. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
My hypotheses are the followings:
1) (RE or FE) Equator is a circle with a radius of 3958 miles
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Great work, bur I must take issue on one point.
On the only FE maps we have the Equator is a circle with the radius being the distance from the Equator to the North Pole.
This is well documented as very close to 10,000 km or 6214 miles.
The original definition of the metre was (Equator to the North Pole distance on the longitude through Paris)/10,000,000,
This probably won't affect the general shape of what you have done.
The TFES Wiki essential agrees with this, as in Finding your Latitude and Longitude
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the flat earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the earth's latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.
That's why 0° N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90° N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45 North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45° in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.
Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
This "one degree per 69.5 miles" makes the Equator to North Pole distance 6,255 miles - pretty close.
Of course, this exposes a paradox for the Flat Earth Theory!
This figure for the Equator radius makes the circumference of the Equator Circle 39044 miles, but the actual circumference of the earth is about 24,900 miles!
But I can't get any Flat Earther to actually accept it. The usual answer is "Have you personally measured the circumference of the Equator?" Well, no!
Indeed, the sun distance is even an input for my calculations, here it is (no comparison with RE because this make no sense!) :
(http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/657945DistancesunFE.png)
And yes, you are right, it is quite easy to provide the angular diameter of the sun through the day (still fall/spring equinoxes, on the equator), here it is, with comparison with average RE angular diameter of the sun (I am actually too busy to provide the actual angular diameter of the sun in RE, but it varies between 0.5244° and 0.5422° through the year, so I took 0.535°, which is close to the actual angular diameter of the sun during equinoxes and it is only for comparison purpose)
(http://img4.hostingpics.net/pics/910635Angulardiameter.png)
You can clearly see that the sun should appears more than 3 times bigger at noon compared with sunset or sunrise. But I read some crap explaining a magnification effect...
What I actually find kind of sad here, is that with the hypothesis of the flat earth, it would be quite easy to provide some mathematical laws (for refraction or magnification for example as it is the subject here, but also many other topics) to explain the observation. Of course these would be just made-up laws to correct the way things should be (in FE theory) and made them appears to be like in the observations (just a reverse work compared with what I provided here). But of course, asking people with not even a little of scientific background to provide such a thing is probably overestimating them...
And yes, I understand that any proof that the Earth is not flat will no be taken as it is by all flat earthers here (I have read quite a lot before starting posting). However, for some weird reasons this site provide me some fun and also if some "undecided" people come here to find the truth, maybe this post as well as all others proving the earth is not flat, will help them not believing the Earth is flat, and this would be a little win for human kind!
Yes, "some crap explaining a magnification effect..." describes pretty well this bit: Magnification and Shrinking
Q: If the sun is disappearing to perspective, shouldn't it get smaller as it recedes?
Wasn't 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 atmolayer.
I have posted some of my own photos on the moon's angular size staying almost constant, as in:
Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect" « Reply #40 on: June 08, 2016, 05:27:52 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.msg98411#msg98411)
Re: Size of the Sun and the "Known Magnification Effect" « Reply #58 on: June 15, 2016, 11:50:39 AM » (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5058.msg98892#msg98892)
One reason I post is to give new-comers another explanation. Some new-comers, like yourself, clearly don't need it.
What riles me is they will not tackle these "simple" issues that we can so easily observe.
Keep trying.
DON'T BE TOO HARD ON YOURSELVES, PEOPLE! DON'T MAKE SIMPLE THINGS DIFFICULT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DRAW OR ANALYZE IT YOURSELF IN KNOWING IF THE SUN IS 93M AWAY FROM EARTH OR IF IT IS THAT BIG (AND ALSO NOT MOVING? :)) ANYWAY, JUST WATCH THIS VIDEO, AND DON'T LET YOURSELF BE CONFUSED AND DECEIVED BY SOME PEOPLE HERE TRYING TO USE GRAPHS AND LINES, BUT WITH INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE, EMPIRICAL DATA AND LOGICAL REASONING/EXPLANATION.
ENJOY WATCHING, LEARN, KNOW AND ASK QUESTIONS, OR BETTER BE ENTICED TO SEEK THE TRUTH. BE A TRUTH SEEKER THEN... .. :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHckG3o6NQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPHckG3o6NQ)
It is very hard getting all the details of what angles are being given when he just races through it in Autocad. I think he's simply trying to skite at how wonderful he is at using Autocad.
So, maybe you could go through the video are get the figures he is using. We need to know:
- The Latitude and Longitude of each location.
- The exact time at which the sun elevations are given.
- The solar noon in each location.
I ask for these because he claims that Cape Town and Budapest are at the longitude (they are, close enough), yet he has the solar noon is an hour different. That is not possible. If you look carefully you will find that he is quite wrong.
I have worked through the figures, but haven't had time finish the diagram yet. No, not in Autocad, just lowly Corel draw.
But the bottom line is the video is wrong!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFhKpYJZeoM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFhKpYJZeoM)
YOU'RE LUCKY TO KNOW THESE IN YOUR LIFE TIME... AT LEAST YOU CAN HAVE THIS RARE CHANCE TO KNOW SOMETHING WORTH KNOWING! :)
How many times does this have to be answered? It's bunkum.
Again, if you summarise the main points I will tackle it them, but rest assured, it's wrong!