Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2019, 12:33:54 PM »
There won't be a delay in the signal - any signal before the expected delay is ignored/filtered out . That's how confirmation bias works . It's present in all these type of confirmation proofs .

Venus is at it's brightest when at it's slimmest phase  - magic atmosphere . How far is it - it is thousands of miles away or we would not see it .

Saturn is (top o me head) 9AU from the sun .  Earth at 1AU receives about 1370W/m insolation . Use the inverse square law and see how much Saturn receives .
 Use optic reflection laws to see how little sunlight is reflected then apply the inverse square law to see how much of that remains after travelling 8AU back to earth  - where we can see Saturn visible with the naked eye. Saturn does not even twinkle lol.

All mainstream astronomical observations based on the globe model are a fiction.

My Qualifications (whatever they are ) - bonafide member of the free thinking human race and life long student of most aspects of this wonderful world we live in .

Specialize to much and you disappear up your own arris - another method of mind control .

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 416
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2019, 12:52:56 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?

Same reason surveyors assume it.
There are youtube videos out there that take the suns angles from various positions and shows those vectors on a flat disk earth, then morphs into a globe to show the differences, What are your thoughts on what these visual representations are conveying?

https://www.youtube.com/user/josleys/videos
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2019, 04:48:55 PM »
Quote
Saturn does not even twinkle lol.

lol actually Saturn does 'twinkle' or scintillate to give it the technical term. Unlike the stars, the planets are not true point sources of light and so the twinkling effect is not as obvious as it is for the stars.  The twinkling effect as I'm sure you know is entirely caused by the atmosphere and since light from the planets passes through the atmosphere on its way to the observers eye just as it does for the stars, then it follows that the planets are affected as well. The behaviour of light as it passes through the atmosphere is different between a point source and a disk and those differences are the reason why 'twinkling' is far less apparent for planetary disks than it is for point sources.

At the moment the planets Jupiter and Saturn which are easily visible to the S (northern hemisphere) or N (southern hemisphere) are well to the south of the celestial equator. So from mid northern latitudes (40-50 degrees say) then there may be a slight twinkle visible because they only rise a few degrees above the horizon. For latitudes near the equator and especially to the south where the planets will be higher up in the sky the twinkling effect will be negligible and best suited for imaging.

Yes Venus is brightest when at it is visible as a thin crescent phase and that is for two reasons. Firstly the disk size is greatest when Venus is at is closest so it follows that it would be brighter compared to when it is on the far side of its orbit compared to the Earth. It is then also very small and much further away. As you will know if you have watched Venus through a telescope, just prior to inferior conjunction (Venus between the Sun and Earth) the disk size can exceed a minute of arc where as close to superior conjunction (Sun between Venus and the Earth) it shrinks to slightly less that 10 seconds of arc. If you take the total area on the sky that Venus covers when a thin crescent, it is still greater than it is when a very small (and much fainter) disk.  Just because most of the disk is not illuminated when a crescent that is irrelevant as far as how bright it looks from Earth.

Quote
Same reason surveyors assume it.

Over the sort of distance scales that surveyors are typically working at of course you can assume a flat baseline.  A bit different to working with the distances involved in interplanetary space!

Quote
The assumption that Venus has a magic atmosphere with special reflective properties

Nothing magic about an atmosphere that has an albedo of 0.75 compared to the Earth at just 0,39.  Sulphuric acid, which is a major component of the Venetian atmosphere is highly reflective. Venus is a classic example of a runaway greenhouse effect which is why the surface is hotter than that of Mercury.


Quote
All mainstream astronomical observations based on the globe model are a fiction.

Is that right?  My experience and yours are obviously very different but whatever you say my friend.

In short, Somerled is very good at being dismissive about a subject that they evidently don't actually know much about.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 11:02:42 PM by dichotomy »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #23 on: September 12, 2019, 06:22:29 AM »
I am aware of all the theory and I notice that you ignore the point about the inverse square law and reflective properties of a sphere ( which scatters light ) . You can add the albedo into your calculations if you want . How much light do these planets reflect ?

The planets are luminaries .

Are you aware of the effect the conjunctions you mention have on pendulums ? Oppositions too . Happens for all bodies of what you call the solar system at syzygy . They are all close to earth - beneath the dome imo .

You should read about syzygy effects . The conclusion of those scientists involved is that the current cosmology/gravity based model the universe is wrong .


Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #24 on: September 12, 2019, 08:50:24 AM »
The planets are luminaries .
You mean they generate their own light?
Why do they have phases then? That is a characteristic of something being illuminated by a light source, not something generating its own light.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #25 on: September 12, 2019, 09:19:16 AM »
Just because I don't directly refer to something that is mentioned in a previous post doesn't mean I have ignored to as you put it.

FE theorists seem to think that the stars are all a lot closer than they are in reality. Th inverse square law that you mention is evidence that they are much further away.

As I'm sure you will agree, the fact that we can see a particular star means that we are receiving energy from it. Many stars are emitting far more energy than the Sun. So the fact that we are receiving so little light from them, compared to the 1.3kW that you correctly quote as being tbe solar constant means by vitue of the inverse square law that those stars are a very long way away.

If the stars were all as near as FE theory claims they are the night sky would never be dark!
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 09:21:43 AM by dichotomy »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #26 on: September 12, 2019, 10:03:08 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?
They are flat maps.

All maps are flat.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #27 on: September 12, 2019, 10:06:16 AM »
Olber's paradox I believe they call it - the dark sky thingy .

Once took a 4hr return flight from Turkey to UK at 12.30 am back in the day when I knew the earth was a globe .

Beautiful clear starlit skies at takeoff . All disappeared at altitude in a clear sky . Saw two objects that may have been planets. Nothing but dark skies . Never  been shown a glimpse of a star from a space craft .

Flat earth is a theory based on measurement and observation - see Lackeys post.

Globe earth is not reality - it is globe earth theory  . The stars have to be at silly distance to support the theory . This globe earth theory was not based on any new knowledge - did not explain anything that was not already explained .

At some point science has to verify it's claim that earth is a globe. If it doesn't then all you have is heap upon heap of math models which don't conform to reality .
 
I'd say that's what we have now .

We know nothing about the stars - we have theory only .

I have two scopes of my own and access to three more . I think now that these are just microscopes use to observe the nearby vault of the sky . The stars are in the same place now as they were 50 yrs ago .

I understand your viewpoint - it's been hammered into everyone - but please don't confuse theory with reality .


 

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #28 on: September 12, 2019, 10:06:39 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.
There are youtube videos out there that take the suns angles from various positions and shows those vectors on a flat disk earth, then morphs into a globe to show the differences, What are your thoughts on what these visual representations are conveying?

https://www.youtube.com/user/josleys/videos
Well, I am unable to view these videos at the moment, but my initial response focuses on the word "morphing."

When I think of "morphing," I think of something transforming to something else.

In other words, it is not what it is supposed to be.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #29 on: September 12, 2019, 10:13:01 AM »
The inverse square law that you mention is evidence that they are much further away.

I'd say the lack of parallax is better evidence. The ancients believed they were infinitely far away because of that, we have more precise way of measuring things now which means some parallax can be measured for nearer stars, but were the stars or moon as close as FE supposes you'd see a significant parallax which could be measured in cities a few hundred miles apart.

Oh, and lackey yes, of course maps are flat by definition. But Google Maps now changes its representation to a sphere as you zoom out to avoid the distortion you get over large distances when you try to project the spherical earth onto a flat plane. This only becomes an issue on the scale of countries or continents so for most practical purposes flat maps are usable.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #30 on: September 12, 2019, 10:14:18 AM »

Quote
Same reason surveyors assume it.

Over the sort of distance scales that surveyors are typically working at of course you can assume a flat baseline.  A bit different to working with the distances involved in interplanetary space!

Neither of us currently occupy any position other than the surface of the flat earth plane.

Correct?

That is why surveyors use flat plane trigonometry when estimating the height of objects above.

There is nothing different about it.

The height of any object above you can be estimated to a high degree of accuracy using the similar triangles method.

Surveyors have long known this.

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #31 on: September 12, 2019, 10:36:25 AM »
Who said the Earth is a flat plane? I certainly didn't and never would because I know that it isn't.

I have had dealings with a number of surveyors during my life time and on a few occasions they have said for certain projects (bridges is a common example) the curvature of the Earth needs to be taken into account.

Now obviously you wont accept that because you don't believe the Earths surface is curved but those are people who are qualified and experienced in what they do so someone is wrong somewhere.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 10:39:14 AM by dichotomy »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #32 on: September 12, 2019, 10:40:01 AM »
Neither of us currently occupy any position other than the surface of the flat earth plane.

Correct?

No. Incorrect. Because the earth is not a flat plane.

Quote
That is why surveyors use flat plane trigonometry when estimating the height of objects above.

They use it because on the scales they work at it gives accurate results. In the same way that relativistic effects are rarely taken into account when doing calculations on motion.
For most practical purposes Newton's laws work just fine. For most practical purposes for surveyors assuming a flat earth works just fine.
In both cases the maths is much simpler and gives good enough results to be usable, there is no need to complicate things at these scales.

The method you outline would work IF the earth is flat. But you'd still need to know the horizontal distance between yourself and the point that the sun is "above".
You can use Google Maps to do this of course, but as discussed that transforms into a globe as you scale out for the sake of accuracy, it avoids any projections necessary when one tries to map the globe earth onto a flat plane. If you try and peel an orange and lay the peel flat you'll see the problem.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 10:57:32 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 416
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #33 on: September 12, 2019, 11:48:16 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.
There are youtube videos out there that take the suns angles from various positions and shows those vectors on a flat disk earth, then morphs into a globe to show the differences, What are your thoughts on what these visual representations are conveying?

https://www.youtube.com/user/josleys/videos
Well, I am unable to view these videos at the moment, but my initial response focuses on the word "morphing."

When I think of "morphing," I think of something transforming to something else.

In other words, it is not what it is supposed to be.
Well by morph I just mean it shows the data on a flat map then shows the same data on a globe map to compare. I chose my words quite specifically that you'd give your opinion on the actual point the videos are making as opposed to (pre)judging the presentation style.

Also side note, you mentioned all maps are flat which is IMO a pointless argument. No one is debating that a picture of land is flat. With your same logic you could say any photo of yourself makes you flat (which I mentioned before). Anyway, here you go;

Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #34 on: September 12, 2019, 12:04:49 PM »
The video I watched from that dude was about satellite TV. He took some data from a site which helps you align dishes from different cities.
He then showed how if you use that data using a a flat earth map then the dishes point all over the place.
If you wrap the map into a globe though then they all point to a common point, the geostationary satellite.
The only possible FE explanations I see are that the FE map he's used is wrong - so if you move the cities to the "correct" places then maybe they do all point to the same place.
Or maybe there isn't just one satellite, maybe the dishes really are all pointing at different things. What those things are remains to be explained.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #35 on: September 12, 2019, 02:39:01 PM »
Neither of us currently occupy any position other than the surface of the flat earth plane.

Correct?

No. Incorrect. Because the earth is not a flat plane.

Quote
That is why surveyors use flat plane trigonometry when estimating the height of objects above.

They use it because on the scales they work at it gives accurate results. In the same way that relativistic effects are rarely taken into account when doing calculations on motion.
For most practical purposes Newton's laws work just fine. For most practical purposes for surveyors assuming a flat earth works just fine.
In both cases the maths is much simpler and gives good enough results to be usable, there is no need to complicate things at these scales.

The method you outline would work IF the earth is flat. But you'd still need to know the horizontal distance between yourself and the point that the sun is "above".
You can use Google Maps to do this of course, but as discussed that transforms into a globe as you scale out for the sake of accuracy, it avoids any projections necessary when one tries to map the globe earth onto a flat plane. If you try and peel an orange and lay the peel flat you'll see the problem.
Google earth renders it as a globe, but that does mean those distances are provided are globe distances.

Go ahead and assume the chord if you like.

And we are on a flat earth plane.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 817
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #36 on: September 12, 2019, 03:30:50 PM »
The video I watched from that dude was about satellite TV. He took some data from a site which helps you align dishes from different cities.
He then showed how if you use that data using a a flat earth map then the dishes point all over the place.
If you wrap the map into a globe though then they all point to a common point, the geostationary satellite.
The only possible FE explanations I see are that the FE map he's used is wrong - so if you move the cities to the "correct" places then maybe they do all point to the same place.
Or maybe there isn't just one satellite, maybe the dishes really are all pointing at different things. What those things are remains to be explained.

Very interesting, yet another way to draw a flat earth map.  Place the cities based on the satellite data.  This uses a known dataset that can be demonstrated.
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #37 on: September 12, 2019, 04:00:42 PM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.

*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 817
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2019, 05:43:57 PM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.

Exactly.  The standard around here is this

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
I don't have to go to the gym, I get all my exercise jumping to conclusions.-sandokhan

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2019, 07:15:20 PM »
Google earth renders it as a globe, but that does mean those distances are provided are globe distances.

I really don’t know what “globe distances” means. The only issue, surely, is if they are correct distances.
If Google Maps is accurate, gives correct distances beteeen cities, and at a large scale models the earth as a globe then what does that tell you about the true shape of the earth?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.