The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Stagiri on April 08, 2018, 12:52:34 PM
-
A question for the FES members: has anyone directly (i. e. via radar, laser or so) measured the speed (or distance) of the Sun, the Moon or any other celestial body? If not, why?
-
No? Noone?
-
The sun is less than 700 miles above the earth. The moon is nearer to the earth than the sun. In fact, the star's themselves, while higher up, are less than 1000 miles above the earth.
-
The sun is less than 700 miles above the earth. The moon is nearer to the earth than the sun. In fact, the star's themselves, while higher up, are less than 1000 miles above the earth.
Thank you for your contribution. However, you didn't answer any of my questions.
-
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
-
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
Well, I'm asking whether the speed of the Sun (/the Moon/any other planet) has been measured directly (i. e. using radar, laser technology, ...).
-
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
You realise that his experiment had the sun 400 miles south of London, somewhere directly over France, right?
-
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
You realise that his experiment had the sun 400 miles south of London, somewhere directly over France, right?
Why do you think it's always so sunny there?
Could you measure the speed of the sun by radar by the way? No idea if that would work.
-
Could you measure the speed of the sun by radar by the way? No idea if that would work.
I'm not 100% sure about measuring the speed but radars should at least be able to measure the distance to the Sun (if it was as close as the FES claims it to be).
For example, the AN/FPS-118, developed in the 1970's and 1980's, could detect cruise missile size targets at about 1800 nautical miles.
-
Could you measure the speed of the sun by radar by the way? No idea if that would work.
I'm not 100% sure about measuring the speed but radars should at least be able to measure the distance to the Sun (if it was as close as the FES claims it to be).
For example, the AN/FPS-118, developed in the 1970's and 1980's, could detect cruise missile size targets at about 1800 nautical miles.
The fact that over-the-horizon radar technologies can bounce photons off of targets at that sort of distance more suggests that the earth is flat than the earth is a globe.
Under the Round Earth model the photons originate from the radar dish and bounce off of the surface of the earth and the ionosphere several times, hits the target, and then bounces again between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere several times back to the radar dish. All without being scattered out of existence. Ridiculous.
We spoke about this last year:
Round Earth Scientists have to make up mysterious atmospheric ducting and atmospheric reflection phenomena in attempt to explain the phenomenon of traveling further than the horizon should allow, no matter how absurd. Consider Over The Horizon Radar. The photon is transmitted from the receiver, bounces off of the atmosphere in the distance, hits an object further beyond the horizon, and then bounces back off the atmosphere and again hits the receiver to register an object in the distance. Ridiculous.
They even claim that the photons can bounce between the atmosphere and the ground several times, and then back again to the receiver, with no significant scattering!
(http://www.eol.ucar.edu/rsf/AP96/images/slides/duct_diagram_small.gif)
-
Someone recently told me I shouldn't try to refute a theory without studying it.
Maybe take your own advice, read up on how radar works before dismissing it
-
Let's stay on topic, please.
There are radars which do not use the over-the-horizon technology and still have 1000-1500 km range.
-
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
You realise that his experiment had the sun 400 miles south of London, somewhere directly over France, right?
Why do you think it's always so sunny there?
Could you measure the speed of the sun by radar by the way? No idea if that would work.
Apparently the sun does emit some radio waves. I suppose you could set up a narrow scope detector to trace its position as it arcs across the sky. However, this is only angular velocity, which can be done by eye. It's a lot of effort to tell us something we already know.
In terms of using similar technology to actually detect distance, I'm not entirely sure you'd get a reflection off the surface of the sun.
-
Yes, you would get a reflection.
We, in fact, can point a radar at the Sun (and as far as I know we've done it, see radar astronomy). However, there's a problem. Although the signal reflects, the Sun is quite far from the Earth so the strength of the signal is very low and indistinguishable from the background noise created by the Sun.
However, if the Sun was as close as the FES claims it to be the signal would be strong enough for us to capture, identify and make use of.
-
Under the Round Earth model the photons originate from the radar dish and bounce off of the surface of the earth and the ionosphere several times, hits the target, and then bounces again between the surface of the earth and the ionosphere several times back to the radar dish. All without being scattered out of existence. Ridiculous.
As ridiculous as claiming that light on Earth curves upwards? (i. e. the EAT)
-
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
You realise that his experiment had the sun 400 miles south of London, somewhere directly over France, right?
Parallax is a true believer in 'Prof. Dr. Rev. Rowboatman, PhD', and if He says He has meassured the distance to the Sun the matter is settled for good, and it would be an act of heresy to even consider an attempt to verify His claims.
In the real World the Sun's orbital speed around the center of the galaxy is ~200 km/s. I can imagine the FE counter argument going something like this:
'If the sun moved at that speed the fire ball would be extinguished.'
-
I don't think its possible to measure the speed of the sun. We know it circles the earth but even Dr Rowbotham didn't, to my knowledge, calculate its speed.
-
I don't think its possible to measure the speed of the sun. We know it circles the earth but even Dr Rowbotham didn't, to my knowledge, calculate its speed.
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
Contradictive.
-
No. Speed and distance are not the same thing.
Speed = how fast something moves
Distance = how far away something is
-
No. Speed and distance are not the same thing.
Speed = how fast something moves
Distance = how far away something is
I'm well aware of the difference.
Speed = distance/time. So, since we know the distance and the time, we know the speed.
-
I don't think its possible to measure the speed of the sun. We know it circles the earth but even Dr Rowbotham didn't, to my knowledge, calculate its speed.
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
Contradictive.
Is Parallax a Poe?
-
I don't think its possible to measure the speed of the sun. We know it circles the earth but even Dr Rowbotham didn't, to my knowledge, calculate its speed.
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
Contradictive.
Is Parallax a Poe?
Sorry, I don't think I understand.
-
a Poe is someone who is faking a viewpoint and is indistinguishable from the real thing
-
a Poe is someone who is faking a viewpoint and is indistinguishable from the real thing
Thank you.
I don't think its possible to measure the speed of the sun. We know it circles the earth but even Dr Rowbotham didn't, to my knowledge, calculate its speed.
Dr Rowbotham has measured the distance already.
Contradictive.
Is Parallax a Poe?
Yes, I think it's very likely that Parallax is a poe.
-
If you're asking the speed of the Sun as described by modern, real, science, then what you ask is a fairly easy task. In short, parallax measurements are taken to determine the distance of the Sun from the Earth. From this, the orbit of Earth can be plotted. Conservation of energy and momentum gives the speed at various points in the orbit. If you want a detailed description, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
As for what it is in Flat Earth, well I'd assume it's just taking the radius of the Sun's circling and dividing by 24 hours.
Parallax is clueless about even elementary physics when he says "speed and distance are not the same thing." I think most anyone can understand that if we can measure a distance and know the angles at which we measured that distance, what we have is a coordinate system that uniquely represents every point in 3D space. If we know the position of a body at every point in time, then we can obviously differentiate that to get the velocity. Taking the magnitude of the velocity gives the speed. In layman's terms: I see the car at point A at t=0. I see the car at point B at t=0.001s. Therefore its speed is dist(A, B)/0.001s.
-
If you're asking the speed of the Sun as described by modern, real, science, then what you ask is a fairly easy task. In short, parallax measurements are taken to determine the distance of the Sun from the Earth. From this, the orbit of Earth can be plotted. Conservation of energy and momentum gives the speed at various points in the orbit. If you want a detailed description, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
As for what it is in Flat Earth, well I'd assume it's just taking the radius of the Sun's circling and dividing by 24 hours.
Thank you for your contribution. I am well aware how things are, I'm asking the FE community whether the speed/the distance (preferably the speed) of the Sun has been measured directly (i. e. using a radar, a laser or something similar). In the FE model, it should be possible.
-
If you're asking the speed of the Sun as described by modern, real, science, then what you ask is a fairly easy task. In short, parallax measurements are taken to determine the distance of the Sun from the Earth. From this, the orbit of Earth can be plotted. Conservation of energy and momentum gives the speed at various points in the orbit. If you want a detailed description, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
As for what it is in Flat Earth, well I'd assume it's just taking the radius of the Sun's circling and dividing by 24 hours.
Parallax is clueless about even elementary physics when he says "speed and distance are not the same thing." I think most anyone can understand that if we can measure a distance and know the angles at which we measured that distance, what we have is a coordinate system that uniquely represents every point in 3D space. If we know the position of a body at every point in time, then we can obviously differentiate that to get the velocity. Taking the magnitude of the velocity gives the speed. In layman's terms: I see the car at point A at t=0. I see the car at point B at t=0.001s. Therefore its speed is dist(A, B)/0.001s.
Not clueless, just that if it was relevant Dr Rowbotham would have measured it, and to my knowledge he didn't, so it's not anything to care about.
-
If you're asking the speed of the Sun as described by modern, real, science, then what you ask is a fairly easy task. In short, parallax measurements are taken to determine the distance of the Sun from the Earth. From this, the orbit of Earth can be plotted. Conservation of energy and momentum gives the speed at various points in the orbit. If you want a detailed description, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_speed
As for what it is in Flat Earth, well I'd assume it's just taking the radius of the Sun's circling and dividing by 24 hours.
Parallax is clueless about even elementary physics when he says "speed and distance are not the same thing." I think most anyone can understand that if we can measure a distance and know the angles at which we measured that distance, what we have is a coordinate system that uniquely represents every point in 3D space. If we know the position of a body at every point in time, then we can obviously differentiate that to get the velocity. Taking the magnitude of the velocity gives the speed. In layman's terms: I see the car at point A at t=0. I see the car at point B at t=0.001s. Therefore its speed is dist(A, B)/0.001s.
Not clueless, just that if it was relevant Dr Rowbotham would have measured it, and to my knowledge he didn't, so it's not anything to care about.
As an argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority) your argument is fallacious. Just because an authority didn't mention it doesn't mean it's irrelevant. For example, he (to my knowledge) didn't mention satellites which are extremely relevant to the FE hypothesis.
In fact, Mr. Rowbotham couldn't directly measure the speed/the distance of the Sun since no technology capable of doing so existed during his times.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?
-
Is Parallax a Poe?
Sorry, I don't think I understand.
A 'Poe' is someone who pretends to be something he's not, writing parody with the intent to make the reader believe he's serious, and who is almost impossible to detect.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe
-
Is Parallax a Poe?
Sorry, I don't think I understand.
A 'Poe' is someone who pretends to be something he's not, writing parody with the intent to make the reader believe he's serious, and who is almost impossible to detect.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poe
Yeah, Parallax is almost certainly a poe.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?
Of course, he did the measurements himself.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?
Of course, he did the measurements himself.
I think you've missed my point. Have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...)? Also confirmed means that someone else measured it and his readings were the same as Rowbotham's.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?
Of course, he did the measurements himself.
I think you've missed my point. Have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...)? Also confirmed means that someone else measured it and his readings were the same as Rowbotham's.
Rowbotham performed the experiments many times over a 30 year period. His results were also vetted by a journal dedicated to that purpose called The Earth Not a Globe Review. Today we can also see water convexity experiments on Youtube, including different experiments with lasers. Check them out.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?
Of course, he did the measurements himself.
I think you've missed my point. Have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...)? Also confirmed means that someone else measured it and his readings were the same as Rowbotham's.
Rowbotham performed the experiments many times over a 30 year period. His results were also vetted by a journal dedicated to that purpose called The Earth Not a Globe Review. Today we can also see water convexity experiments on Youtube, including different experiments with lasers. Check them out.
Ok. So, have his results been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...) of the Sun's speed/distance?
-
Ok. So, have his results been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...) of the Sun's speed/distance?
I have not seen that it is possible to reflect a laser or radar off of the sun.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?
Of course, he did the measurements himself.
I think you've missed my point. Have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...)? Also confirmed means that someone else measured it and his readings were the same as Rowbotham's.
Rowbotham performed the experiments many times over a 30 year period. His results were also vetted by a journal dedicated to that purpose called The Earth Not a Globe Review. Today we can also see water convexity experiments on Youtube, including different experiments with lasers. Check them out.
Water being convex shows the curve of the earth.
-
Ok. So, have his results been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...) of the Sun's speed/distance?
I have not seen that it is possible to reflect a laser or radar off of the sun.
So your answer to my question is no, isn't it?
-
Ok. So, have his results been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...) of the Sun's speed/distance?
I have not seen that it is possible to reflect a laser or radar off of the sun.
So your answer to my question is no, isn't it?
Why are you asking me to tell you what I just told you?
-
Ok. So, have his results been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...) of the Sun's speed/distance?
I have not seen that it is possible to reflect a laser or radar off of the sun.
So your answer to my question is no, isn't it?
Why are you asking me to tell you what I just told you?
I'm just making sure I understood you correctly.
-
I take your silence as agreement.
So, the speed/ the distance of the Sun hasn't been measured directly. Why?
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?
Of course, he did the measurements himself.
I think you've missed my point. Have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...)? Also confirmed means that someone else measured it and his readings were the same as Rowbotham's.
Rowbotham performed the experiments many times over a 30 year period. His results were also vetted by a journal dedicated to that purpose called The Earth Not a Globe Review. Today we can also see water convexity experiments on Youtube, including different experiments with lasers. Check them out.
Water being convex shows the curve of the earth.
Dr Rowbotham was able to demonstrate the flatness of the waters by conducting his experiments.
And the recent YouTube video by Brazilian scientists also verify the waters being flat.
-
And the recent YouTube video by Brazilian scientists also verify the waters being flat.
That seems pretty unlikely but can you provide the link to that?
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
Great! So, have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement?
Of course, he did the measurements himself.
I think you've missed my point. Have his calculations been confirmed by direct measurement (i. e. using a radar, a laser, ...)? Also confirmed means that someone else measured it and his readings were the same as Rowbotham's.
Rowbotham performed the experiments many times over a 30 year period. His results were also vetted by a journal dedicated to that purpose called The Earth Not a Globe Review. Today we can also see water convexity experiments on Youtube, including different experiments with lasers. Check them out.
Water being convex shows the curve of the earth.
Dr Rowbotham was able to demonstrate the flatness of the waters by conducting his experiments.
And the recent YouTube video by Brazilian scientists also verify the waters being flat.
Do you mean the same Brazilian "scientist" that claims to be able to explode glass plates with his mind? Yeah, we've completely debunked that dude. Even Tom backed off his support.
-
It's not one guy, and I'm not aware of them saying they can explode glass with their mind.
And the recent YouTube video by Brazilian scientists also verify the waters being flat.
That seems pretty unlikely but can you provide the link to that?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McdMMmclGVc
-
Thanks although I think 90 minutes is more of my life than I’m willing to spend on this. Do you know where in that they demonstrate this? Thanks.
-
Well about 45 minutes is dedicated to experiments on the water using light, lasers, and telescopes. So unfortunately I can't give you an exact starting point.
-
Sun's spectrum is wide and components are strong.
You can't measure distance or speed of Sun by radar directly, because of too much noise.
Sun's own radiation components would mask any possible reflected signal.
But you can use radar to measure distance to Venus at the moment of gretaest elongation, and from right triangle easily calculate distance to Sun.
Speed of Sun is always 15 degrees per hour at any time of a day and any time of a year.
Anyone can go out and measure it whenever they want.
It doesn't depend on shape of Earth.
Wherever you are it is 15 degrees per hour.
Using the method below (while selecting the right side of the picture) the height of Sun was measured to be 5005 kilometers.
Now:
At 30 minutes before equinoctial solar noon in Sao Gabriel, Sun was 7.5 degrees to the east from zenith. It is 5005 km * tan(7.5°) = 658.92 km to the east.
At 30 minutes after equinoctial solar noon in Sao Gabriel, Sun was 7.5 degrees to the west from zenith. It is 5005 km * tan(7.5°) = 658.92 km to the west.
During those 60 minutes Sun travelled 658.92 km + 658.92 km = 1317.84 km.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In north Brazil there is place named Sao Gabriel de Cachoeira. It is at the Equator.
Noon, March 20, equinox. Sun directly above heads. Shadow lengths zero.
In Maine, USA there is place Wesley, 5005 kilometers north of Sao Gabriel. From there Sun is seen under angle of 45 degrees above horizon, south.
Simple Pythagoras' triangle gives height of the Sun to be 5005 kilometers above Sao Gabriel.
In Argentina there is place Bahia Bustamante at the east coast. From there you see the Sun at 45 degrees above horizon, north.
Bahia Bustamante is 5005 kilometers south from Sao Gabriel. Again, Sun height above Sao Gabriel is 5005 kilometers.
Sun's angular diameter as seen from Sao Gabriel is 0.53 degrees, which makes it to be 2 * 5005 * TAN(0.53 / 2) = 46.3 kilometers in diameter,
or simplified for small angles 5005 * TAN(0.53) = 46.3 kilometers in diameter (again).
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ch4f9PQWwAEvpSL.jpg:large)
-
(...)
You can't measure distance or speed of Sun by radar directly, because of too much noise.
Sun's own radiation components would mask any possible reflected signal.
(...)
I'm well aware that it's impossible in reality and we know why it's so. As the Sun is so far away, the radar signal gets so weak it isn't distinguishable from the background noise created by the Sun.
However, since in the FE model the Sun is at least 14945 times closer the radar signal should be strong enough for us to detect it. That's why I've asked whether someone related to the FES has done it and if not why.
-
I'm well aware that it's impossible in reality and we know why it's so. As the Sun is so far away, the radar signal gets so weak it isn't distinguishable from the background noise created by the Sun.
However, since in the FE model the Sun is at least 14945 times closer the radar signal should be strong enough for us to detect it. That's why I've asked whether someone related to the FES has done it and if not why.
Those who don't understand noise by Sun won't understand the distance explanation, they will only try to discredit it.
Those who understand noise by Sun will avoid to respond, because they know what is the catch and don't know how to avoid it.
-
It's not one guy, and I'm not aware of them saying they can explode glass with their mind.
And the recent YouTube video by Brazilian scientists also verify the waters being flat.
That seems pretty unlikely but can you provide the link to that?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=McdMMmclGVc
The guy posting this was shown to be a charlatan due to his other posts. The only thing he verified is that he is using the gullible for money. Even Tom had to admit the guy was a liar.
-
A question for the FES members: has anyone directly (i. e. via radar, laser or so) measured the speed (or distance) of the Sun, the Moon or any other celestial body? If not, why?
The distance to the moon has been measured with lasers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment)
FE needs to grow now as fast as possible, because hand held technology available to all of us is becoming capable of proving Rowbotham's conclusions false.
https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html (https://phys.org/news/2014-05-distance-moon.html)
This link gives instructions for how to measure the distance to the moon using your smartphone camera and accelerometer. Pretty cool.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
-
The problem with "measuring the speed of the sun" is it requires maths and instrumentation, and we know that flat earth believers are often sceptical of maths and instrumentation. I think we should focus on the simpler ways to prove the model wrong.
For example, some positions on the earth experience the sun rising and setting pretty much 180 degrees in terms of azimuth, and almost 90 degrees zenith. If the sun takes a circular path overhead, that's impossible (i.e. path between sun rise and sun set is around 12 hours at such a point: that would = a half turn on the circular path, and a very sharp 90 degree difference in azimuth between sunrise and sunset)
Plus for their model to work, the sun must set due to an incorrect understanding of perspective: if the path the sun takes expands and contracts, and the distance between an observer and sun set can not change, then we would end up with shorter summer days in the south than we have summer days in the north, regardless of the exact dimension of those circular paths and the exact flat earth map.
Until the flat earth can explain the simple flaws, I don't think there's much point debating the more complex points
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
I asked this in another thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9382.0
No response. I don't know where they got their 3000 miles from, it's wildly different from the number given in ENaG but that doesn't seem to bother them. Odd.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.
Interesting. So do you believe the moon is translucent? Because that's one of Rowbotham's crazier claims that even the FES have distanced themselves from.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.
This is what Tom wants to prove the 700 miles:
You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim that it is accurate. We work with evidence here, not assumption.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
I asked this in another thread.
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9382.0
No response. I don't know where they got their 3000 miles from, it's wildly different from the number given in ENaG but that doesn't seem to bother them. Odd.
3000 miles comes from Eratosthenes experiment. If you take his angles and distance between his points, you arrive at an altitude of 3000 miles. This is the far more accepted height than Rowbotham's 700 miles. For some reason.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.
This is what Tom wants to prove the 700 miles:
You need to prove it because you are coming here with a claim that a particular system is accurate. If that is your claim, then you need to do something to demonstrate its accuracy. If you cannot do that, then you cannot claim that it is accurate. We work with evidence here, not assumption.
Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?
-
Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?
Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.
-
Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?
Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.
Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?
Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.
-
I'm not. It's just that you generally regard Rowbotham as gospel but here you don't seem to be sure about his result, it's certainly wildly different from what your Wiki says. I'm interested why on this particular subject you don't seem confident in his findings.
And yes, of course I understand that over the history of science lots of things have been refined over time. This is a strength of the scientific method - results are published and can be reviewed and tested until something gains consensus (which should never definitively rule out amendment of an theory)
-
Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?
Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.
Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?
Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.
Such sensitivity issues go out the window when the sun is closer than the width of some continents as well. FE should have the distance to the sun nailed down pat with little issue.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.
Interesting. So do you believe the moon is translucent? Because that's one of Rowbotham's crazier claims that even the FES have distanced themselves from.
There have certainly been times when stars have been observed through the moon. Dr Rowbotham says it is semi transparent but no, I don't believe it. I realise this is probably me cherry picking, but I can use my own eyes and look at it. It's not semi transparent.
-
Yet somehow he was able to calculate the true distance, despite lack of technology.
He quotes the distance as 700 miles in EnaG right?
the Wiki on this site quotes about 3,000 miles? Is the Wiki wrong? If so why are the Zetetic council not correcting it?
The difference is over 4 times the distance stated by EnaG.
At least RE theory has the suns distance pretty much agreed, and there is consensus.
Correct. And I'm not sure how they come to 3k miles, Dr Rowbotham was pretty clear. It does seem like certain people out there cherry pick what they want from Enag and pretend the rest isn't there.
Interesting. So do you believe the moon is translucent? Because that's one of Rowbotham's crazier claims that even the FES have distanced themselves from.
There have certainly been times when stars have been observed through the moon. (...)
Would you be so kind and provided any proof?
-
Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?
Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.
Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?
Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.
The difference being, that since modern science has resolved the figure under a RE model, there is little discussion and debate. It was resolved pretty accurately when Enag was published, and any adjustment since then has been very minor as the accuracy of the observations and data have improved with the instruments and methods getting ever more accurate. Cassini was able in the 16th century to measure the distance to within 6% of todays figure, and that has been refined further and further. (Note i said refined not changed)
The FE has a couple of different figures, 700 as clearly stated in EnaG, and about 3,000, and no effort seems to be spent on trying to resolve the differences. One would imagine the Zetetic science council would at least discuss it, and try to present a uniform front. If it is determined that it is 700, and the stars at 1,000 then a lot of other theories are thrown into doubt, such as size of the sun, It makes astronomical observations a nonsense, as well as the movement of the planets and stars.
If it is 3,000 then the in disputing Enag in any way would be tearing down a sacred pillar of the movement!
RE believers do not have such quandaries, as nearly, if not all, modern mainstream accepted science backs up the theory, and refines the model, and helps us understand better what we see in our everyday experiences.
-
Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?
Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.
Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?
Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.
The difference being, that since modern science has resolved the figure under a RE model, there is little discussion and debate. It was resolved pretty accurately when Enag was published, and any adjustment since then has been very minor as the accuracy of the observations and data have improved with the instruments and methods getting ever more accurate. Cassini was able in the 16th century to measure the distance to within 6% of todays figure, and that has been refined further and further. (Note i said refined not changed)
The FE has a couple of different figures, 700 as clearly stated in EnaG, and about 3,000, and no effort seems to be spent on trying to resolve the differences. One would imagine the Zetetic science council would at least discuss it, and try to present a uniform front. If it is determined that it is 700, and the stars at 1,000 then a lot of other theories are thrown into doubt, such as size of the sun, It makes astronomical observations a nonsense, as well as the movement of the planets and stars.
If it is 3,000 then the in disputing Enag in any way would be tearing down a sacred pillar of the movement!
RE believers do not have such quandaries, as nearly, if not all, modern mainstream accepted science backs up the theory, and refines the model, and helps us understand better what we see in our everyday experiences.
We are not organized to conduct research. There is no formal society of members. If you would like to help organize efforts, that would be great.
-
Where have I claimed to know the height of the sun?
Rowbotham seemed to be pretty clear about it and you generally take his word as gospel.
Do you have doubts about his calculations on this? It's wildly different from the number given in the Wiki.
Why are you so hung up about the distance to the sun and recorded inconsistencies?
Are you aware of the sensitivities of such parallax experiments and the long history of the sun's inconsistent distance in RET? On the earth's distance from the sun Copernicus computed it as 3,391,200 miles, Kepler contradicted him with an estimate of 12,376,800 miles, while Newton had asserted that it did not matter whether it was 28 million or 54 million miles 'for either will do as well'.
The difference being, that since modern science has resolved the figure under a RE model, there is little discussion and debate. It was resolved pretty accurately when Enag was published, and any adjustment since then has been very minor as the accuracy of the observations and data have improved with the instruments and methods getting ever more accurate. Cassini was able in the 16th century to measure the distance to within 6% of todays figure, and that has been refined further and further. (Note i said refined not changed)
The FE has a couple of different figures, 700 as clearly stated in EnaG, and about 3,000, and no effort seems to be spent on trying to resolve the differences. One would imagine the Zetetic science council would at least discuss it, and try to present a uniform front. If it is determined that it is 700, and the stars at 1,000 then a lot of other theories are thrown into doubt, such as size of the sun, It makes astronomical observations a nonsense, as well as the movement of the planets and stars.
If it is 3,000 then the in disputing Enag in any way would be tearing down a sacred pillar of the movement!
RE believers do not have such quandaries, as nearly, if not all, modern mainstream accepted science backs up the theory, and refines the model, and helps us understand better what we see in our everyday experiences.
We are not organized to conduct research. There is no formal society of members. If you would like to help organize efforts, that would be great.
But you are organised enough to form a “council”, organised enough to create a website, post Wiki, moderate a forum, and refer to things in the plural ie “we” so either there is an organisation, or there is not.
There is a discussion board on “council” business, why not post the questions there and at least try to resolve the vast inconsistencies in your wiki, compared to EnaG and other publications? Questions are asked, and people are directed to the Wiki, fair enough, but then the wiki references works, such as EnaG, in one hand, and dismisses other parts of the same writings as in accurate.
If you are not organised enough to resolve some of the questions, or have a consistent reply to points posed, surely you are not in the position to use the the term “we” in any answer, as that implies that you speak for a body, and therefore represent them.
There are people who obviously go to some lengths to find Youtube videos and search the net to try to find “proof” of the FE, but the fundamental questions of a unified answer is not able to be provided, and yet by your own admission, have no interest in finding out or resolving the discrepancies in a Zetetic way!
-
But you are organised enough to form a “council”, organised enough to create a website, post Wiki, moderate a forum, and refer to things in the plural ie “we” so either there is an organisation, or there is not.
There is a discussion board on “council” business, why not post the questions there and at least try to resolve the vast inconsistencies in your wiki, compared to EnaG and other publications? Questions are asked, and people are directed to the Wiki, fair enough, but then the wiki references works, such as EnaG, in one hand, and dismisses other parts of the same writings as in accurate.
If you are not organised enough to resolve some of the questions, or have a consistent reply to points posed, surely you are not in the position to use the the term “we” in any answer, as that implies that you speak for a body, and therefore represent them.
There are people who obviously go to some lengths to find Youtube videos and search the net to try to find “proof” of the FE, but the fundamental questions of a unified answer is not able to be provided, and yet by your own admission, have no interest in finding out or resolving the discrepancies in a Zetetic way!
No one has posted in the council forum for over 2 years, and it took us 10 years to make the Wiki, of which here were few contributors. You are overestimating our size and manpower. I am saying "we" because I am giving attempting to give the general consensus of the state and status of the society and where things are at present.
There are only a few FE'ers at the moment here who log on at their own leisure and interest, and in no organized or collaborative fashion. It's not "fun" to sit here and talk to 20 people at a time, who have not read the early society's works and expect to be individually tutored and caught up on every topic.
-
But you are organised enough to form a “council”, organised enough to create a website, post Wiki, moderate a forum, and refer to things in the plural ie “we” so either there is an organisation, or there is not.
There is a discussion board on “council” business, why not post the questions there and at least try to resolve the vast inconsistencies in your wiki, compared to EnaG and other publications? Questions are asked, and people are directed to the Wiki, fair enough, but then the wiki references works, such as EnaG, in one hand, and dismisses other parts of the same writings as in accurate.
If you are not organised enough to resolve some of the questions, or have a consistent reply to points posed, surely you are not in the position to use the the term “we” in any answer, as that implies that you speak for a body, and therefore represent them.
There are people who obviously go to some lengths to find Youtube videos and search the net to try to find “proof” of the FE, but the fundamental questions of a unified answer is not able to be provided, and yet by your own admission, have no interest in finding out or resolving the discrepancies in a Zetetic way!
No one has posted in the council forum for over 2 years, and it took us 10 years to make the Wiki, of which here were few contributors. You are overestimating our size and manpower. I am saying "we" because I am giving attempting to give the general consensus of the state and status of the society and where things are at present.
There are only a few people left who log on at their own leisure and interest, and in no organized or collaborative fashion. It's not "fun" to sit here and talk to 20 people at a time, who have not read the early society's works and expect to be individually tutored and caught up on every topic.
Then surely it is time to wind up the site, and call it a day?
Why did the other members leave? Saw the light and converted to Global earth theory in the face of the wealth of Empirical evidence against the FE perhaps?
-
But you are organised enough to form a “council”, organised enough to create a website, post Wiki, moderate a forum, and refer to things in the plural ie “we” so either there is an organisation, or there is not.
There is a discussion board on “council” business, why not post the questions there and at least try to resolve the vast inconsistencies in your wiki, compared to EnaG and other publications? Questions are asked, and people are directed to the Wiki, fair enough, but then the wiki references works, such as EnaG, in one hand, and dismisses other parts of the same writings as in accurate.
If you are not organised enough to resolve some of the questions, or have a consistent reply to points posed, surely you are not in the position to use the the term “we” in any answer, as that implies that you speak for a body, and therefore represent them.
There are people who obviously go to some lengths to find Youtube videos and search the net to try to find “proof” of the FE, but the fundamental questions of a unified answer is not able to be provided, and yet by your own admission, have no interest in finding out or resolving the discrepancies in a Zetetic way!
No one has posted in the council forum for over 2 years, and it took us 10 years to make the Wiki, of which here were few contributors. You are overestimating our size and manpower. I am saying "we" because I am giving attempting to give the general consensus of the state and status of the society and where things are at present.
There are only a few people left who log on at their own leisure and interest, and in no organized or collaborative fashion. It's not "fun" to sit here and talk to 20 people at a time, who have not read the early society's works and expect to be individually tutored and caught up on every topic.
Then surely it is time to wind up the site, and call it a day?
Why did the other members leave? Saw the light and converted to Global earth theory in the face of the wealth of Empirical evidence against the FE perhaps?
The major FE proponents have usually been active for a time, and then leave once they find that they are just repeating themselves every day to the endless influx of new people and that it is really of no benefit to their life. I just stay here as an act of education and service, mainly for those people who do want take what we have to say and run with it and attempt to research further. It's not really fun, but it does work.
Look at the Youtube Flat Earth movement. Their content is based on our Flat Earth Society discussions and efforts starting in 2007. Those people should be part of the Flat Earth Society, but because we have never really been inclusive or organized as a research society, the entire Flat Earth movement is presently composed of various independent actors.
It would be nice to be a real research society, but we will need major organizational leadership and effort from the community. The mindset needs to change from "I'm goint to prove these guys wrong!" to "I'm going to help research to see what the truth actually is," which is a tall order for most.
-
I just stay here as an act of education
-- I'd say more it's more of an act of misinformation and basically a war on education, what you & your 2 friends are doing...
Their content is based on our Flat Earth Society discussions and efforts starting in 2007
-- glad you noticed this. It's a clear sign that nothing new has been found or discovered, despite the 11+ years that have passed, not to mention 150 or so years since the Rowbowcop (sp?). Y'all just keep regurgitating the same nonsense, that has been debunked countless times.
"I'm going to help research to see what the truth actually is," which is a tall order for most.
-- hmm, why isn't this your mindset then? Seems like all you wanna do is deny facts and discard evidence, then make claims w/o supporting them. Notice, 4 pages of "blah blah blah" and you still haven't even tried answering the OP question.
-
It seems it's not even an organisational problem. Dealing with the distance from the sun issue is as easy as going outside and measuring midday shadows. This can be done with a protractor in a pinch, but a more accurate test using a plumb line and a tray of water is also very easy to do.
Anyone doing such a test can confirm the consistency of RE while also showing the complete lack of consistency if FE.
The process is so easy and accessible there's no excuse not to do it for anyone that wishes to see for themselves whether the earth is round or flat.
-
To be fair, the majority of flat earthers haven't even researched how perspective works... I mean that's a 5 minute google answer and a few simple diagrams, yet most still believe "an arbitrary diagonal line on a side view is how perspective works". They don't even understand the concept of a vanishing point and what it represents. It's very simple to describe mathematically and figuratively with a rudimentary understanding of how an eye works.
I can understand not having the money for detailed scientific research... but there's plenty of room for debate (fittingly, in a forum sub group titled "debate") for a bit of back-and-forth on some very simple concepts with a little bit more of an effort than just "Zetetic writings say so"
I do honestly appreciate your time Tom: you are for the most part very cordial (if not occasionally dismissive) but completely understand you don't HAVE to do this, it's just your free time... it's very gracious for TFES to even have a forum and open it to RE'ers in the first place.
The reason for me joining is that i figured it was at least some attempt at "authority" on the debate (aside from endless you tube arguments). And you have said that you genuinely have a desire to get to the truth. Surely you yourself realise the FE argument is seriously flawed, even without any regard to the more "complex" scientific considerations... Perhaps it's time to start to quantify those items in a genuine attempt to reach a conclusion?
Perhaps people like me are just naive that anyone ever stops and admits "hmm, yeah, i was wrong". I certainly question why I bother wasting so much time trying... So thanks for at least wasting your time answering, but can we not attempt to reach a conclusion so we can BOTH stop wasting our time? :)
-
We are not organized to conduct research. There is no formal society of members. If you would like to help organize efforts, that would be great.
Dude, you really have to stop using that excuse. You don’t need an organisation to do research.
The fact you didn’t understand that experiment with the laser (I note you have neither raised any further objections nor retracted the ones I and others have shown to be spurious) is wrapped up in your belief that the horizon is at eye level. So you didn’t understand the difference between a laser being parallel to the ground as it slopes away and looking (slightly) down at and over the horizon. That is the difference between where the laser hits the boat and how much of the boat you can see. It’s really important to understand the difference in order to understand that experiment and how the globe earth works.
The point being, horizon dip is TESTABLE. It is MEASURABLE. And you don’t need expensive equipment, you were shown 2 experiments which did this, one using professional equipment and the other using equipment you could make yourself at almost no cost. Or you could devise your own experiment. But if you really are interested in the truth and empirical measurement and testing things then get out there and try it. It’s a few hours one day, that’s all it will take. You don’t need funding or an organisation. Isn’t it worth it to help you understand more about how the world really works? And the trouble with you saying “well, why don’t you do it” is we both know you won’t accept anyone else’s results. To an extent that’s fair enough but refusing to accept other people’s results (unless they seem to back up a flat earth) and refusing to do any experiments yourself will get you nowhere.