent line along the 400 miles distance considered.
Clearly SBR did not verify his conclusion by actually travelling the 400 miles from London to check to see if the Sun was indeed directly overhead as per his prediction. Perhaps he was so sure in his belief that the Earth is flat that he felt no need to do so. The calculation to him was proof enough. Clearly not so Mr Rowbotham!
-
Metabunk did an experiment with people in lots of different locations which demonstrated that the results make no sense on a flat earth:
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
I have said multiple times on here that it would be easy to calculate the distance to the sun by making observations in a few different locations and triangulating - that is effectively what is done above and shows that the results are not consistent with a flat earth. It’s telling that there has been no (as far as I know) FE attempt to do this.
-
Metabunk did an experiment with people in lots of different locations which demonstrated that the results make no sense on a flat earth:
The method doesn't work simply because the Earth is not flat. You couldn't have a more clear and more straightforward way of demonstrating it. In SBRs day the verification was more difficult but in todays world it is a lot easier. I wonder what SBRs reaction would have been if he realised that contrary to his prediction, the Sun was not in fact directly overhead from a distance (LD=400 miles) away from London?
Using this method on that day (13th July) you would have to travel a further 24 degrees south to 21 degrees north latitude in order to put the Sun directly overhead. That would make the baseline of SBRs triangle at least twice as long as his quoted distance and put you inside the tropic of cancer. I challenge any FEer to explain why this single investigation does not debunk completely the belief that the Earth is flat.
Of course you can make diagrams and numbers tell you whatever you want them to but if they don't agree with physical, real world observations and measurements then you have a problem.
-
Metabunk did an experiment with people in lots of different locations which demonstrated that the results make no sense on a flat earth:
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
I have said multiple times on here that it would be easy to calculate the distance to the sun by making observations in a few different locations and triangulating - that is effectively what is done above and shows that the results are not consistent with a flat earth. It’s telling that there has been no (as far as I know) FE attempt to do this.
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
-
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
20 odd degrees is a heck of a bend Tom... what do you suggest might be causing light to bend 'upwards' by such an extent. An easier, more simple and likely explanation is surely that the Earths surface is curved?
-
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
20 odd degrees is a heck of a bend Tom... what do you suggest might be causing light to bend 'upwards' by such an extent. An easier, more simple and likely explanation is surely that the Earths surface is curved?
If it was due to a curved earth then it should be possible to use multiple observations of the sun to triangulate it to a single point in space: https://wiki.tfes.org/NOAA_Solar_Calculator#Sun_Triangulation_Problem
There are also some pretty odd anomalies which seem to suggest that light is bending upwards. See the end of
https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration
-
what do you suggest might be causing light to bend 'upwards' by such an extent
It is expected that you will read up on the basics before posting here.
An easier, more simple and likely explanation is surely that the Earths surface is curved?
An "easy" and "simple" answer is not always the correct one.
-
It is expected that you will read up on the basics before posting here.
I wasn't the one who brought up the suggestion that light bends upwards. That was Tom so I am simply asking him to explain why he thinks bending of light is a better explanation over the simple alternative that the Earths surface is curved. Am I doing wrong by asking him that?
An "easy" and "simple" answer is not always the correct one.
Can you offer a better explanation then other than the one I suggested? I.e. that the Earths surface is curved. That would make theory fit observation wouldn't it?
-
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:
23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.
So over 23 miles no bending of light is evident. Is your contention that it does bend over larger distances?
What experimental evidence do you have for that?
-
The bending in EA takes place over thousands of miles. It is under two degrees per 100 miles as far as I can see. Terrestrial light may alternatively be going through a different gradient than celestial light.
The Moon Tilt Illusion is proof enough for me - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
We are given multiple contradicting explanations which don't really work, and appears to be predicted by EA.
-
The Moon Tilt Illusion is proof enough for me - https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
We are given multiple contradicting explanations which don't really work, and appears to be predicted by EA.
I think "illusion" is the key word there. This is a genuinely interesting illusion, I've seen it myself and at first glance it does seem like the moon can't possibly be lit by the sun. But it is an illusion. All you have to do to prove that to yourself is to take a piece of string, told it tight in front of you and line it up so it forms a straight line perpendicular to the terminator on the moon and you will see that the string does indeed point at the sun. It admittedly doesn't look like it will, but it does. I have done this experiment myself. Bobby did too and showed a video of the result.
You could do this too, it would take you 5 minutes next time you see the illusion and it would clearly demonstrate that there is a straight line between the sun and moon. I see you reference this experiment on that Wiki page although I don't understand your hand waving away of it. If the terminator of the moon is not perpendicular to the direction of the sun then how could you hold a string straight between them and have it line up?
-
Your explanation of "it's an illusion" is not a very satisfying mechanism.
If the Moon is in the East with the illuminated portion pointing straight upwards, and the Sun is half way into the horizon in the West, what would a string tell us about the mechanism?
-
If the illuminated portion of the Moon is in the east and pointing straight up then you would be at the equator. Your description of the Sun being half way to the horizon in the west I would take to mean the elevation of the Sun is 45 degrees. (mid-way between zenith and horizon). If the Moon was at first quarter it would also have an elevation of 45 degree in the east since the angular separation of the Sun and Moon would be 90 degrees. That would make the terminator horizonal.
You wouldn't need a piece of string to confirm that.
I'm not entirely sure how that could be produced though if the FE model with the Sun and Moon circling above a flat Earth is correct. You could never have situation where the illuminated half of the Moon was pointing straight up as far as I can tell.
-
The Moon doesn't only rise from the East at the equator:
http://www.umass.edu/sunwheel/pages/moonteaching.html
“ THE U.MASS. SUNWHEEL is an 8 year old stone circle -- a solar and lunar calendar and observatory located on the campus of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. The stone circle contains 14 stones 8'-10' tall, marking the cardinal directions, the directions along the horizon to the rising and setting Sun at the solstices and equinoxes, and the directions to the rising and setting Moon at major lunar standstill. ”
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/7/7a/Fullcirclemoonston.jpg/500px-Fullcirclemoonston.jpg)
From Cornell University for the Northern Hemisphere:
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/46-our-solar-system/the-moon/observing-the-moon/128-how-does-the-position-of-moonrise-and-moonset-change-intermediate
(https://i.imgur.com/QduLtlk.png)
The direction of Moonrise changes quite drastically over 14 days, moving over quite extreme ranges South to North.
Back to the string experiment:
https://astro.unl.edu/classaction/animations/lunarcycles/positionsdemonstrator.html
Moon Phases and the Horizon Diagram
"Provides a method of learning the correlation between the phase of the moon, the time of day, and the position of the moon in the sky."
(https://i.imgur.com/r9g5EGr.png)
So the illuminated portion of the Moon is pointing upwards while the Sun is at the horizon. The little man takes out his string and aligns it with the yellow path on the celestial sphere to connect the Moon and Sun. What does that prove to us?
-
If you look at that diagram Tom I think you will find that the Moon (and indeed the Sun as well) always rises in the east as seen from the equator.
Due to the inclination of the Moons orbit of 5 degrees w.r.t the ecliptic it will sometimes be to the north of east by as much as 28 degrees and sometimes to the south of east by the same extent. But it does always rise in the east.
I would say your nice little flash animation link shows us very nicely how the Moon phases are due to reflected Sunlight and how the Moon orbits the Earth. It doesn't take into account the 5 degree inclination of the Moons orbit with the ecliptic. So in the animation you would get a solar eclipse every month! Otherwise it is very good.
-
Your explanation of "it's an illusion" is not a very satisfying mechanism.
Isn’t that your mechanism for why the sun stays the same angular size despite the fact that with the distance varying so much during the day in your model, it wouldn’t?
Your entire explanation for that is “it’s an illusion”?
The thing here is you can easily demonstrate it’s an illusion. All you need is a piece of string.
If the Moon is in the East with the illuminated portion pointing straight upwards, and the Sun is half way into the horizon in the West, what would a string tell us about the mechanism?
What the string tells us is that the perception that the light is bending in some way is an illusion. There IS a straight line between the sun and moon. If there wasn’t you wouldn’t be able to hold a straight piece of string along that line.
And if it wasn’t an illusion then wouldn’t the light have to bend downwards to illuminate the moon the way it appears to be lit? Doesn’t EA postulate that the light bends upwards?
-
If you have a tree to the east of you and a cabin to the west of you, you are essentially claiming that you can lay down and pull out your string, connect the two, and prove that the tree is pointing at the cabin. What kind of argument is that?
If you hold the string way out in front of you, you can also make the illuminated portion of the moon, or the direction of the tree in the above example, point off into space and not connect to the opposite body.
-
If you have a tree to the east of you and a cabin to the west of you, you are essentially claiming that you can lay down and pull out your string, connect the two, and prove that the tree is pointing at the cabin. What kind of argument is that?
I genuinely don’t know how a tree can “point” at a cabin. What are you talking about?
If you hold the string way out in front of you, you can also make the illuminated portion of the moon, or the direction of the tree in the above example, point off into space and not connect to the opposite body.
Well, this is what makes this illusion interesting. Because if you look at the terminator of the moon in these instances and look at where the sun is then it does indeed appear as though the light must be bending somehow. Either that or the sun can’t be illuminating the moon.
But if you hold a piece of string out in front of you perpendicular to the terminator you will find that contrary to appearances the string does point at the sun. I have done this myself. I suggest you have a go and prove it to yourself.
If you try this and find that the string does point off into space and not at the sun then please document that and we can discuss further.
But, again, given the apparent angle of the terminator and the apparent position of the sun if the light is bending then surely it must be bending downwards, contrary to EA’s claim that it bends upwards.
-
If you have a tree to the east of you and a cabin to the west of you, you are essentially claiming that you can lay down and pull out your string, connect the two, and prove that the tree is pointing at the cabin. What kind of argument is that?
I genuinely don’t know how a tree can “point” at a cabin. What are you talking about?
You are laying down on the ground and see a tree on one side of your vision, and a cabin on the other. You take out the string, connect them together, and have "proved" that the tree is pointing at the cabin.
That is exactly what the "string experiment" is. You are proclaiming "It's an illusion, see proof. The Moon is pointing at the sun and the string experiment broke the illusion!" In reality it did no such thing.
Take the string and hold it out an arm's length at the tree and the tree will project into space. The same occurs with the moon.
(https://i.ibb.co/hg5n4hf/Moon-Tilt-Northern-Waxing.png)
If you are laying down on the ground and see the moon pointing upwards on one side of your vision and see the sun setting on the other, a string connecting the two will no more prove that the moon is pointing at the sun than it would prove that a tree is pointing at a cabin.
The upwardly pointing Moon in the east is directly anagolous to an upwardly pointing tree to your east. The Sun on the horizon is directly anagolous to a cabin to your west. The whole string thing is an erroneous thought experiment originated by a desperate astronomer
-
Just as an aside, where is this tree, hut, cabin, bits of string discussion heading? What is it trying to prove. Wake me up when we are back on topic (Rowbothams distance to Sun experiment).
-
That is exactly what the "string experiment" is. You are proclaiming "It's an illusion, see proof. The Moon is pointing at the sun and the string experiment broke the illusion!" In reality it did no such thing.
Yes it did.
If the sun is illuminating the moon and the sun’s light travels in straight lines then the straight line between the sun and the moon must be perpendicular to the terminator on the moon.
The illusion is that it looks like this is not the case, the piece of string demonstrates that it is, it proves that the apparent mismatch is an illusion.
Again, if you disagree then try it yourself. If you can hold the piece of string perpendicular to the terminator and the string points into space rather than at the sun then you are correct. When I tried it then that’s not what I observed, maybe you will get different results.
And if you think the light is bending then maybe you could show in a diagram how it is bending in a way consistent with EA. In the illusion the terminator appears to point upwards while the sun is low in the sky. If it is light bending then that is consistent with light bending downwards, not upwards.
If you are laying down on the ground and see the moon pointing upwards on one side of your vision and see the sun setting on the other, a string connecting the two will no more prove that the moon is pointing at the sun than it would prove that a tree is pointing at a cabin.
If the string is held perpendicular to the terminator then yes it does because that is the direction the light must be coming from.
-
When you lie on your back you can see 180 degrees of space. Just because an object at one side might be pointing "up" at another object at the other side, it doesn't mean that they are pointing at each other. The tree-cabin example is apt.
(https://i.ibb.co/XpQcHQT/0-ezgif-com-crop-2.jpg)
The string experiment demonstrates almost nothing, and is erroneous. Stand up, face the tree or the moon, and you see that they are pointing upwards, and not at the opposite horizon.
The string experiment itself is the "illusion". Bodies which actually point at each other will point at each other from multiple positions and vantage points, not just when stretching a string across prehipreal vision.
This "they are actually pointing at each other" string proof is really quite bad. They clearly are not pointing at each other. One merely needs to stand up and face the upwardly pointing moon, knowing that the sun is on the opposite horizon, to see that directly.
At most the connection of bodies in such a manner supports the notion that the moon and sun behave as if they are on some kind of dome around the observer where straight lines become curved.
-
OK. I literally don't understand how you're not understanding this but here's a diagram which may help.
This is what the illusion looks like. Here's a photo of it:
(https://i.ibb.co/85p05SK/Terminator-Illusion2.jpg)
And here's a diagram, this is actually very similar to how it appeared when I did the string experiment myself:
(https://i.ibb.co/smcHpj2/Terminator-Illusion.jpg)
It looks like a line perpendicular to the terminator is pointing into the sky, the diagram shows the line pointing perpendicular to the terminator, that's where the light is coming from.
But the sun is setting so how can the sun be illuminating the moon? That line doesn't point at the sun. Or, if it is the sun illuminating the moon, the light must be bending.
In fact above in your "diagram" above you have made the "string" bend to make it point at the sun. And your string is not perpendicular to the terminator, that is important.
If you are holding a piece of string taut in front of you so it is straight and you line it up perpendicular to the terminator then it looks like it must point off into space.
But it you try it you'll find that it doesn't. It points at the sun. It doesn't look like it should, granted, but that's what illusion means.
That proves that the sun IS illuminating the moon and the light is NOT bending. The apparent mismatch is an illusion.
And, again, you keep ignoring this. If it is the light that is bending then it must be bending DOWN, not up as claimed by EA.
-
Electromagnetic waves tunneling along layers of the atmosphere , maybe ionosphere / dome cause this effect . It is not an illusion .
It's why we can can communicate longer distances by radio sometimes , dependent on atmospheric conditions . Sun and moon within these layers , or light propagating within . The fact that radiowave transmission is badly affected by the sun during daylight hours is evidence for a closer sun than surmised in the heliocentric model.
Illusion is an excuse not a reason , it is not science .
Make use of a protractor when observing this phenomena . Easy to measure your angle from sun to moon .
-
Electromagnetic waves tunneling along layers of the atmosphere , maybe ionosphere / dome cause this effect . It is not an illusion .
Evidence?
And it is an illusion, I've done the experiment myself, it's easily repeatable. Next time you see the effect just grab a piece of string or anything else straight and you'll find that, contrary to appearances, the line perpendicular to the terminator does point at the sun.
-
The string doesn't prove that objects are actually pointing at each other.
When wrapped around the observer, this panoramic view of the moon tilt illusion:
(https://i.imgur.com/5c40lDy.png)
Turns into this:
(https://i.imgur.com/b0lfzjO.png)
In the above example both the Moon and airplane are on opposite sides of the Sun, which is on the horizon at point A. They are not actually pointing at the Sun. The string just connects them two dimensionally across a 'sphere of vision' exactly like the tree-cabin example.
If the airplane was actually pointing at the Sun, then when looking at the airplane face on, with the Sun on the horizon to your back, you should see the airplane pointed at you and tilted downwards towards the opposite horizon behind you. Same for the Moon. This does not happen when you face the Moon. Thus the example is bunk. The string does not demonstrate that bodies around you are really pointing at each other.
-
I see. So are you now arguing that the light from the sun bends round the inside of an imaginary sphere?
Since when has that been any part of FE theory? And what is your evidence for that?
EDIT: While we're here, the sun doesn't "point" at anything, anymore than trees do at cabins. The sun simply radiates light in all directions. If an object has a clear line of sight to the sun then the light will hit that object. If the object is a sphere then half the sphere will be lit - the side facing towards the sun - and the other side will not. On earth this gives us day and night, on the moon it does too and we see that as phases.
-
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:
Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.
And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.
-
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:
Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.
And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.
All lengthening shadows is proof of is that the angle of the light changes over time. That could be explained by a close sun and EA but it is not the only possible explanation and thus not in itself proof of that.
-
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:
Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.
And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.
All lengthening shadows is proof of is that the angle of the light changes over time. That could be explained by a close sun and EA but it is not the only possible explanation and thus not in itself proof of that.
There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?
-
There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?
Well, I have the history of science in which the distance to the sun has been calculated using different methods based on evidence which have, over time, given us the true distance.
But the problem with Rowbotham's calculation is that while it is based on observations, he assumes a flat earth.
If you assume a globe you would get a very different result.
And the trouble is his method only relied on measurements from 2 points. If you want to triangulate then you need, as the name suggests, to take measurements from at least 3 points.
Metabunk did an experiment which took observations from 23 people in 9 countries:
https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
The issue if you assume a flat earth is the lines point all over the place, so where is the sun? This does assume the light going in straight lines though so maybe EA could fix that for you. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. But Rowbotham's method assumed the light goes in straight lines too...
-
There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?
Well, I have the history of science in which the distance to the sun has been calculated using different methods based on evidence which have, over time, given us the true distance.
But the problem with Rowbotham's calculation is that while it is based on observations, he assumes a flat earth.
If you assume a globe you would get a very different result.
And the trouble is his method only relied on measurements from 2 points. If you want to triangulate then you need, as the name suggests, to take measurements from at least 3 points.
Metabunk did an experiment which took observations from 23 people in 9 countries:
Triangulation is always carried out from two points , the object of the measure from those two points becomes the apex , the third point of the triangle . Basic trigonometry .
-
There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?
Well, I have the history of science in which the distance to the sun has been calculated using different methods based on evidence which have, over time, given us the true distance.
But the problem with Rowbotham's calculation is that while it is based on observations, he assumes a flat earth.
If you assume a globe you would get a very different result.
And the trouble is his method only relied on measurements from 2 points. If you want to triangulate then you need, as the name suggests, to take measurements from at least 3 points.
Metabunk did an experiment which took observations from 23 people in 9 countries:
Triangulation is always carried out from two points , the object of the measure from those two points becomes the apex , the third point of the triangle . Basic trigonometry .
Not always, and you'd struggle to find a position in 3d space using 2 points and the object as a third, would you not?
-
Triangulation is always carried out from two points , the object of the measure from those two points becomes the apex , the third point of the triangle . Basic trigonometry .
As ChrisTP says, not if you're trying to identify a location in 3D space. This is why when you use GPS it takes signals from (I think) 4 satellites to find your position.
It's definitely more than 2
-
Triangulation is always carried out from two points , the object of the measure from those two points becomes the apex , the third point of the triangle . Basic trigonometry .
As ChrisTP says, not if you're trying to identify a location in 3D space. This is why when you use GPS it takes signals from (I think) 4 satellites to find your position.
It's definitely more than 2
You and ChrisTP are confused . Triangulation is very simple . You can triangulate from two points at sea level if you want , to the top of a lighthouse or to something distant such as a star , in real 3D.
This is really comical. Triangulation is just what is implied in the name . Measurement from two points to deduce the position of a third point .
-
Actually you may be right there, sorry. I can see how using two points can be used, if you know the distance between the two points and the angle of those points relative to the third position (in this case the sun) you could probably find a correct distance. That said though you would be playing with tiny fractions of degrees and even being slightly off could be the difference in millions of miles. you could in theory though, I just doubt the practicality of this from earth alone. Without a large enough distance between the two points I don't think it's worth while. This also means that under the assumption the earth is flat, if your two points are half way across the world from each other and you measure the suns position you would find the sun a hell of a lot closer to earth and under the assumption the earth is a globe you'd find it extremely far away. In this case the best thing to do is to use earth as one position and another celestial body as another position (like the moon) but then you have the problem of whether we know the real distance to the moon.
Triangulation from earth alone may not be the best solution at any rate especially if you're unsure of the earths shape, you can't then be sure of the angle between the two positions..
-
somerled is basically right here, but the whole point of triangulation is it assumes a flat base. If you don't have a flat base then you don't have a triangle.
It also assumes that the light is travelling in a straight line. If it doesn't then, again, you don't have a triangle.
The reason for using multiple points is that on a globe earth the way the observed angle to the sun changes with distance is different to the way it would change on a flat earth.
If you take observations from any 2 points and assume a flat earth then yes, you will get a distance to the sun.
If you take observations from multiple points you will find inconsistent distances, you'll find that the lines don't converge on any point.
That's either because the earth is not flat, or you might be able to explain it with bending light - but if it's the latter then it renders all calculations meaningless anyway.
-
Actually you may be right there, sorry. I can see how using two points can be used, if you know the distance between the two points and the angle of those points relative to the third position (in this case the sun) you could probably find a correct distance. That said though you would be playing with tiny fractions of degrees and even being slightly off could be the difference in millions of miles. you could in theory though, I just doubt the practicality of this from earth alone. Without a large enough distance between the two points I don't think it's worth while. This also means that under the assumption the earth is flat, if your two points are half way across the world from each other and you measure the suns position you would find the sun a hell of a lot closer to earth and under the assumption the earth is a globe you'd find it extremely far away. In this case the best thing to do is to use earth as one position and another celestial body as another position (like the moon) but then you have the problem of whether we know the real distance to the moon.
Triangulation from earth alone may not be the best solution at any rate especially if you're unsure of the earths shape, you can't then be sure of the angle between the two positions..
Correct , no apology needed. Triangulation to the sun is problematic since earth and sun are in motion in globe theory so any measurement from two points would have to be simultaneous and would only be correct for that instant .
In FE the same problem occurs since the sun is in motion above the the stationary plane.
However in both models the pole star is stationary . Triangulation land survey with observation of elevation to the pole star along a meridian will help reveal the shape of earth . Again assuming light travels in a straight line as AATW points out .