The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Geoleob on November 06, 2017, 04:07:10 AM
-
How far from earth is the sun and also far from earth is the moon. I have conflicting numbers on both of these. Thanks for any help
-
How far from earth is the sun and also far from earth is the moon. I have conflicting numbers on both of these. Thanks for any help
"Standard" FE puts both at about 3000 miles up.
-
How far from earth is the sun and also far from earth is the moon. I have conflicting numbers on both of these. Thanks for any help
Surely for either measurement to be true would involve it being personally measured would it not?
If the distance between Paris and New York is not known (Tom Bishop) then the distance to any celestial bodies can only be guessed at???
-
The reason you have conflicting values is that there is no consistent flat earth model that can give you a single distance.
If you take the Eratosthenes experiment it will give you one value for the distance to the sun if you assume a flat earth, but if you then repeat it with a different distance between observers, you get a different value.
However, if you assume the earth is round, you get consistent values for the radius of earth no matter how far apart your observers.
This is convincing evidence that the round earth model fits the data better.
-
If you take the Eratosthenes experiment it will give you one value for the distance to the sun if you assume a flat earth, but if you then repeat it with a different distance between observers, you get a different value.
However, if you assume the earth is round, you get consistent values for the radius of earth no matter how far apart your observers.
Do you have any evidence of that assertion?
-
Do you accept the notion of latitude or not? I still haven't gotten a clear answer on that.
My assertion is that flat earth combined with multiple Eratosthenes observers gives conflicting results:
The definition of nautical mile clearly indicates that if you go 60 nautical miles north or south, the sun will be 1 degree higher or lower in the sky at a given time.
So, if you go 60 (nautical) miles north and have a 1 degree angle difference, assuming a flat earth you get a distance to the sun of
60 nautical miles/tan(1 degree) = 3437 nautical miles.
If you go 120 nautical miles north from your directly-under-sun observer, you see a 2 degree angle difference. Assuming a flat earth, you get a distance to the sun of 3436 nautical miles.
If you go 1200 nautical miles north from your directly-under-sun observer, you see a 20 degree angle difference. Assuming a flat earth, you get a distance to the sun of 3296 nautical miles.
If you go 2400 nautical miles north, you see 40 degrees difference to the sun, and you get a distance of 2860 nautical miles.
These values are inconsistent with each other, so QED.
Either you have to debate the definition of nautical mile, the existence of latitude, or your flat earth model is wrong.
The other part of my assertion is that if you assume a round earth you get consistent values:
if you do these same calculations for the radius of the earth assuming a very distant sun, you get the following values for the radius of the earth:
1 degree of latitude:
1 degree is 0.0174533 radians, so 60 nautical miles / 0.0174533 = 3438 nautical miles.
2 degrees is 0.0349066, so 120 nautical miles / 0.0349066 = 3438 nautical miles.
20 degrees is .349066 radians, so 1200 nautical miles / .349066 = 3438 nautical miles.
These values are consistent with each other. QED again.
-
So your assertion is not based on any kind of evidence, but hypothesis and some kind of logic. Got it.
-
So your assertion is not based on any kind of evidence, but hypothesis and some kind of logic. Got it.
Actually it's based on the definition of the two terms as they work and function in every day life for sailors and more across the globe. You have your usual "common everyday experience isn't evidence" rhetoric. It's honestly starting to be kind of amusing watching you demand evidence for all this. Shall we debate whether clouds are made of water vapor next? Everyone says they are, but where's the studies showing it?
-
Latitude measurements are not hypothesis, they have been used by navigators for millenia.
The definition of the nautical mile is not a hypothesis, it's a definition.
What hypothesis do you think I'm extrapolating from?
The Eratosthenes experiment is well understood and DOES NOT DECIDE BETWEEN FLAT EARTH AND ROUND EARTH. Only if you look at more than one observation does it favor round earth.
I'd really like to answer you, I just don't understand what you're looking for.
-
So your assertion is not based on any kind of evidence, but hypothesis and some kind of logic. Got it.
We note that you have never provided any evidence based on current measurements and observations.
-
So your assertion is not based on any kind of evidence, but hypothesis and some kind of logic. Got it.
Actually it's based on the definition of the two terms as they work and function in every day life for sailors and more across the globe. You have your usual "common everyday experience isn't evidence" rhetoric. It's honestly starting to be kind of amusing watching you demand evidence for all this. Shall we debate whether clouds are made of water vapor next? Everyone says they are, but where's the studies showing it?
Douglips is arguing that if certain experiments are performed, then a result will be seen that supports the Round Earth model.
When asked if there is any evidence for that, Douglips next seems to affirm that his assertions are based on hypothesis and logic and definitions and etc.
You have made arguments that navigators would have noticed what the sun does, but no further evidence has been provided except this wild assertion. If you were to reasearch how navigators used to navigate you will find that navigators in antiquity have most commonly used the North Star for determining their latitude, not the sun, and this is all very easily researchable.
Asking for real evidence for any of this is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is continuing to repeat "common knowledge" endlessly while refusing to actually show evidence that the knowledge should be accepted.
-
The reason you have conflicting values is that there is no consistent flat earth model that can give you a single distance.
If you take the Eratosthenes experiment it will give you one value for the distance to the sun if you assume a flat earth, but if you then repeat it with a different distance between observers, you get a different value.
Are you sure about that? I don't think that's true. The estimate for the radius of the Round Earth (assuming that the sun is VERY far away) ought to be a valid estimate for the distance to the sun if the radius of the Earth is VERY large (or infinite...ie Flat).
I've always assumed that the 3,000 miles used as the altitude of the FET sun came from a mis-reading of Eratosthenes - but he calculated a value of around 4,500 miles - and modern recreations of his experiment come up with values within 30 miles of the true figure of 3,950 miles.
If FE'ers were smart they'd have adjusted their claimed number to 4,000 miles because that's something you could demonstrate today...it's easy enough to prove that 3,000 miles is far too low - even with no better data than Eratosthenes had available.
-
So your assertion is not based on any kind of evidence, but hypothesis and some kind of logic. Got it.
Actually it's based on the definition of the two terms as they work and function in every day life for sailors and more across the globe. You have your usual "common everyday experience isn't evidence" rhetoric. It's honestly starting to be kind of amusing watching you demand evidence for all this. Shall we debate whether clouds are made of water vapor next? Everyone says they are, but where's the studies showing it?
The majority of navigation now uses GPS.
Douglips is arguing that if certain experiments are performed, then a result will be seen that supports the Round Earth model.
When asked if there is any evidence for that, Douglips next seems to affirm that his assertions are based on hypothesis and logic and definitions and etc.
You have made arguments that navigators would have noticed what the sun does, but no further evidence has been provided except this wild assertion. If you were to reasearch how navigators used to navigate you will find that navigators in antiquity have most commonly used the North Star for determining their latitude, not the sun, and this is all very easily researchable.
Asking for real evidence for any of this is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is continuing to repeat "common knowledge" endlessly while refusing to actually show evidence that the knowledge should be accepted.
-
You have made arguments that navigators would have noticed what the sun does, but no further evidence has been provided except this wild assertion. If you were to reasearch how navigators used to navigate you will find that navigators in antiquity have most commonly used the North Star for determining their latitude, not the sun, and this is all very easily researchable.
Excellent! "Very easily researchable" is right in my wheelhouse.
In 1862, it was required that midshipmen be able to measure latitude off of the sun, the moon, AND the stars:
Google Books: The Queen's Regulations and the Admiralty Instructions for the Government of Her Majesty's Naval Service - 1862 (https://books.google.com/books?id=SjIWAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA62&dq=royal+navy+latitude+sextant+measurement&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjM9OGn1LnXAhWJllQKHQ2aDkQQ6AEIPjAE#v=onepage&q=royal%20navy%20latitude%20sextant%20measurement&f=false)
The Complete Mathematical and General Navigation Tables - 1838 (https://books.google.com/books?id=l5IAAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA316&dq=royal+navy+latitude+sextant+sun&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjPns6c1rnXAhUjw1QKHT2KB50Q6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=royal%20navy%20latitude%20sextant%20sun&f=false)
Includes:
Starting on page 392, how to find latitude from observations of:
- the north star
- the sun
- the moon
- Any two known stars
- timing the sun crossing the horizon (i.e. the time between the first edge of the sun appearing to the last edge of the sun appearing)
Page 468:
- how to figure longitude from observations of the sun with a sextant and a chronometer, given your current latitude (SEE ABOVE).
Here's a similar book from 1805:
A Complete Collection of Tables for Navigation and Nautical Astronomy (https://books.google.com/books?id=YTohAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=navigation+tables&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiv5Pik2bnXAhUS9mMKHcErAMEQ6AEINDAC#v=onepage&q=navigation%20tables&f=false)
Down near the end of this book in the section for "problems", onpage 30 of that section is Problem VII: How to find latitude by measuring the altitude of the sun near noon.
The next problem is how to calculate latitude by observing the altitude of the sun at two times and timing the interval between them.
This gives us over 200 years of sailors computing latitudes, and not one of them ever saying "Gee, the reading I got by the sun didn't match with the reading I got from the North Star."
-
The reason you have conflicting values is that there is no consistent flat earth model that can give you a single distance.
If you take the Eratosthenes experiment it will give you one value for the distance to the sun if you assume a flat earth, but if you then repeat it with a different distance between observers, you get a different value.
Are you sure about that? I don't think that's true. The estimate for the radius of the Round Earth (assuming that the sun is VERY far away) ought to be a valid estimate for the distance to the sun if the radius of the Earth is VERY large (or infinite...ie Flat).
I think you misread my post. I'm saying the following:
- The Eratosthenes experiment can be interpreted in AT LEAST two different ways: One in which you assume the sun is near-infinitely far away and the earth is a sphere, and one in which you assume the earth is flat and the distance to the sun is relatively small and finite.
- IF YOU ASSUME THE FLAT EARTH and try to calculate the distance to the sun
- IF YOU ASSUME THE ROUND EARTH and try to calculate the radius of the earth
Either way will give you a similar number. However, if you do this experiment with multiple observers at different distances, that's where you get inconsistent numbers if you assume the flat earth model.
I did all the math in my post for both models, did I screw it up?
-
Asking for real evidence for any of this is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is continuing to repeat "common knowledge" endlessly while refusing to actually show evidence that the knowledge should be accepted.
I totally agree! That is why I've been trying to get a handle on what the flat earth view of latitude and longitude is.
The first time I asked that in Q&A it quickly devolved due to round earthers discussing other unrelated aspects like what flat earth maps may or may not be correct.
I don't care about flat earth maps. I care if you agree about what latitude and longitude is, because that is something that has been used by navigators for centuries and if you agree what it is then I can have a reasoned discussion about some of these other issues.
I've started a new thread and RESPECTFULLY ASK ROUND EARTHERS TO HOLD THEIR PEACE:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=7524.0
-
Hello!
Just a wild thought with the distance of the sun from the earth...
If we follow this:
https://sunearthday.nasa.gov/2007/materials/solar_pizza.pdf
And accept that the sun is more than a hundred times bigger than the earth at 93 million miles away... Earth would only cast a very small footprint for its shadow, right?
Why are we then experiencing totally dark skies at night?
Shouldn't our night skies be mostly bright?
-
Get a lamp. And a football (soccer ball, for you Americans).
Turn on lamp. Hold football some distance from lamp.
Note that the side of the football facing away from the lamp is dark (assuming no other light source).
That's night.
As the football (earth) rotates the dark part comes round so that part is lit up by the lamp (sun).
That's day.
-
Get a lamp. And a football (soccer ball, for you Americans).
Turn on lamp. Hold football some distance from lamp.
Note that the side of the football facing away from the lamp is dark (assuming no other light source).
That's night.
As the football (earth) rotates the dark part comes round so that part is lit up by the lamp (sun).
That's day.
Sorry... But I think you got me all wrong!
I’m not referring to the surface of the earth being hit by the sun.
But rather on the SKIES during night time.
Okay, I have a lamp. And a football (soccer ball, for the Americans), inside a room.
Turned the on lamp. And the room is fully lit.
Held the football some distance from lamp(sun).
Saw that the wall on the dark side of the football (earth), has the ball’s shadow.
Brought the ball closer to the lamp, and it created a dark ambiance on the other side room but not pitch-black. And less than half of the room is dark.
Though the ball is bigger than the lamp in this experiment, the lamp still threw wider light that escaped beyond the ball’s circumference. Thus still, illuminating majority of the room.
Took instead a cellphone’s flashlight to illuminate about eighty percent of the ball’s surface... And viola!!! I was able to control the light not to leak beyond the ball’s circumference and making the other side of the room pitch-black!
Now, what do we make out of this???
Is our sun rather smaller and closer?
-
Though the ball is bigger than the lamp in this experiment, the lamp still threw wider light that escaped beyond the ball’s circumference. Thus still, illuminating majority of the room.
Yes, of course. Just as the sun does. The sun is a sphere (like the earth!) and its light shines out in all directions. And yes it does hit our atmosphere and scatters. That's why when the sun has set it isn't immediately completely dark, so we get twilight. If we had no atmosphere then it would pretty much get immediately dark as soon as the sun sets, although we wouldn't be alive to witness that!
(https://icons.wxug.com/data/wximagenew/p/phr0g/1.jpg)
But remember the atmosphere is, relative to the size of the earth, a thin layer. So when the surface of the earth has moved far enough round away from the sun it and the atmosphere is dark. If you do the experiment I suggested above in a room then yes, of course the lamp will illuminate the walls and bounce off them which is why the walls are lit. In the solar system there's not much for that light to bounce off so that light just escapes off into space. That light does bounce off some things of course like the moon and other planets, that's why we can see them. It is only that reflected light we see at night - and the stars, but those are other suns which shine with their own light.
-
Get a lamp. And a football (soccer ball, for you Americans).
Turn on lamp. Hold football some distance from lamp.
Note that the side of the football facing away from the lamp is dark (assuming no other light source).
That's night.
As the football (earth) rotates the dark part comes round so that part is lit up by the lamp (sun).
That's day.
Sorry... But I think you got me all wrong!
I’m not referring to the surface of the earth being hit by the sun.
But rather on the SKIES during night time.
Okay, I have a lamp. And a football (soccer ball, for the Americans), inside a room.
Turned the on lamp. And the room is fully lit.
Held the football some distance from lamp(sun).
Saw that the wall on the dark side of the football (earth), has the ball’s shadow.
Brought the ball closer to the lamp, and it created a dark ambiance on the other side room but not pitch-black. And less than half of the room is dark.
Though the ball is bigger than the lamp in this experiment, the lamp still threw wider light that escaped beyond the ball’s circumference. Thus still, illuminating majority of the room.
Took instead a cellphone’s flashlight to illuminate about eighty percent of the ball’s surface... And viola!!! I was able to control the light not to leak beyond the ball’s circumference and making the other side of the room pitch-black!
Now, what do we make out of this???
Is our sun rather smaller and closer?
I think I understand what you're getting at. The universe is not analogous to your room. Light does go around the Earth, but you can't see it because it isn't reflected back to your eyes.
-
Sure it is! The moon reflects the sunlight back to us. If the sky were full of moons, it would be very bright.
-
The sun is 92.96 million miles away, give or take depending on the time of year, obviously. The moon is about 238,900 miles away, again, depending on the time of year.
-
The sun is 92.96 million miles away, give or take depending on the time of year, obviously. The moon is about 238,900 miles away, again, depending on the time of year.
You’re not making an argument, nor are you contributing. 2nd warning for low content posting in the upper fora.
-
The sun is 92.96 million miles away, give or take depending on the time of year, obviously. The moon is about 238,900 miles away, again, depending on the time of year.
I'll make the argument. The Moon is verified to be 200000+ miles away because we landed on it. Rockets work in space, they have been proven to work in space, and they have worked in space. If you don't believe it, either you don't understand introductory physics or you're too lazy to do some very basic experiments. By all calculations involving Newton's laws, we can (at a rather astronomical cost) send things into space, and to the moon. See the derivation of the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation. So the burden of proof is on Flat Earthers to prove, that despite rockets working on paper, that they can't work in practice because of some unsolved engineering challenge. If you don't understand rocketry, please don't insult the thousands of engineers who work long days to put stuff into orbit with misguided physics. This is why people laugh at those who say rockets don't work in space; they are criticizing engineers and scientists who use very advanced math and physics by using fundamental and easy-to-spot physics misconceptions.
The Sun has to be 93 million miles away, because otherwise it would burn up the Earth with its immense amount of solar energy. I know that FE theorists have a counter to this, saying that the Sun is 32 miles wide. This is bollocks. I didn't mean it as a joke or vacuous truth when I said if the Sun were 32 miles wide, I could build a thermonuclear bomb in my backyard. We first note that the Sun needs some way of producing energy, and the only plausible mechanism is nuclear fusion (my physics textbook ballparked the Sun's lifetime at 10000 years if it just went off thermal energy). We also know that nuclear fusion only occurs under certain conditions, namely that the particles of the fuel plasma need to collide with a certain amount of kinetic energy. The Lawson criterion provides rough estimates for the temperatures and pressures required for nuclear fusion. A 32 mile wide Sun will exert such low pressure (even lower because FE theorists contend that gravity doesn't exist and there's only a small amount of attraction between matter) on its core that I can replicate it in my backyard with some power tools (or chemical explosives). Water would be the biggest WMD devised. Of course, Tom Bishop said that stellar fusion has never been tested on Earth. This is a blatant lie. We have tested fusion conditions on small amounts of matter and have concluded that the fusion criteria are correct. Teenagers have built homemade inertial electrostatic confinement reactors. I hate to keep repeating the same stuff, but it seems like this never gets absorbed or rebutted by FE people.