[Stagiri]

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.

[Stagiri]

I take your silence as agreement.
So, the speed/ the distance of the Sun hasn't been measured directly. Why?

[Parallax]

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.

[AATW]

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?

[StinkyOne]

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.

[Parallax]

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?

[AATW]

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.

[Parallax]

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.

[Macarios]

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).

[Stagiri]

(...)
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.

[Macarios]

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.

[StinkyOne]

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?

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.

[JHelzer]

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

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
This link gives instructions for how to measure the distance to the moon using your smartphone camera and accelerometer.  Pretty cool.

[Tontogary]

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.

[SiDawg]

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

[AATW]

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.

[Parallax]

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.

[AATW]

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.

[inquisitive]

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.

[Curious Squirrel]

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.