Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2019, 08:57:01 PM »
That is exactly what the "string experiment" is. You are proclaiming "It's an illusion, see proof. The Moon is pointing at the sun and the string experiment broke the illusion!" In reality it did no such thing.
Yes it did.
If the sun is illuminating the moon and the sun’s light travels in straight lines then the straight line between the sun and the moon must be perpendicular to the terminator on the moon.
The illusion is that it looks like this is not the case, the piece of string demonstrates that it is, it proves that the apparent mismatch is an illusion.

Again, if you disagree then try it yourself. If you can hold the piece of string perpendicular to the terminator and the string points into space rather than at the sun then you are correct. When I tried it then that’s not what I observed, maybe you will get different results.

And if you think the light is bending then maybe you could show in a diagram how it is bending in a way consistent with EA. In the illusion the terminator appears to point upwards while the sun is low in the sky. If it is light bending then that is consistent with light bending downwards, not upwards.

Quote
If you are laying down on the ground and see the moon pointing upwards on one side of your vision and see the sun setting on the other, a string connecting the two will no more prove that the moon is pointing at the sun than it would prove that a tree is pointing at a cabin.

If the string is held perpendicular to the terminator then yes it does because that is the direction the light must be coming from.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2019, 09:17:05 PM »
When you lie on your back you can see 180 degrees of space. Just because an object at one side might be pointing "up" at another object at the other side, it doesn't mean that they are pointing at each other. The tree-cabin example is apt.



The string experiment demonstrates almost nothing, and is erroneous. Stand up, face the tree or the moon, and you see that they are pointing upwards, and not at the opposite horizon.

The string experiment itself is the "illusion". Bodies which actually point at each other will point at each other from multiple positions and vantage points, not just when stretching a string across prehipreal vision.

This "they are actually pointing at each other" string proof is really quite bad. They clearly are not pointing at each other. One merely needs to stand up and face the upwardly pointing moon, knowing that the sun is on the opposite horizon, to see that directly.

At most the connection of bodies in such a manner supports the notion that the moon and sun behave as if they are on some kind of dome around the observer where straight lines become curved.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 05:02:01 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #22 on: October 15, 2019, 09:47:56 AM »
OK. I literally don't understand how you're not understanding this but here's a diagram which may help.
This is what the illusion looks like. Here's a photo of it:



And here's a diagram, this is actually very similar to how it appeared when I did the string experiment myself:



It looks like a line perpendicular to the terminator is pointing into the sky, the diagram shows the line pointing perpendicular to the terminator, that's where the light is coming from.
But the sun is setting so how can the sun be illuminating the moon? That line doesn't point at the sun. Or, if it is the sun illuminating the moon, the light must be bending.
In fact above in your "diagram" above you have made the "string" bend to make it point at the sun. And your string is not perpendicular to the terminator, that is important.

If you are holding a piece of string taut in front of you so it is straight and you line it up perpendicular to the terminator then it looks like it must point off into space.
But it you try it you'll find that it doesn't. It points at the sun. It doesn't look like it should, granted, but that's what illusion means.
That proves that the sun IS illuminating the moon and the light is NOT bending. The apparent mismatch is an illusion.

And, again, you keep ignoring this. If it is the light that is bending then it must be bending DOWN, not up as claimed by EA.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 11:21:06 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #23 on: October 15, 2019, 10:15:49 AM »
Electromagnetic waves tunneling along layers of the atmosphere , maybe ionosphere / dome cause this effect . It is not an illusion .

It's why we can can communicate longer distances by radio sometimes , dependent on atmospheric conditions . Sun and moon within these layers , or light propagating within . The fact that radiowave transmission is badly affected by the sun during daylight hours is evidence for a closer sun than surmised in the heliocentric model.

Illusion is an excuse not a reason , it is not science .
 
Make use of a protractor when observing this phenomena . Easy to measure your angle from sun to moon .

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #24 on: October 15, 2019, 10:40:02 AM »
Electromagnetic waves tunneling along layers of the atmosphere , maybe ionosphere / dome cause this effect . It is not an illusion .
Evidence?

And it is an illusion, I've done the experiment myself, it's easily repeatable. Next time you see the effect just grab a piece of string or anything else straight and you'll find that, contrary to appearances, the line perpendicular to the terminator does point at the sun.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6551
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #25 on: October 15, 2019, 05:03:05 PM »
The string doesn't prove that objects are actually pointing at each other.

When wrapped around the observer, this panoramic view of the moon tilt illusion:



Turns into this:



In the above example both the Moon and airplane are on opposite sides of the Sun, which is on the horizon at point A. They are not actually pointing at the Sun. The string just connects them two dimensionally across a 'sphere of vision' exactly like the tree-cabin example.

If the airplane was actually pointing at the Sun, then when looking at the airplane face on, with the Sun on the horizon to your back, you should see the airplane pointed at you and tilted downwards towards the opposite horizon behind you. Same for the Moon. This does not happen when you face the Moon. Thus the example is bunk. The string does not demonstrate that bodies around you are really pointing at each other.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2019, 05:54:16 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #26 on: October 15, 2019, 05:53:26 PM »
I see. So are you now arguing that the light from the sun bends round the inside of an imaginary sphere?
Since when has that been any part of FE theory? And what is your evidence for that?

EDIT: While we're here, the sun doesn't "point" at anything, anymore than trees do at cabins. The sun simply radiates light in all directions. If an object has a clear line of sight to the sun then the light will hit that object. If the object is a sphere then half the sphere will be lit - the side facing towards the sun - and the other side will not. On earth this gives us day and night, on the moon it does too and we see that as phases.
« Last Edit: October 16, 2019, 08:59:00 AM by AllAroundTheWorld »
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2019, 09:32:44 PM »
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:

Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.

And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2019, 07:23:56 AM »
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:

Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.

And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.
All lengthening shadows is proof of is that the angle of the light changes over time. That could be explained by a close sun and EA but it is not the only possible explanation and thus not in itself proof of that.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2019, 10:12:38 PM »
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:

Pretty obvious proof: during sunset shadows climbs buildings from below to above, and since the Sun behaves as a lamp, you must have bending light rays.

And also, the possibility that light bends is not surprising at all.
All lengthening shadows is proof of is that the angle of the light changes over time. That could be explained by a close sun and EA but it is not the only possible explanation and thus not in itself proof of that.

There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?
Quote from: Pete Svarrior
these waves of smug RE'ers are temporary. Every now and then they flood us for a year or two in response to some media attention, and eventually they peter out. In my view, it's a case of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2019, 08:59:52 AM »
There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?
Well, I have the history of science in which the distance to the sun has been calculated using different methods based on evidence which have, over time, given us the true distance.
But the problem with Rowbotham's calculation is that while it is based on observations, he assumes a flat earth.
If you assume a globe you would get a very different result.

And the trouble is his method only relied on measurements from 2 points. If you want to triangulate then you need, as the name suggests, to take measurements from at least 3 points.
Metabunk did an experiment which took observations from 23 people in 9 countries:

https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-debunked-by-measuring-angles-to-the-sun.t9118/

The issue if you assume a flat earth is the lines point all over the place, so where is the sun? This does assume the light going in straight lines though so maybe EA could fix that for you. I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader. But Rowbotham's method assumed the light goes in straight lines too...
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #31 on: November 18, 2019, 11:12:29 AM »
There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?
Well, I have the history of science in which the distance to the sun has been calculated using different methods based on evidence which have, over time, given us the true distance.
But the problem with Rowbotham's calculation is that while it is based on observations, he assumes a flat earth.
If you assume a globe you would get a very different result.

And the trouble is his method only relied on measurements from 2 points. If you want to triangulate then you need, as the name suggests, to take measurements from at least 3 points.
Metabunk did an experiment which took observations from 23 people in 9 countries:


Triangulation is always carried out from two points , the object of the measure from those two points becomes the apex , the third point of the triangle . Basic trigonometry .

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #32 on: November 18, 2019, 11:27:54 AM »
There are many theories about the Sun's distance, Rowbotham showed one with actual evidence. What do you have instead?
Well, I have the history of science in which the distance to the sun has been calculated using different methods based on evidence which have, over time, given us the true distance.
But the problem with Rowbotham's calculation is that while it is based on observations, he assumes a flat earth.
If you assume a globe you would get a very different result.

And the trouble is his method only relied on measurements from 2 points. If you want to triangulate then you need, as the name suggests, to take measurements from at least 3 points.
Metabunk did an experiment which took observations from 23 people in 9 countries:


Triangulation is always carried out from two points , the object of the measure from those two points becomes the apex , the third point of the triangle . Basic trigonometry .
Not always, and you'd struggle to find a position in 3d space using 2 points and the object as a third, would you not?
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #33 on: November 18, 2019, 01:19:06 PM »
Triangulation is always carried out from two points , the object of the measure from those two points becomes the apex , the third point of the triangle . Basic trigonometry .
As ChrisTP says, not if you're trying to identify a location in 3D space. This is why when you use GPS it takes signals from (I think) 4 satellites to find your position.
It's definitely more than 2
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2019, 09:41:12 AM »
Triangulation is always carried out from two points , the object of the measure from those two points becomes the apex , the third point of the triangle . Basic trigonometry .
As ChrisTP says, not if you're trying to identify a location in 3D space. This is why when you use GPS it takes signals from (I think) 4 satellites to find your position.
It's definitely more than 2

You and ChrisTP are confused . Triangulation is very simple . You can triangulate from two points at sea level if you want , to the top of a lighthouse or to something distant such as a star , in real 3D.

This is really comical. Triangulation is just what is implied in the name . Measurement from two points to deduce the position of a third point .










Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2019, 11:59:40 AM »
Actually you may be right there, sorry. I can see how using two points can be used, if you know the distance between the two points and the angle of those points relative to the third position (in this case the sun) you could probably find a correct distance. That said though you would be playing with tiny fractions of degrees and even being slightly off could be the difference in millions of miles. you could in theory though, I just doubt the practicality of this from earth alone. Without a large enough distance between the two points I don't think it's worth while. This also means that under the assumption the earth is flat, if your two points are half way across the world from each other and you measure the suns position you would find the sun a hell of a lot closer to earth and under the assumption the earth is a globe you'd find it extremely far away. In this case the best thing to do is to use earth as one position and another celestial body as another position (like the moon) but then you have the problem of whether we know the real distance to the moon.

Triangulation from earth alone may not be the best solution at any rate especially if you're unsure of the earths shape, you can't then be sure of the angle between the two positions..
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2019, 12:21:45 PM »
somerled is basically right here, but the whole point of triangulation is it assumes a flat base. If you don't have a flat base then you don't have a triangle.
It also assumes that the light is travelling in a straight line. If it doesn't then, again, you don't have a triangle.

The reason for using multiple points is that on a globe earth the way the observed angle to the sun changes with distance is different to the way it would change on a flat earth.
If you take observations from any 2 points and assume a flat earth then yes, you will get a distance to the sun.
If you take observations from multiple points you will find inconsistent distances, you'll find that the lines don't converge on any point.
That's either because the earth is not flat, or you might be able to explain it with bending light - but if it's the latter then it renders all calculations meaningless anyway.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2019, 03:26:48 PM »
Actually you may be right there, sorry. I can see how using two points can be used, if you know the distance between the two points and the angle of those points relative to the third position (in this case the sun) you could probably find a correct distance. That said though you would be playing with tiny fractions of degrees and even being slightly off could be the difference in millions of miles. you could in theory though, I just doubt the practicality of this from earth alone. Without a large enough distance between the two points I don't think it's worth while. This also means that under the assumption the earth is flat, if your two points are half way across the world from each other and you measure the suns position you would find the sun a hell of a lot closer to earth and under the assumption the earth is a globe you'd find it extremely far away. In this case the best thing to do is to use earth as one position and another celestial body as another position (like the moon) but then you have the problem of whether we know the real distance to the moon.

Triangulation from earth alone may not be the best solution at any rate especially if you're unsure of the earths shape, you can't then be sure of the angle between the two positions..
Correct , no apology needed. Triangulation to the sun is problematic since earth and sun are in motion in globe theory so any measurement from two points would have to be simultaneous and would only be correct for that instant .
          In FE the same problem occurs since the sun is in motion above the the stationary plane.

However in both models the pole star is stationary . Triangulation land survey with observation of elevation to the pole star along a meridian will help reveal the shape of earth . Again assuming light travels in a straight line as AATW points out .