dichotomy

Size/distance of Sun
« on: September 08, 2019, 08:02:14 PM »
Under the Sun section of FE Wiki it says..

Quote
The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth.

That is just a statement.  How have these values been reached?

Given that we can now study the Sun in a lot of detail and have several satellites continually scanning the Sun at wavelengths right across the spectrum, figures like these are simply ridiculous. The Suns distance is well known to science now and has been measured to a high degree of accuracy. To so suddenly to make a claim that the Suns distance is only 3000 miles away without a very good explanation as to why you think that is unjustified.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 05:52:46 AM by dichotomy »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #1 on: September 09, 2019, 10:28:47 AM »
You can utilize this method.

Start at noon.

Find out the position of the sun at http://timeanddate.com

For instance, it is found at this website:

"Position of the Sun
On Monday, September 9, 2019 at 12:00:00 UTC the Sun is at its zenith at Latitude: 5° 19' North, Longitude: 0° 39' West"

Find an object of known height.

Position yourself so the top of the object barely obscures the bottom of the sun.

Measure the distance between you and the object and you and the coordinates provided, then do the math relative to similar triangles.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 10:33:24 AM by totallackey »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #2 on: September 09, 2019, 10:33:53 AM »
How was the Sun's distance measured with any degree of accuracy ? As far as I'm aware it was originally deduced from measurements taken six months apart and referencing eclipses of the moons of Jupiter . Triangulation of moving objects from other moving objects seems like pseudo-science to me .

     

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #3 on: September 09, 2019, 10:47:43 AM »
How was the Sun's distance measured with any degree of accuracy ? As far as I'm aware it was originally deduced from measurements taken six months apart and referencing eclipses of the moons of Jupiter . Triangulation of moving objects from other moving objects seems like pseudo-science to me .

Different methods have been used over time. A potted history here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_unit
As methods and instruments have improved the accuracy has improved, as you would expect.
What methods have the FE community to calculate the distance to the sun? If the sun is as close as most FE models suppose it should be easy to work out the distance by triangulation.

Edit:

Some experiments were done with people in different latitudes taking observations of the sun. The observations were consistent with a globe, not a flat earth.

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 11:54:52 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 414
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #4 on: September 09, 2019, 11:44:41 AM »
a while back I made myself a basic 3d model of the sun and earth in Blender with the currently accepted figures for sizes and distances, then animated the sun to scale to 0 in size while moving toward the earths surface. Strangely enough it visually adds up to the same as ~32 miles in diameter by the time it gets to 3000 miles away. So you could theoretically do the same in the opposite direction and say the sun is even further away and even bigger than scientists say it is, visually you'd never be able to tell where where you're standing on earth
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #5 on: September 09, 2019, 11:59:45 AM »
Totallackeys method is assuming a flat base line. In this case the Earths surface. However if you introduce an error in your method or calculation then that error will be carried through and you finish up with an incorrect answer.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 12:54:39 PM by dichotomy »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #6 on: September 09, 2019, 12:46:49 PM »
Totallackeys method is assuming a flat base line. In this case the Earths surface. However if you include an error in your method or calculation then that error will be carried through and you finish up with an incorrect answer.
I'm also interested how you would calculate the distance between you and the sun.
You could use Google Earth of course but that's based on the globe earth...
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #7 on: September 09, 2019, 04:05:39 PM »
Flat Earth Theory is based on a pre-assertion that the Earth is flat. Fair enough but that has never been absolutely proved. The distance of the Sun has been calculated by using radar among other methods which has consistently provided accurate and consistent results. Of course because the modern radar measurements provide different figures about the distance of the Sun to those quoted by the FE theorists they are automatically dismissed.

However by using the modern science figure of 1AU for the distance of the Sun, that makes the similar triangles method that Totallackey describes as completely wrong.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #8 on: September 09, 2019, 04:32:51 PM »
Globe earth model is based on the assumption that earth is a sphere . Metajunks experiment uses the perfect sphere/parallel light ray model that also uses the assumptions that the position of the equator is equi-distant  to the poles and that latitudes are equidistant from the equator. This fits his agenda .
           However the current fashionable model is either pear shaped or oblate spheroid , neither fits his video representation . I could carry on picking  this "experimental proof " apart but no need to carry on.
            Interesting bit of info about Zhoubi Suanjing though - thanks for that wiki link AATW
           
         

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2019, 07:14:37 PM »
Quote
Globe earth model is based on the assumption that earth is a sphere
I think that's a fair assumption!

The physical properties of the Sun that we know about - such as the method of producing energy - make the figures that FE theory has come up with plain and simply ridiculous. No other way I can put it. But if it make you happy to believe that then fair enough.  As long as you insist on making the Earths surface flat, which you always will then you will get the wrong answers.

Modern methods of measuring the distance to the Sun include using radar to measure the distance of Venus first and then using trig to work out the distance of the Sun at a time when the elongation between Venus and the Sun means positions of the Sun, Venus and the Earth make a right angle. Being covered in highly reflective cloud means that radar signals bounce of Venus rather nicely giving us an accurate figure. Radio waves as you know travel at the same speed as light (being an other form of electromagnetic radiation) and the return journey takes just a few seconds.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2019, 07:16:10 PM by dichotomy »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2019, 08:29:38 PM »
Metajunks experiment uses the perfect sphere/parallel light ray model that also uses the assumptions that the position of the equator is equi-distant  to the poles and that latitudes are equidistant from the equator. This fits his agenda.
It doesn’t use or assume anything.
People in different latitudes took a measurement of the angle of the sun.
All he’s done is then map out what that would look like we’re the earth flat. Yes, he’s assumed that the degrees of latitude are equidistant, if that’s not correct in your FE model then you could try mapping the observations on to your model.
The point is the lines point all over the place, so where is the sun? The sun must physically be in a place so the lines should all point to a common place, but they do not.

So he’s tried to map the observations on to a spherical earth and with that model they all point in the same direction and are parallel which implies a distant sun.

Flat Earthers often misunderstand the oblateness thing. While the earth IS oblate it only bulges slightly at the equator. If you look at photos of the whole earth from space you can’t see it with the naked eye (although if you count pixels across and up and down on a good enough resolution picture you’ll see a difference). So the oblate nature of the earth isn’t going to change the way he’s mapped the results on a sphere enough to make a difference.

This is not "experimental proof” of a globe earth and the scientific method isn’t about proving anything. It’s about testing and disproving things. This experiment shows that a globe earth model fits the observations better than a flat earth one - or the flat earth one he has used, as I said maybe there is a flat earth model where the lines do point to a common point. Or maybe there’s another explanation, light bending perhaps.

If the sun is close then you should be able to take observations from a few different places and triangulate to calculate its distance. I have yet to see any evidence that experiment has been done.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #11 on: September 10, 2019, 10:44:19 AM »
Totallackeys method is assuming a flat base line. In this case the Earths surface. However if you include an error in your method or calculation then that error will be carried through and you finish up with an incorrect answer.
I'm also interested how you would calculate the distance between you and the sun.
You could use Google Earth of course but that's based on the globe earth...
The distance of the Sun has been calculated by using radar...
However by using the modern science figure of 1AU for the distance of the Sun, that makes the similar triangles method that Totallackey describes as completely wrong.
The claim it is based on a globe earth is merely that.

A claim.

There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Go ahead and assume the chord if you want.

You still won't arrive at anywhere near 93 million miles.

Radar?

"There never has been a direct measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The best we can do is measure the distance between the Earth and the other planets, and from that infer the distance between the Earth and the Sun."

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/303659/when-was-todays-radar-measurement-of-the-earth-sun-distance-made-and-by-who

So, looks like that statement is highly bogus...
« Last Edit: September 10, 2019, 10:47:58 AM by totallackey »

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #12 on: September 10, 2019, 04:01:49 PM »
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Quote
There never has been a direct measurement of the distance between the Earth and the Sun

As I said radio waves reflect off the top of the clouds that surround Venus very nicely and this gives us a very accurate measurement of the distance of Venus. We can then determine the distance of the Sun by simply mathematical deduction.  There is another method of determining the distance of the Sun by using similar triangles and a reflected image of the Sun. Doesn't involve radar, just a mirror and a piece of card with a small hole. Two competely different methods but both provide the same answer.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #13 on: September 11, 2019, 09:36:45 AM »
How does a radar signal from a rotating object moving through space at 66,000mph travel billions of miles to another rotating moving object ? - which then is supposed to reflect this incredibly weak signal back to the origin which is nowhere near where it was and the signal , which all the while , obeying the inverse square law and optical laws of reflection from a sphere must be next to nothing in strength .  Incredible .

Metajunk assumes whichever latitudes are used by whichever model and applies these triangulations , from and to moving objects to a perfect sphere . Then he assumes flat earth is just the globe model placed onto a flat map keeping the same long/lat coordinates.
It's pseudo science.

Maybe you could radar range the planets and the sun , especially if they are only a few thousand miles away .

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #14 on: September 11, 2019, 09:56:05 AM »
Billions? Who said Venus is billions of miles away?

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #15 on: September 11, 2019, 10:09:13 AM »
How does a radar signal from a rotating object moving through space at 66,000mph travel billions of miles to another rotating moving object ? - which then is supposed to reflect this incredibly weak signal back to the origin which is nowhere near where it was and the signal , which all the while , obeying the inverse square law and optical laws of reflection from a sphere must be next to nothing in strength .  Incredible.

The way it was done is documented here

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962AJ.....67..181P/0000181.000.html

Your argument is basically an argument from incredulity, which isn't an argument at all. You not understanding something doesn't mean it's not possible.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2019, 10:34:57 AM »
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Same reason surveyors assume it.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2019, 10:49:27 AM »
Quote
There is no reason not to assume a flat base line.

Really... why is that then?  What evidence have you got that it is a flat base line?

Same reason surveyors assume it.

I wasn't very clear before. What I meant before was if you're going to use a method of similar triangles to calculate the height of the sun you need to know the horizontal distance from yourself to the sun.
You said use timeanddate.com to find the location of the sun but how do you know how far that is from you without referring to globe based world maps?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2019, 10:55:05 AM »
How does a radar signal from a rotating object moving through space at 66,000mph travel billions of miles to another rotating moving object ? - which then is supposed to reflect this incredibly weak signal back to the origin which is nowhere near where it was and the signal , which all the while , obeying the inverse square law and optical laws of reflection from a sphere must be next to nothing in strength .  Incredible.

The way it was done is documented here

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1962AJ.....67..181P/0000181.000.html

Your argument is basically an argument from incredulity, which isn't an argument at all. You not understanding something doesn't mean it's not possible.

The assumption that Venus has a magic atmosphere with special reflective properties surfaces in the introduction along with the supposed fact that optical measurements have already provided accurate distances to the planets - all based on the assumption of a globe .

Second page we have the " expected round trip echo delay which varied between 283 - 449 " . That's conformation bias .

Third page we have " individual returning echo pulses were much weaker than the overall system noise , they could not be seen " .

Seen these type of "proofs" before - all based on circular arguments . It's looking for what you expect rather than what you actually find . I suppose the background noise will be filtered out around the expected delay time and the frequencies you seek will appear , that's the usual procedure .

It's picking up reflected signals from the ionosphere , or dome imo.

Work out from the given signal strength of signal how much will return .




Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2019, 11:58:23 AM »
The assumption that Venus has a magic atmosphere with special reflective properties surfaces in the introduction along with the supposed fact that optical measurements have already provided accurate distances to the planets - all based on the assumption of a globe.

We know Venus is reflective because we can see it. It's illuminated by the sun so it must be reflecting that light and it's very bright in the sky so we know it reflects well.
You can tell it's being illuminated and not generating its own light because it has phases.
Optical measurements gave us decent enough measurements, the idea was to get a more accurate value. If a globe earth is assumed then it's because we know the earth to be a globe.
Any doubt about that had long since been removed by the time these experiments took place, Sputnik had been launched into orbit, Gagarin had been into space.

Quote
Second page we have the " expected round trip echo delay which varied between 283 - 449 " . That's conformation bias .

It assumes the other ways of measuring the distance were reasonably accurate, from that you can calculate the round trip time.

Quote
Third page we have " individual returning echo pulses were much weaker than the overall system noise , they could not be seen " .

And then goes on to explain how that problem was solved.

Quote
It's picking up reflected signals from the ionosphere , or dome imo.

Why would there have been any delay in the return signal then?

I'm interested to know what your education and professional experience is which means you think you can refute their work.
It's interesting you mention confirmation bias because that's what I see going on here...
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.