The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Oami on May 19, 2017, 09:09:31 PM
-
Hello.
I'm new to this forum and – let's be honest – have quite strong a certainty concerning the spherical shape of the earth. If that is a problem, we can avoid wasting everyone's time if the admin tells me so at the first moment possible, in which case this will be my first and last post.
And my actual question is here: what is the distance between the sun and the earth, assuming the flat earth? I really have tried to find this information on various sources but haven't so far succeeded. Also I'm not aware whether or not that distance is supposed to be constant or not. Some ancient flat earth cultures apparently believed that the sun went around the earth so that during the night it went below it, and that the thing supporting earth from below – whatever that was – allowed it to do so. However, it seems like this isn't the case with the modern flat earth theories.
In the globe theory it is widely accepted that the distance is about 150,000,000 km – or on average slightly less, but this is a good enough approximation, and twice a year it is exactly correct anyway. I learned this while in kindergarten. If the flat earth theory were true, wouldn't such fundamental things so important for understanding our universe be taught to children then, as well? And still, this information is so hard to find.
I made a diagram showing two different ways to calculate the distance (a). What we need is two points on the surface of the earth, one exactly below the sun that obviously needs to be in tropic (P1) and one somewhere far enough (P2), and we need to know the distance between them (b). We then need to measure the apparent height and the size of the sun in P2 (α and β2 respectively) and the apparent size in P1 (β1). The height in the latter is obviously 90°, but this can be measured anyway in order to be sure that we have the right spot. These measurements need to be made at the same time, which means that at least two persons are needed to make them.
(https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/18341835_10213285226629699_3876922756090740815_n.jpg?oh=516c4af6957c3985c8fd2e022550a752&oe=59AD6E3E)
If there is something wrong with the mathematic part, I'd be glad to know.
I don't ask you to actually make these calculations. If the flat earth theory were true, I'd assume they have already been made several times, and the results published. The problem is: I don't find the results.
-
P1 point should not have to be under the sun. There is two observed needed and it is true.
In fact, the sun is behind of a water barreer and This causes it to appear in a different place than where it is. When you see the moon at daylight, the bright side of the moon is not usually turned to the sun. The reason is that the sun is not actually where it appears. It is because the sun is in the place where the light hits the moons face. From here, we arrive a result of the objects we see are not in the place, we see in different places. And this illusion is causing calculation errors. Frankly, rounder or flatter, "all of the" calculations made on the moon and the sun's distance are all "wrong". The refractive indices in the "dome" of the light must be calculated by using the differences between the possible change of the sun's angle and the actual change, and these "indices of refraction" must be accounted for. Otherwise it is impossible to get the result right.
-
P1 point should not have to be under the sun. There is two observed needed and it is true.
Right, it shouldn't, but making it so makes the calculation a bit easier, since now we have a right-angled triangle to begin with. At least the spot right under the sun and P1 and P2 must be on the same straight line, and then of course the apparent height angles must be measured from both points. If they are not on the same straight line, that makes the calculation far more complex.
In fact, the sun is behind of a water barreer and This causes it to appear in a different place than where it is...
So, the diagram is wrong because it assumes light to travel in a straight path. Did I get that right?
If that is true, the calculations obviously become more complex and some understanding about the properties of the dome (starting from its very existence) will be needed. You claim that it consists of water, and the rules of refraction in the border between air and water are known already. What is needed is the actual shape of that dome. Also there is probably some substance that prevents that water from raining upon us, but if that something makes a uniform layer with a small thickness when compared to the distances involved, it doesn't affect the calculations too much.
Thanks for answering anyway. To avoid offtopic, maybe the dome should be discussed in some other topic – or maybe it already has been done, I haven't yet spent much time on this forum.
In the meantime: is there a concensus about the dome, or will there be other answers?
-
This method was actually done in an ancient times by a Grecian and the results were close to modern methods.
This was coverered in a previous thread.
Mc Donald and other observatories , using laser beams, have measured the distance to the centimeter.
Of course FE is going to shout "FAKE !"
According to FE , the dome seems to be of ice, water, or some say it is made of some metal, such as brass.
As with most of FE, there seems to be a diference of opinion.
-
It's funny how the water dome and all the bendy light refraction make it look like a spherical earth with straight line paths.
-
Then there is the question on whether the distance is constant.
On the northern summer solstice (in June) the sun is directly above the tropic of cancer, and on the southern summer solstice (in December) it is directly above the tropic of capricorn.
In the globe theory, the tropic of cancer and the tropic of capricorn have an equal length. In the flat theory it isn't so: the tropic of capricorn must have a length of about 1.7 times that of the tropic of cancer. (This value is based on the assumption that the distances between latitudes are the same in both theories: if this isn't so, feel free to correct me. But even if the factor were less than 1.7, it is still remarkable enough to be seen with a naked eye.)
Still, in each case the sun completes the round in the same time, which is 24 hours. This means that in December it must move faster, its speed increased up to 70 %. This in turn means that any given location on the tropic of capricorn receives less sunlight on the day of the southern summer solstice than any given location on the tropic of cancer on the day of the northern summer solstice, and eventually, the duration of the day – that is, the time interval between sunrise and sunset – is shorter.
That is, assuming that the altitude of the sun stays constant. Of course the day becomes longer if the sun, in addition to moving faster, also goes higher. This in turn would probably make the sun appear to look smaller... but not if the actual size of the sun also changes.
Whatever it is, I'm very interested in hearing different theories. I assume the dome may affect all these calculations as well.
-
In fact, the sun is behind of a water barreer and This causes it to appear in a different place than where it is. When you see the moon at daylight, the bright side of the moon is not usually turned to the sun. The reason is that the sun is not actually where it appears. It is because the sun is in the place where the light hits the moons face. From here, we arrive a result of the objects we see are not in the place, we see in different places. And this illusion is causing calculation errors. Frankly, rounder or flatter, "all of the" calculations made on the moon and the sun's distance are all "wrong". The refractive indices in the "dome" of the light must be calculated by using the differences between the possible change of the sun's angle and the actual change, and these "indices of refraction" must be accounted for. Otherwise it is impossible to get the result right.
It shocks me to say this, but Well done, İntikam! This is a key problem with many people's FE models. IF the earth is flat (and I do not agree that it is) then it follows that the sun must follow a flat-ish path above it. But the sun does not appear to follow such a path, which means that if it actually does, there must be all manner of optical illusion going on in order for the sun to appear to be one place in the sky when it is actually somewhere else. From which it also follows that nothing we measure about the sun is true, it is all warped by whatever effect is creating the optical illusion.
I am frankly surprised that the first FE who I have seen acknowledge and accurately describe the problem turned out to be İntikam! Who would have guessed?
-
a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1605064173/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
duplicate the studies and share your math supporting ballers or flatters. use math, leave emotions out. i have not yet verified this myself, but will when i get someone else to measure at the same time, perhaps farther away than 50 miles.
prove it using in empirical evidence that you, personally create.
I plan to duplicate the michigan to chicago pictures in another location. this really is quite simple!
analyzing a triangle and a circle does not take a Ph.D. joshua nowicki's pictures of chicago should not be possible! simple math:
(h squared = a squared + b squared, h being the distance from the center of the earth to chicago):
1. the reported radius of the earth (a) is 4000 miles and the distance to chicago (b) is 60 miles
2. square both, add and take the square root to get 4000.450 (h) miles
3. therefore, chicago on the ball earth would be .450 miles below the line of sight which is greater than the tallest buildings in chicago!
anyone with any math skill can prove this.
anyone with a telephoto lens can easily take pictures of things a few miles away. even 4 miles would show a drop of over 10 feet, so find yourself a lake, canal or river and shoot. prove it to yourself and the ballers!
-
a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1605064173/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&psc=1&smid=ATVPDKIKX0DER
duplicate the studies and share your math supporting ballers or flatters. use math, leave emotions out. i have not yet verified this myself, but will when i get someone else to measure at the same time, perhaps farther away than 50 miles.
prove it using in empirical evidence that you, personally create.
I plan to duplicate the michigan to chicago pictures in another location. this really is quite simple!
analyzing a triangle and a circle does not take a Ph.D. joshua nowicki's pictures of chicago should not be possible! simple math:
(h squared = a squared + b squared, h being the distance from the center of the earth to chicago):
1. the reported radius of the earth (a) is 4000 miles and the distance to chicago (b) is 60 miles
2. square both, add and take the square root to get 4000.450 (h) miles
3. therefore, chicago on the ball earth would be .450 miles below the line of sight which is greater than the tallest buildings in chicago!
anyone with any math skill can prove this.
anyone with a telephoto lens can easily take pictures of things a few miles away. even 4 miles would show a drop of over 10 feet, so find yourself a lake, canal or river and shoot. prove it to yourself and the ballers!
The distance between Michigan and Chicago (according to Google) is 199 miles...but that's to the geographical center of Michigan to the official center of Chicago. Gary Michigan is only 24.5 miles from the center of Chicago - and that building appears to be right on the edge of the lake - so it's probably a lot closer.
I'm not saying this math is wrong - just that it cannot be reproduced without additional information.
The problem with all of these experiments (both pro- and anti-FE) is that temperature inversions and other atmospheric phenomena close to the surface of the water really screw up ALL of the measurements and conclusions.
So good data needs to come from higher altitudes.
Personally - I think the whole argument about ships vanishing (or not) over the horizon is too embroiled in refractions and mirages and such to allow anyone to draw any conclusions whatever from the results.
IMHO, the fact that in the age of sail - it was always the guy who climbed to that precarious location at the top of the tallest mast who always yells "LAND HO!" before anyone else...that suggests that you can indeed see further from higher up...which suggests RE is true.
But I don't rely on that tricky evidence.
* Tell me why the stars rotate in the opposite direction in the southern hemisphere.
* Tell me why the mountains of the moon clearly cast shadows onto the lunar surface.
* Tell me why there are two high tides and two low tides every day.
* Explain to me how a subsonic airplane can fly from Australia to South America at 2.5 times the speed of sound - and over twice it's regular range without refuelling...and if you're going to say "Jet Stream!" - stop and think that there are also aircraft flying from South America TO Australia over the same route.
There are lots more besides.
-
a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles.
If you want to refer people to Rowbotham, you should link to the freely available online version (http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za23.htm#page_103) of the book instead of Amazon, and more importantly, you should quote him accurately. He didn't say 1000 miles. He gave an even more preposterous figure of 700 miles.
i have not yet verified this myself
You will find that you get more respect when you DO verify things for yourself. Let us know your results, please.
I plan to duplicate the michigan to chicago pictures in another location....joshua nowicki's pictures of chicago should not be possible!
And under normal conditions, they're not. Are you familiar with the atmospheric phenomenon called a mirage? That's what's going on there (http://www.abc57.com/story/31830937/skyline-skepticism-the-lake-michigan-mirage).
If you are interested, there is a good video on YouTube in which a guy shoots video of Sweden's Turning Torso skyscraper from six different distances across the bay. As expected on a round earth, the farther away he got, the more of the skyscraper was obscured by the earth's curvature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoK2BKj7QYk
-
a simple study one day over 100 years ago in London and at the beach 50 miles away revealed two angles to the sun; 61 and 64 degrees which calculates to a distance to the sun of 1000 miles.
So is this the answer that the flat believers agree upon? 1000 miles, being equivalent to 1609 kilometres?
I might argue, but before I do, I want to be sure against what I actually am arguing. I suppose no one here believes in multiple suns, that might be on different heights at the same time.
-
Hello.
I'm new to this forum and – let's be honest – have quite strong a certainty concerning the spherical shape of the earth. If that is a problem, we can avoid wasting everyone's time if the admin tells me so at the first moment possible, in which case this will be my first and last post.
And my actual question is here: what is the distance between the sun and the earth, assuming the flat earth? I really have tried to find this information on various sources but haven't so far succeeded. Also I'm not aware whether or not that distance is supposed to be constant or not. Some ancient flat earth cultures apparently believed that the sun went around the earth so that during the night it went below it, and that the thing supporting earth from below – whatever that was – allowed it to do so. However, it seems like this isn't the case with the modern flat earth theories.
In the globe theory it is widely accepted that the distance is about 150,000,000 km – or on average slightly less, but this is a good enough approximation, and twice a year it is exactly correct anyway. I learned this while in kindergarten. If the flat earth theory were true, wouldn't such fundamental things so important for understanding our universe be taught to children then, as well? And still, this information is so hard to find.
I made a diagram showing two different ways to calculate the distance (a). What we need is two points on the surface of the earth, one exactly below the sun that obviously needs to be in tropic (P1) and one somewhere far enough (P2), and we need to know the distance between them (b). We then need to measure the apparent height and the size of the sun in P2 (α and β2 respectively) and the apparent size in P1 (β1). The height in the latter is obviously 90°, but this can be measured anyway in order to be sure that we have the right spot. These measurements need to be made at the same time, which means that at least two persons are needed to make them.
(https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s720x720/18341835_10213285226629699_3876922756090740815_n.jpg?oh=516c4af6957c3985c8fd2e022550a752&oe=59AD6E3E)
If there is something wrong with the mathematic part, I'd be glad to know.
I don't ask you to actually make these calculations. If the flat earth theory were true, I'd assume they have already been made several times, and the results published. The problem is: I don't find the results.
The missed point in this thread is the relative size of the sun would change as increased. Since the sun is right at 1 degree in width from all points on earth, proof that [a] (distance to the sun) is so far that the distance in is irrelevant. You can't get far enough away () on earth to change the relative size of the sun to a viewer.
Again we use geometry to prove a point. Math does not lie.
-
The missed point in this thread is the relative size of the sun would change as increased. Since the sun is right at 1 degree in width from all points on earth, proof that [a] (distance to the sun) is so far that the distance in is irrelevant. You can't get far enough away () on earth to change the relative size of the sun to a viewer.
Well, that's exactly what β1 and β2 are for: they are the apparent sizes of the sun as seen from different points. On the flat theory, a is so small when compared to b, that a and c – and hence β1 and β2 – must have a remarkable difference from each other.
And, as it turns out that there is no apparent difference at all, that is a contradiction that must be explained somehow. I have so far seen one kind of an explanation: the dome, that causes the light to not travel in straight paths. Unfortunately, I'm not very well aware of the claimed properties of the dome.
-
The missed point in this thread is the relative size of the sun would change as increased. Since the sun is right at 1 degree in width from all points on earth, proof that [a] (distance to the sun) is so far that the distance in is irrelevant. You can't get far enough away () on earth to change the relative size of the sun to a viewer.
Well, that's exactly what β1 and β2 are for: they are the apparent sizes of the sun as seen from different points. On the flat theory, a is so small when compared to b, that a and c – and hence β1 and β2 – must have a remarkable difference from each other.
And, as it turns out that there is no apparent difference at all, that is a contradiction that must be explained somehow. I have so far seen one kind of an explanation: the dome, that causes the light to not travel in straight paths. Unfortunately, I'm not very well aware of the claimed properties of the dome.
Logic and math questions seem to be ignored around here.
-
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/FES-003hm.jpg) (http://www.space.com/17733-earth-sun-distance-astronomical-unit.html)
-
It would really be nice to get a FErs answer to this question in the graphic ... is there an answer ?? (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6285.msg117514#msg117514)
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/wkFES-001xx.jpg)
-
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/FES-003hm.jpg)
Your illustration is misrepresentative and largely meaningless. The Sun never sinks below the Earth. Please at least read the FAQ before trying to argue.
-
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/FES-003hm.jpg)
The Sun never sinks below the Earth
then where does it go as it disappears below the horizon ?
-
Please at least read the FAQ
-
Please at least read the FAQ
then where does it go as it disappears below the horizon ?
(http://dadmansabode.com/F/FES/wkFES-001.jpg)
just a simple question needing a simple answer
-
just a simple question needing a simple answer
Isn't it convenient that the answer has already been given to you in a public document which you're expected to read before posting?
-
just a simple question needing a simple answer
Isn't it convenient that the answer has already been given to you in a public document which you're expected to read before posting?
this a debate thread ..... I want to hear the answer from your own words
-
just a simple question needing a simple answer
Isn't it convenient that the answer has already been given to you in a public document which you're expected to read before posting?
this a debate thread ..... I want to hear the answer from your owgsn words
That's the whole point of a debate.
-
this a debate thread ..... I want to hear the answer from your own words
That's brilliant. Unfortunately, debating the very basics over and over is particularly uninteresting, especially when people ask the same question multiple times a day. That's why we wrote our own words down in the FAQ. It is expected of you that you will read it before engaging in discussions here. If you choose not to do that, well, that's on you, but don't expect to be taken any more seriously than geckothegeek
-
this a debate thread ..... I want to hear the answer from your own words
That's brilliant. Unfortunately, debating the very basics over and over is particularly uninteresting, especially when people ask the same question multiple times a day. That's why we wrote our own words down in the FAQ. It is expected of you that you will read it before engaging in discussions here. If you choose not to do that, well, that's on you, but don't expect to be taken any more seriously than geckothegeek
A question on your point. Why is the FAQ not updated to handle the frequently asked questions that aren't covered? Seems to me there are a lot of things not covered and that would stop a lot of the same questions over and over. The navigation problem in the southern hemisphere for instance. The so-called long haul argument.
-
this a debate thread ..... I want to hear the answer from your own words
That's brilliant. Unfortunately, debating the very basics over and over is particularly uninteresting, especially when people ask the same question multiple times a day. That's why we wrote our own words down in the FAQ. It is expected of you that you will read it before engaging in discussions here. If you choose not to do that, well, that's on you, but don't expect to be taken any more seriously than geckothegeek
You wrote it with your own words, then that means you know the answer to his question. Why twist it around? He's just asking a what happens to the sun, not where he can find the answer.
It seems that all what you are doing is juggling around as to not commit to anything you could say so it won't be used against you, so instead you point to the wiki, but when someone use the arguments in the wiki against you and then you say "Yeah, but that's what the wiki says, not me" or "thee wiki is quite outdated". Is just a full circle of not commiting to anything.
-
You wrote it with your own words, then that means you know the answer to his question. Why twist it around? He's just asking a what happens to the sun, not where he can find the answer.
Sorry, we don't make exceptions for lazy people. If we start re-explaining the FAQ to one person, then everyone else will rush here with already-answered questions. There's a reason virtually every subject in the modern world comes with an FAQ, and there's always a drove of entitled assholes who think they don't need to read it. I have zero sympathy for these sort of snowflakes.
but when someone use the arguments in the wiki against you and then you say "Yeah, but that's what the wiki says, not me" or "thee wiki is quite outdated". Is just a full circle of not commiting to anything.
I just ran a search for the words "wiki" and "outdated" on my own posts. I only found one, in which I'm calling someone else's Wiki outdated. Naturally, this post is now going to become the second result for future searches. I'm a big fan of correcting the Wiki when it's wrong (although I'm sure some will be eager to tell you that sometimes I take my sweet time to get round to it)
-
The wiki doesn't answer to this particular question, the distance between the sun and the earth, which is why I started this thread in the first place.
Boodidlie: according to the theory upon which this forum has been founded to begin with, the sun doesn't really disappear when it sets, it merely goes too far to be seen.
-
SexWarrior: as you clearly are a supporter of the flat theory and follow this thread, could you please confirm, question or deny İntikam's claim that the dome prevents us from doing proper measurements – at least those that are based on the assumption that the light travels in straight paths? (I know that this is not exactly a correct assumption because of reflection and refraction, but I believe that concerning this particular topic it is approximately good enough.)
-
The wiki doesn't answer to this particular question, the distance between the sun and the earth, which is why I started this thread in the first place.
http://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
SexWarrior: as you clearly are a supporter of the flat theory and follow this thread, could you please confirm, question or deny İntikam's claim that the dome prevents us from doing proper measurements – at least those that are based on the assumption that the light travels in straight paths? (I know that this is not exactly a correct assumption because of reflection and refraction, but I believe that concerning this particular topic it is approximately good enough.)
I would start off by warning you about taking Intikam too seriously: he believes he's immortal and that the Illuminati time travellers are out to get him.
With that out of the way, I personally do not believe in a dome/firmament, so naturally I would deny his assertion.
-
http://wiki.tfes.org/Sun
Yes, it says "approximately 3000 miles", which, if true, could be anything from 2500 to 3499 miles. The uncertainty with this value is 16,7 %. Since the procedure is pretty simple, doesn't it bother that there isn't anything more accurate?
With that out of the way, I personally do not believe in a dome/firmament, so naturally I would deny his assertion.
Thanks for the answer. So, the light should travel on straight paths (at least close enough) like in the diagram on the first post of this thread: so calculations should indeed be easy.
The problem is that in the diagram there are two methods to calculate the distance, one based on the apparent size and one based on the apparent height: and these two give very different answers.
-
Well let's see now .... according to the RE ....
the Sun disappears below the horizon at a west Sunset because the Earth is rotating away from the Sun .... twill arise in the East hours later
WOW !!! now how difficult was that ?? ... truth indeed has an element of simplicity to it .... no wiki needed
-
Yes, it says "approximately 3000 miles", which, if true, could be anything from 2500 to 3499 miles. The uncertainty with this value is 16,7 %. Since the procedure is pretty simple, doesn't it bother that there isn't anything more accurate?
You have a peculiar idea of "approximately". But no, given that the height fluctuates, it doesn't bother me.
So, the light should travel on straight paths (at least close enough)
Absolutely not. Electromagnetic acceleration applies.
-
So, the light should travel on straight paths (at least close enough)
Absolutely not. Electromagnetic acceleration applies.
Oh. I haven't heard that one before.
Electromagnetic acceleration? Is that supposed to change the speed, direction or magnitude of light, or several of these?
On the other hand: if light doesn't travel in straight paths to begin with, then how can "ships not disappearing" be an evidence of anything, as is claimed elsewhere?
EDIT: Actually, the more I think of it the more weird it sounds. After all, the most common argument I ever see for a flat earth is that it looks flat. That when you stand on the shoreline or on a hill or put a balloon with a camera up to the sky, you don't see the curvature. But what's the point in it? The whole concept of "things looking like they are" is based on the assumption that light travels on straight paths. And now you tell me that it absolutely isn't so.
Could someone remind me, what was the problem with the globe in the first place?