"Unprincipled and disrespective"
While some were indeed rude to you, others, at least myself, did not intend to be rude. In fact, you elected to ignore me because I said you shouldn't ignore people for having different opinions in the debate forum. One could even stretch to say that I claimed your actions to be in and of themselves, unprincipled. And yet I found myself promptly ignored, which I can say is disrespectful to both myself, and the debate forum.
Aside from that, you say Intikam means revenge. You signed on with that name, with suggests either your presence itself is vindictive in nature, or that you intended to be terribly rude to anyone here who slighted you. The latter, of course, being the worst since it implies you came here with the intent (retaliatory or not) to be disrespectful to those of us here.
Don't condemn us for not adhering to principles you yourself never intended to follow.
"Unprincipled and disrespective"
While some were indeed rude to you, others, at least myself, did not intend to be rude. In fact, you elected to ignore me because I said you shouldn't ignore people for having different opinions in the debate forum. One could even stretch to say that I claimed your actions to be in and of themselves, unprincipled. And yet I found myself promptly ignored, which I can say is disrespectful to both myself, and the debate forum.
Aside from that, you say Intikam means revenge. You signed on with that name, with suggests either your presence itself is vindictive in nature, or that you intended to be terribly rude to anyone here who slighted you. The latter, of course, being the worst since it implies you came here with the intent (retaliatory or not) to be disrespectful to those of us here.
Don't condemn us for not adhering to principles you yourself never intended to follow.
I'm getting to risk with unignore you. Because when i do that, the person unignored usually triying to do aggressive something. When i see you are persistently writing something, i chosed to "show me the post" now, because as you see that actually i have not a great problem with you, and see you are right a bit. But not completely. I didn't ignored you but respect but i have a right to wait to respect to my decisions. Actually you did a critism, but when you do that, you said a lie that i ignored that only caused by they are rounders. This is not true. I give points to everyone on my mind, and decide about him good or bad. There is a lot of factor effects the decide and to be a rounder just one of them. To be a rounder don't cause to be ignored. To be ignored need at least one of the following except to be a rounder, saying lie, disrespecting, quote instead of anyone, wantonness, rudeness, etc. I ignored you not for others but not for only you are a rounder. It's caused by you said "lie" when you said that i ignored them for they are rounders. No, i did not ignored for they are rounders, its caused by a few reasons with they are be rounders. Now you learned why. hereafter, I hope you respect to my decisions .
My expectation is you talk about the issue, not about my decisions.
Hello!...
Is there any rounder has self-confident? :D
Hello!...
Is there any rounder has self-confident? :D
Yes, but you ignored them all...
As for your videos:
Congratulations, you have successfully proven that clouds/smog/refraction can obscure the sun, especially very close to the horizon. Get a decent filter to block the glare, then try again on a clear day.
Revenge (intikam) delayes , but does not give up .
Revenge (intikam) delayes , but does not give up .
Does that mean your flat earth map is just delayed? Because it sure seems like you gave up...
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%20%2009.30%2048xZoom_zpscotyaspw.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2010.00%2048xZoom_zps77dhvy0p.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2011.00%2048xZoom_zpspfb3vsiz.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2012.00%2048xZoom_zpsb3rppgyf.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2013.00%2048xZoom_zpsfpcdnvky.jpg) | |||||||
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2014.00%2048xZoom_zps1cshxmbj.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2015.00%2048xZoom_zpsgk51nozr.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2017.00%2048xZoom_zps3wayd4qo.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2018.00%2048xZoom_zpsvaiszxhy.jpg) | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sun%20Size/20160711%20-%20Sun%2019.00%2048xZoom_zpsewsphkoz.jpg) |
Time | Relative Width % | Relative Height % | ||
09:00 | 100% | 100% | ||
10:00 | 100% | 100% | ||
11:00 | 99% | 100% | ||
12:00 | 99% | 99% | ||
13:00 | 100% | 100% | ||
15:00 | 100% | 100% | ||
16:00 | 100% | 100% | ||
17:00 | 100% | 100% | ||
18:00 | 100% | 100% | ||
19:00 | 100% | 96% |
Magnification of the Sun at Sunset
Q. If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
A. The sun remains the same size as it recedes into the distance due to a known magnification effect caused by the intense rays of light passing through the strata of the atmosphere.
Hey Inti’
I watched that video with the man with the patronising voice, Totes & Rabinoz have the small sun bit covered but I noticed this image
Hey Inti’
I watched that video with the man with the patronising voice, Totes & Rabinoz have the small sun bit covered but I noticed this image
You haven't known condescension or patronizing until you've watched some of these dweeb youtubers giggle through a flat earth debunk using things like Nasa's kindergarten level websites as evidence.
Hey Inti’
I watched that video with the man with the patronising voice, Totes & Rabinoz have the small sun bit covered but I noticed this image
(http://)
and listened to his argument.
This has been comprehensively covered in http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3106.20 “How clouds once again prove flat earth theory (not), If you would like to find out more there is a good site with explanations of how perspective can trick the eye here http://www.atoptics.co.uk/fz946.htm scroll down the page to get the full effect.
The sun is part of a reflection, a daemon in a figure of a screen that show us a sun which we don't know what exactly this sun.
the sun could be the size of an ant. but the most important thing is that everybody has a distinguish frequency his sighting works on,
and he see a big screen 40-50 meters ahead of him and what he sees is a reflection of the agenda and the will of the human beings in this world.
the sun is just a reflection of our mind, it could rise it could get down it could blown away its all about our wishes of the world.
This a daemon which erected on our sighting which show us the sun, but it is only a reflection, a "mirage" not a real thing.
"Unprincipled and disrespective"
While some were indeed rude to you, others, at least myself, did not intend to be rude. In fact, you elected to ignore me because I said you shouldn't ignore people for having different opinions in the debate forum. One could even stretch to say that I claimed your actions to be in and of themselves, unprincipled. And yet I found myself promptly ignored, which I can say is disrespectful to both myself, and the debate forum.
Aside from that, you say Intikam means revenge. You signed on with that name, with suggests either your presence itself is vindictive in nature, or that you intended to be terribly rude to anyone here who slighted you. The latter, of course, being the worst since it implies you came here with the intent (retaliatory or not) to be disrespectful to those of us here.
Don't condemn us for not adhering to principles you yourself never intended to follow.
My last IQ number was only 135 and that was several years ago.That number is entirely useless unless you state the scale (standard deviation). If you lack the knowledge to properly articulate yourself, your intelligence will not serve you at all.
Rude of me, apologies.
But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.
Rude of me, apologies.
But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.
I mean the laser effect and the sun effect have no difference with regard to "where they are really exist.".
To understand what i mean lets look to first image:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/b5a9a48196.png)
Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection points of laser beams"
Now lets look the second one:
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5191.0;attach=794;image)
The sun is placed on where the intersection points of sunlight rays.
In my opinion there is no difference.
I don't think about you are a rude. You are not. I think it was a misunderstanding between us, i'm sorry about it. As you know that i have no so good english caused by it is hard to find a good and reliable teacher in Istanbul to teach good and practical english. :)
Rude of me, apologies.
But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.
I mean the laser effect and the sun effect have no difference with regard to "where they are really exist.".
To understand what i mean lets look to first image:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/b5a9a48196.png)
Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection points of laser beams"
The sun is placed on where the intersection points of sunlight rays.
In my opinion there is no difference.
Rude of me, apologies.
But to be honest, you didn't want to debate the first bit and I honestly didn't understand your point about the lasers.
I mean the laser effect and the sun effect have no difference with regard to "where they are really exist.".
To understand what i mean lets look to first image:
(https://i.imgsafe.org/b5a9a48196.png)
Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection points of laser beams"
Now lets look the second one:
(http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5191.0;attach=794;image)
The sun is placed on where the intersection points of sunlight rays.
In my opinion there is no difference.
I don't think about you are a rude. You are not. I think it was a misunderstanding between us, i'm sorry about it. As you know that i have no so good english caused by it is hard to find a good and reliable teacher in Istanbul to teach good and practical english. :)
Hi,
When you say "Where is the source of the laser beam? The point of which i marked with red circle, is'int it? "The source of beams placed where the intersection points of laser beams"
No it isn't, the lasers are behind the photographer (see the green writing on the page), so the beams fan out towards you and then shrink away from you, to show that it is just a perspective effect.
Hi Inti’
Try this;
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)
When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.
Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.
Hi Inti’
Try this;
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)
When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.
Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.
human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.
Hi Inti’
Try this;
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)
When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.
Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.
human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.
No, it does get tricked!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg
Hi Inti’
Try this;
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)
When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.
Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.
human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.
No, it does get tricked!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg
Hi Inti’
Try this;
You have 3 clouds, a,b, & c.(see sunrays1)
When you see the shadow from “a” it reaches the ground between you and the sun.
“b” & “c” are between you and the sun but their shadows caused by the parallel rays’ land behind you, if they were slightly to the left and right of “a” what the eye would see would be…(sunrays 2)
The sun rays you see are the gaps made by parallel light making shadows.
Better explained @
http://www.atoptics.co.uk/atoptics/rayform.htm.
human brain is more intelligent than your estimate.
No, it does get tricked!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion#/media/File:Grey_square_optical_illusion_proof2.svg
Do you know why do we say the sun is about 3.000 miles altitude?
We are calculating an angle from city A and another angle from city B. Then we calculate the distances around the cities. So the distance and the size of the sun occurs. It is same method with see of the two eyes.
no wrong in our eyes , and in our measurements.
Do you know why do we say the sun is about 3.000 miles altitude?
We are calculating an angle from city A and another angle from city B. Then we calculate the distances around the cities. So the distance and the size of the sun occurs. It is same method with see of the two eyes.
no wrong in our eyes , and in our measurements.
Please oh please, show us those calculations. Make sure you use at least 3 cities. :)
(Yes, I know he is ignoring me. Other flat earthers are welcome to try as well.)
| Latitude | Ground Distance | Sun Elev | Sun Height |
30.0° | 2,071 miles | 60.0° | 3,587 miles |
45.0° | 3,107 miles | 45.0° | 3,107 miles |
60.0° | 4,142 miles | 30.0° | 2,392 miles |
75.0° | 5,178 miles | 15.0° | 1,387 miles |
Do you know why do we say the sun is about 3.000 miles altitude?
We are calculating an angle from city A and another angle from city B. Then we calculate the distances around the cities. So the distance and the size of the sun occurs. It is same method with see of the two eyes.
no wrong in our eyes , and in our measurements.
Please oh please, show us those calculations. Make sure you use at least 3 cities. :)
(Yes, I know he is ignoring me. Other flat earthers are welcome to try as well.)
I clear you two Temporary ignore. If you divide my conversation again, then I'll show nomercy to ignoring you again.
This working done about 6 months - 1 years ago. So probably had a bit mistake. But if i do it again nowadays i'm sure i'll do it better.
(http://i.imgsafe.org/4313732cec.jpg)
This is a Turkish working shows the method.
<tiny table removed>
These are some calculations.
And the last one is the result as kilometres.
(http://i.imgsafe.org/4325bc6389.png)
As you see that i calculated it about 5.500 kilometres. If we changes to miles it converts to 3417.5 miles.
If you say that this calculation not reliable, so we can calculate it online by step by step.
This calculation made with method the earth pre accepted as a curve. There was a working as the earth pre accepted as flat but the result is not so different. It doesn't make a big sence if the chosen cities are not so far.
Here is the problem: the math assumes the sun is directly between the two cities. However, both cities (Ankara and Istanbul) are North of the Tropic of Cancer, so it is impossible for the sun to ever be between them.
You need to take into account both the sun's azimuth and altitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuth). Your current calculations only take into account the sun's altitude.His method could work, but only at one specific time of day: whenever it happens to be that an observer at the city farthest from the sun is looking directly at both the sun and the other city. Only at that moment do the angles from earth to the sun form a triangle in the vertical plane.
Here is the problem: the math assumes the sun is directly between the two cities. However, both cities (Ankara and Istanbul) are North of the Tropic of Cancer, so it is impossible for the sun to ever be between them.
I don't think that's the true problem. He has numbers which appear to be time stamps in column B. In the morning he has angles greater than 90 degrees for angle "a", which means the math should get him good lengths for legs X and Y. The (first) problem is, lengths X and Y are not the sun's height, they are the distance at an angle. It is easy enough to calculate height from those numbers, but he didn't finish it. The bigger problem is that, as you mention:QuoteYou need to take into account both the sun's azimuth and altitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuth). Your current calculations only take into account the sun's altitude.His method could work, but only at one specific time of day: whenever it happens to be that an observer at the city farthest from the sun is looking directly at both the sun and the other city. Only at that moment do the angles from earth to the sun form a triangle in the vertical plane.
Careful, now: if you quote me you'll find yourself back on the Naughty List!
Do with that what you will.
In another thread, I did these calculations from 5 cities, in three pairs.
First, assuming the earth is flat, and calculating the sun's height - and get no consistence.
Then using Eratosthenes' method to calculate the earth's circumference - this time with quite good consistency.
here is the link: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « Reply #30 on: Today at 02:07:06 AM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4887.msg102041#msg102041)
I believe that calculation is a lie. So how we calculate it true for flat and wrong for round.
In another thread, I did these calculations from 5 cities, in three pairs.
First, assuming the earth is flat, and calculating the sun's height - and get no consistence.
Then using Eratosthenes' method to calculate the earth's circumference - this time with quite good consistency.
here is the link: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « Reply #30 on: Today at 02:07:06 AM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4887.msg102041#msg102041)
In another thread, I did these calculations from 5 cities, in three pairs.
First, assuming the earth is flat, and calculating the sun's height - and get no consistence.
Then using Eratosthenes' method to calculate the earth's circumference - this time with quite good consistency.
here is the link: The Sun's height from the method and distances in "the Wiki". « Reply #30 on: Today at 02:07:06 AM » (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4887.msg102041#msg102041)
How did you get off the list and how did George make it on the list with all his vowels intact?
Hello everybody,
After a short holliday i was at, we are together with the reality again.
Today we'll see how is the sun moving away and how is the popular science / fake astronomy a tomfool.
These images from a video while sun is setting.
This is the first one.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/33e214abc1.png)
A few minutes or hours later. (We don't know what the video x speed) Same sun and same location.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/33e7500f6f.png)
We see the sun as significant shrunken. Compare two suns before sunset and while sunsetting.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/33edfe1492.png)
I wonder which idiotly science will try to explain this situation with what? ;D
The video on the below you can find out these pictures on it.
https://youtu.be/vdRvOQAa9ek
Hello everybody,
After a short holliday i was at, we are together with the reality again.
Today we'll see how is the sun moving away and how is the popular science / fake astronomy a tomfool.
These images from a video while sun is setting.
This is the first one.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/33e214abc1.png)
A few minutes or hours later. (We don't know what the video x speed) Same sun and same location.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/33e7500f6f.png)
We see the sun as significant shrunken. Compare two suns before sunset and while sunsetting.
(https://i.imgsafe.org/33edfe1492.png)
I wonder which idiotly science will try to explain this situation with what? ;D
The video on the below you can find out these pictures on it.
https://youtu.be/vdRvOQAa9ek
Intikam... broken links... there are 3 of them in your first post ... is this just me... ??
Where are the videos? they're all gone.
Why can't the GEs and FEs calculations be based on empirical data, info that have been taken or seen from real time observations, not on theory or assumptions.
Math calculation should only follow from given empirical data. We don't have to assume that the earth is a globe at the start. How can one prove or get the correct sun's distance if the initial assumption is a global earth.
Where are the videos? they're all gone. Why can't the GEs and FEs calculations be based on empirical data, info that have been taken or seen from real time observations, not on theory or assumptions. Math calculation should only follow from given empirical data. We don't have to assume that the earth is a globe at the start. How can one prove or get the correct sun's distance if the initial assumption is a global earth. So i think it's better to base math calculation on something observed in real time like the sun rays' angle, etc.. be a truth seeker... :)