A few questions

Quote from: JackBlack on August 30, 2017, 02:19:38 PM

Quote from: jroa on August 30, 2017, 07:40:23 AM

Idiot.  Ions have a charge.  Please stop lying.

Yes, you are an idiot.
When did I say they didn't?
I said Earth as a whole does not.
It has both positive ions and negative ions. These produce opposing magnetic fields.

So, are you saying that ions have no charge, idiot?

Does it embarrass you or do you just not know? 

We the RE delegation would like to offer JackBlack to the FE Delegation... no trade necessary, you can have him.

We the RE delegation would like to offer JackBlack to the FE Delegation... no trade necessary, you can have him.

Why? Do you just read the lies of others and accept them rather than actually read the posts made?
Or once you feel the need to dismiss someone to avoid admitting you were wrong you just automatically assume what they said is wrong?

i believe you have homework...

So, what is the actual disagreement between you two?  I read parts of the other thread, but would like to see both of your ideas of what the issue is.

He was rude... so, because he caught me on a particularly slow day at work... I'm just letting the ol' fingers fly on the keyboard and hating myself as i see the time go by while still on this site.

So, what is the actual disagreement between you two?  I read parts of the other thread, but would like to see both of your ideas of what the issue is.

I pointed out that his simple experiment doesn't control for all variables, that he can't simply have a covered bucket vs a bucket exposed to the moonlight, as that would also mean a covered bucket vs a bucket exposed to the cold night. He didn't seem to like that.

Cat fight!

So, what is the actual disagreement between you two?  I read parts of the other thread, but would like to see both of your ideas of what the issue is.

I won't get into any disagreements, but the point seems to be that what is cold under a clear moonlit night sky is not the "moonlight" - simply the sky.
That is easy to check. just point an infra-red thermometer (one that goes way below zero) at the night sky on a moonless night.
When I tried that earlier I read temperatures around -30°C.
"Outer space" is extremely cold, and the almost transparent 9 km or so of air radiates only a little heat.

It makes very little difference whether the moon is there or not.
One thing many fail to realise is that infra-red thermometers have a field-of-view typically ¹/₁₀ of ¹/₁₂ of the distance to the object, so they read the average temperature of a quite large area.
Here is a video of a 17" telescope used to "focus" the moonlight: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Moon temperature experiment thru a mirrored telescope.
Even there the infra-red thermometer is "seeing" the inside of the telescope, hence the 19.5°F reading when not focussing on the moon. The highest he reads is 64°F as in
When a bucket or thermometer is covered the temperature it "sees" is the temperature of that covering, probably close to the air temperature.

So the way the experiment is performed very important.

We the RE delegation would like to offer JackBlack to the FE Delegation... no trade necessary, you can have him.

No way.  I've read his 'debates' with Jane and Sandokhan. I think the best thing to do is just tell him he's right first thing... then he'll just argue against himself for pages and pages and implode

No way.  I've read his 'debates' with Jane and Sandokhan. I think the best thing to do is just tell him he's right first thing... then he'll just argue against himself for pages and pages and implode

Well you get one thing right, it is quite pointless lying and pretending I am wrong and continually spouting garbage like you have been doing.

Now that you are back are you planning on showing us how the FE is consistent with sun elevation angles?

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2017, 09:44:04 AM

No way.  I've read his 'debates' with Jane and Sandokhan. I think the best thing to do is just tell him he's right first thing... then he'll just argue against himself for pages and pages and implode

Well you get one thing right, it is quite pointless lying and pretending I am wrong and continually spouting garbage like you have been doing.

Now that you are back are you planning on showing us how the FE is consistent with sun elevation angles?

You're right about the sun, its about 5000, km high. You've proven it.  Congrats.  What do you want? A medal?

Quote from: JackBlack on September 01, 2017, 01:18:22 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2017, 09:44:04 AM

No way.  I've read his 'debates' with Jane and Sandokhan. I think the best thing to do is just tell him he's right first thing... then he'll just argue against himself for pages and pages and implode

Well you get one thing right, it is quite pointless lying and pretending I am wrong and continually spouting garbage like you have been doing.

Now that you are back are you planning on showing us how the FE is consistent with sun elevation angles?

You're right about the sun, its about 5000, km high. You've proven it.  Congrats.  What do you want? A medal?

No JackBlack did not say he'd proven it!
He asked "are you planning on showing us how the FE is consistent with sun elevation angles?".
It look's like you can't even read simple words now.

But you still can't face simple facts, so you just ignore them.

You totally ignore all I say and concentrate on your deceitful fudging of the maths.
Guess there's nothing new there with your massive upside down refraction explanation of sunsets.

Have another look!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• I could not care less about your fudge factors!
• You have never responded to the very simple straightforward claims that I have made.
• I still can't find any reference to your magic video that shows the sun's size changing,

So please Mr Silicon, just face the facts!

• Unless you claim that the light from the sun bends through impossible angles your model of the sun over the flat earth is impossible.
• The size of the sun does not change measurably from rising to setting, except for possible small changes near the horizon

Here, I've put the North Pole into the mix, I'll add it to the diagrams when I get time.
The following table gives the data for each location.
All sun elevation was obtained from Sun Earth Tools as close as possible to the local midday on the equinox of UTC 20/Mar/2016  16:48.

Location	Latitude	Longitude	Sun Elev	Dist from    Vaupes	Flat Sun Ht	Lat Diff from    Vaupes	Calc Circum
North Pole	90.000°	-70.000°	0.53°	10,065 km	93 km	90.41°	40,077 km
Kimmirut, Canada	62.847°	-69.869°	27.36°	7,034 km	3,609 km	63.58°	39,828 km
Santo Domingo	18.486°	-69.931°	71.72°	2,107 km	6,077 km	19.22°	39,465 km
Municipio de Taraira, Vaupes, Colombia	-0.565°	-69.634°	89.06°	0 km	------

Now you try to fit a sun elevation of 0.53° and flat earth sun height of 93 km into your fudged equations.

Look again at:
Likewise there is no justification for claiming that the angular size of the sun changes significantly from sunrise to sunset.
As in this video from the flat earther,  Matrix Decode:.

These facts
           are not consistent with a close sun and a flat earth but
           are perfectly consistent with a very distant sun and a Globe shaped earth.

Nothing that you have shown, even with all your fudging (cheating) has proven otherwise, just get used to it.

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2017, 03:49:28 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on September 01, 2017, 01:18:22 PM

Quote from: Silicon on September 01, 2017, 09:44:04 AM

No way.  I've read his 'debates' with Jane and Sandokhan. I think the best thing to do is just tell him he's right first thing... then he'll just argue against himself for pages and pages and implode

Well you get one thing right, it is quite pointless lying and pretending I am wrong and continually spouting garbage like you have been doing.

Now that you are back are you planning on showing us how the FE is consistent with sun elevation angles?

You're right about the sun, its about 5000, km high. You've proven it.  Congrats.  What do you want? A medal?

No JackBlack did not say he'd proven it!
He asked "are you planning on showing us how the FE is consistent with sun elevation angles?".
It look's like you can't even read simple words now.

But you still can't face simple facts, so you just ignore them.

That's the typical flat earth approach! Either declare inconvenient facts are fake or simply ignore them.

You totally ignore all I say and concentrate on your deceitful fudging of the maths.
Guess there's nothing new there with your massive upside down refraction explanation of sunsets.

Have another look!

Quote from: rabinoz on August 30, 2017, 03:43:40 PM

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

• I could not care less about your fudge factors!
• You have never responded to the very simple straightforward claims that I have made.
• I still can't find any reference to your magic video that shows the sun's size changing,

So please Mr Silicon, just face the facts!

• Unless you claim that the light from the sun bends through impossible angles your model of the sun over the flat earth is impossible.
• The size of the sun does not change measurably from rising to setting, except for possible small changes near the horizon

Here, I've put the North Pole into the mix, I'll add it to the diagrams when I get time.
The following table gives the data for each location.
All sun elevation was obtained from Sun Earth Tools as close as possible to the local midday on the equinox of UTC 20/Mar/2016  16:48.

Location	Latitude	Longitude	Sun Elev	Dist from    Vaupes	Flat Sun Ht	Lat Diff from    Vaupes	Calc Circum
North Pole	90.000°	-70.000°	0.53°	10,065 km	93 km	90.41°	40,077 km
Kimmirut, Canada	62.847°	-69.869°	27.36°	7,034 km	3,609 km	63.58°	39,828 km
Santo Domingo	18.486°	-69.931°	71.72°	2,107 km	6,077 km	19.22°	39,465 km
Municipio de Taraira, Vaupes, Colombia	-0.565°	-69.634°	89.06°	0 km	------

Now you try to fit a sun elevation of 0.53° and flat earth sun height of 93 km into your fudged equations.

There is no logical justification for assuming that the sun is 5000 km above the earth.

Look again at:

Sun Height on Flat Earth along 70°W Long

Sun Height on Globe Earth along 70°W Long

Likewise there is no justification for claiming that the angular size of the sun changes significantly from sunrise to sunset.
As in this video from the flat earther,  Matrix Decode:

[youtube][/youtube]
Flat Earth - The Size Of The Sun, Matrix Decode

.

These facts
           are not consistent with a close sun and a flat earth but
           are perfectly consistent with a very distant sun and a Globe shaped earth.

Nothing that you have shown, even with all your fudging (cheating) has proven otherwise, just get used to it.

I have completely destroyed this.   You could never "make" a 30,000 mile high sun or a 1,000 mile high sun using the same variables in such a simple formula consistently.   It's over.  There is no "fudging of maths" You know it, Jackass knows it,  and everyone here knows it.

Now, there is more to this but its takes time to get a handle on it.   In the mean time, watch this recently released video.  What we have debated here is probably only scratching the surface....try to wait out the music, its worth it.

I have completely destroyed this.   

Rubbish!  What I have been saying all along and you have never even attempted to refute is that the known sun elevations,
        do not give a consistent height for the sun on a flat earth but
        do fit a Globe earth and a very distant sun.
This method cannot ever give the actual distance to the sun on the Heliocentric Globe.
The sun is simply too far away, making the parallax too small to measure even with modern instruments.

So, let's review what you have claimed and "your method".

You could never "make" a 30,000 mile high sun or a 1,000 mile high sun using the same variables in such a simple formula consistently.   It's over. 

Where did a "30,000 mile high sun or a 1,000 mile high sun" come from?

Your first reply dismissed all my post with

The problem is Rab's 89.06°.  This may not look like a big deal, but it is, considering we're calculating tangent based on 90° right triangle. 

So the formula is
tan0 = opp/adj = y/x or
xtan = (opp) = adj(tan(angle)) = result

Well, your crap about "Rab's 89.06°" was totally wrong! There never was any numeric problem.
Then you go fitting locations with latitudes from 23.2° to 75.4° and sun elevations down to only about 38° - big deal.
The problems only really start when you get much over 45°.
Then you claim:

. . . . . . . . .
So as you approach 45° elevation, the discrepancy is *the least* pronounced and you arrive very close to the claimed height of 4828 km.  The difference between my points and Rab's is his go N/S which shows more of the discrepancy.  Mine is just N, so you can see how the numbers fall in line with what we would expect on FE, using this information.

Whether you go north or south makes no difference at all!
The only significant point is that the flat earth method for calculating sun height only works at a sun elevation of 45° and so is a useless method!

As you get further north, even to the North Pole the numbers simply do not fall in line with what we would expect on FE.
At the North Pole the sun's elevation at the equinox is close to zero - 0.6° in my data and you totally ignore that.

Then have you come up with the totally meaningless post.

It's over....Find me a perfect 90 degree overhead sun someplace and then we'll talk, otherwise the data proves the flat earth sun works just fine.
As far as your globe earth sun, it's distance has changed many times over the years, by millions of miles LOL!!!
TRY AGAIN

The is no need for any perfect 90° overhead sun. Just use the correct formula given by myself, JackBlack and in "the Wiki".
So you were just making excuses again.

Then we get to your pure fudging the numbers!

The flat earth sun is roughly 3000 miles or 4828 kilometers above the earth.

No, Mr Silicon, you cannot do that!
When you are making a measurement it is dishonest to start with the answer you want.

So in line with what is described above, you must adjust the elevation angle to compensate for not basing your calculations on a 90 degree sun.  I have created a very simple formula for this situation that adjusts for this.  Nothing in this world is 100% accurate but this is very close considering...

So no, there is no need to "compensate for not basing your calculations on a 90 degree sun". What an unbiased person person does is to use the correct formula! And I, JackBlack and "the Wiki" all gave you that correct formula

You do not need any correction all you need to do is use the correct equation.
And if you bothered to read my post, I wrote

Quote from: rabinoz on August 21, 2017, 03:43:40 PM

The tangent of my "89.06°" only appears as 1/tan(A₂) which approaches zero as A₂ approaches 90°.
My calculation is: h = d/(1/tan(A₁) + 1/tan(A₂)) (watch the signs of the angles) as in "the Wiki": Eratosthenes on Distance of the Sun, AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL

But pig-headed Mr Silicon ignores everything he is told.
.

In Excel you would just enter the following:

=(((ATAN(DEGREES((Non Adjusted Elevation Angle))))/Non Adjusted Height)*Distance)*10

This will give you the angle of adjustment necessary.  Now, for angles below 45 degrees you add the adjustment, and for angles above 45 degrees you subtract. Also you do not need to multiply by 10 for angles less than 45 degrees.

But what an inane fiddle with
Can I frame that for posterity? I'll label it Fudging the numbers FE style 101.

There is no "fudging of maths" You know it, Jackass knows it,  and everyone here knows it.

Oh, yes there is a clear fudge!
So I know that you have been "fudging the maths" to force the measurements to come out the way you think that they should!
JackBlack know that you have been "fudging the maths"[/i] and by now
everyone here knows that you have been "fudging the maths"[/i].

So stop the squirming, wriggling and excuse making - just admit that there is no justification for claiming that the sun's height is 5000 km (that is what 45° gives you).

Now, there is more to this but it takes time to get a handle on it. 

Yes it might take you "time to get a handle on" the fact that you are totally and provably wrong!

In the mean time, watch this recently released video.  What we have debated here is probably only scratching the surface....try to wait out the music, its worth it.

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Magnetic Flat Earth 1.0, FE ASTRONOMY

I'm not going to waste my time on purely imaginary crap like that!
The first 8 minutes, and probably more, are wasted telling us simple things that we already knew and fit perfectly with the Globe model and a very distant sun, as I have been claiming all along.

At 10:20 he claims that crepuscular rays  prove that the sun is just above the clouds. 
If that's his level of understanding of perspective, I don't have the time to waste - unless I get tired of watching the grass grow.

The idea of the sun's being "just above the clouds" is just as idiotic under the flat earth model as it is for the globe.
Ever heard of aircraft colliding with the sun? - don't answer that as there is a flat earth video that claims a plane flew out of the sun! 

Nobody can say that we don't get our fill of fantasy here!

You're right about the sun, its about 5000, km high. You've proven it.  Congrats.  What do you want? A medal?

You seem to have difficulty reading and understanding. I proved the exact opposite.
The sun is very far away and Earth is round.

I have completely destroyed this.   You could never "make" a 30,000 mile high sun or a 1,000 mile high sun using the same variables in such a simple formula consistently.   It's over.  There is no "fudging of maths" You know it, Jackass knows it,  and everyone here knows it.

That's right. And that completely disproves the FE. Instead, we can use a consistent formula which assumes the sun is so far away that the change in apparent angle due to your displacement around Earth is negligible and thus the angle to the sun will be based upon the angular difference between the location it is directly overhead and you.

This is quite consistent. The RE doesn't suffer from the problems of inconsistency that the FE does.

Now, there is more to this but its takes time to get a handle on it.   In the mean time, watch this recently released video.  What we have debated here is probably only scratching the surface....try to wait out the music, its worth it.

So again, rather than provide a rational argument you just divert with crap.

At 10:20 he claims that crepuscular rays  prove that the sun is just above the clouds. 
If that's his level of understanding of perspective, I don't have the time to waste - unless I get tired of watching the grass grow.

The idea of the sun's being "just above the clouds" is just as idiotic under the flat earth model as it is for the globe.

  Any person claiming this should google for "crepuscular rays forest". According to this observed phenomenon sun is much-much-much lower, just above treetops.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 01, 2017, 11:18:50 PM

At 10:20 he claims that crepuscular rays  prove that the sun is just above the clouds. 
If that's his level of understanding of perspective, I don't have the time to waste - unless I get tired of watching the grass grow.

The idea of the sun's being "just above the clouds" is just as idiotic under the flat earth model as it is for the globe.

  Any person claiming this should google for "crepuscular rays forest". According to this observed phenomenon sun is much-much-much lower, just above treetops.

Yes, flat earthers come up with such interpretations of crepuscular rays.Is "the sun in the clouds above this Scottish Loch  " or "In the trees of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco  ".
I must have missed it when I was in Scotland, maybe Nessie scared it away and it certainly wasn't in that tree last time I was in Golden Gate Park.

Seems that they now have to decide if the sun is a few tens of metres high in San Francisco, a few kilometers high over Scotland, no more than 15 km high (Sandokhan), no more than 700 statute miles (Rowbotham) or the 4828 km Silicon is trying to prove.

Now, I am confused!

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2017, 02:04:52 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 01, 2017, 11:18:50 PM

At 10:20 he claims that crepuscular rays  prove that the sun is just above the clouds. 
If that's his level of understanding of perspective, I don't have the time to waste - unless I get tired of watching the grass grow.

The idea of the sun's being "just above the clouds" is just as idiotic under the flat earth model as it is for the globe.

  Any person claiming this should google for "crepuscular rays forest". According to this observed phenomenon sun is much-much-much lower, just above treetops.

Yes, flat earthers come up with such interpretations of crepuscular rays.

So the sun is in the trees of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco!

And is the sun in the clouds above this Scottish Loch?

Is "the sun in the clouds above this Scottish Loch  " or "In the trees of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco  ".
I must have missed it when I was in Scotland, maybe Nessie scared it away and it certainly wasn't in that tree last time I was in Golden Gate Park.

Seems that they now have to decide if the sun is a few tens of metres high in San Francisco, a few kilometers high over Scotland, no more than 15 km high (Sandokhan), no more than 700 statute miles (Rowbotham) or the 4828 km Silicon is trying to prove.

Now, I am confused!

Or look up anti-crepuscular rays.  These are seen on the opposite horizon as the sun. If they are supposed to point to the sun then the sun would be spread out over the whole sky.

Whenever you jokers have something meaningful to discuss let me know

Quote from: rabinoz on September 02, 2017, 03:00:03 AM

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2017, 02:04:52 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 01, 2017, 11:18:50 PM

At 10:20 he claims that crepuscular rays  prove that the sun is just above the clouds. 
If that's his level of understanding of perspective, I don't have the time to waste - unless I get tired of watching the grass grow.

The idea of the sun's being "just above the clouds" is just as idiotic under the flat earth model as it is for the globe.

  Any person claiming this should google for "crepuscular rays forest". According to this observed phenomenon sun is much-much-much lower, just above treetops.

Yes, flat earthers come up with such interpretations of crepuscular rays.

So the sun is in the trees of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco!

And is the sun in the clouds above this Scottish Loch?

Is "the sun in the clouds above this Scottish Loch  " or "In the trees of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco  ".
I must have missed it when I was in Scotland, maybe Nessie scared it away and it certainly wasn't in that tree last time I was in Golden Gate Park.

Seems that they now have to decide if the sun is a few tens of metres high in San Francisco, a few kilometers high over Scotland, no more than 15 km high (Sandokhan), no more than 700 statute miles (Rowbotham) or the 4828 km Silicon is trying to prove.

Now, I am confused!

Or look up anti-crepuscular rays.  These are seen on the opposite horizon as the sun. If they are supposed to point to the sun then the sun would be spread out over the whole sky.

I use to think people had a problem with reading comprehension, now it seems they can't even watch a 20 minute video and comprehend it.  If you watched the entire thing you would have NEVER posted this since the video agrees with you!

Interesting the extent as to what people will go to just latch onto the idea of a FE.  There is no, I repeat no evidence to support the claims of this level of EM field strengths or that rhythmic increase and decrease of field strength, sorry he said increased current.  The amount of EM field to bend light waves in that way would be so strong as to completely destroy any technology we use on this planet, in fact I am not sure our bodies could survive it.  The Earths EM field is something that is measured and studied heavily.  Just willy nilly claiming it is causing the light to bend in the way your video claims is beyond silly.  Just more dancing around the truth of FE being easily crushed by anyone with an IQ above an ant. 
Stop attributing properties that do not match with reality to things you have no understanding of. 

More silly FE nonsense.  I recommend watching the video.  Pay attention to how it uses a few RE arguments against the FE models to destroy their own models to then perform the switch to their proposed model.  Which anyone who knows anything about electromagnetic fields can quickly establish as bullcrap.  Also, I love their little techno setup they threw in there saying it was too much data.  1 year of sunpath data from a singular location on Earth is not going to overwhelm a basic cheap PC, much less a "supercomputer"  That is their intent with that nonsensical video showing them lifting pieces up, it sure seems that way.  That is just there to make it seem like it was hard and that's why no one has 'found out" yet.  Too funny.  I need to rewatch that, I may be able to identify exactly what that supposed supercomputer was.

edit***  I thought that tecate module on it was familiar.  Yes this is a raid server setup.  Basically a networked very large hard drive with multiple levels of backup capability.  Not some supercomputer.  Also I seriously doubt the data points filled it up.  Nevertheless, they used this setup to try to show difficulty with their supposed experiment, just plain dishonesty.

I use to think people had a problem with reading comprehension, now it seems they can't even watch a 20 minute video and comprehend it.  If you watched the entire thing you would have NEVER posted this since the video agrees with you!

It does not quite agree. He proposes another ridicilous explanation only. And I watched from 10:22 to confirm it and even a minute watching it was torture. So yes, this is kind of video which you just can't wach entirely because it is incomprehensible BS.

Quote from: frenat on September 02, 2017, 05:39:57 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 02, 2017, 03:00:03 AM

Quote from: zork on September 02, 2017, 02:04:52 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 01, 2017, 11:18:50 PM

At 10:20 he claims that crepuscular rays  prove that the sun is just above the clouds. 
If that's his level of understanding of perspective, I don't have the time to waste - unless I get tired of watching the grass grow.

The idea of the sun's being "just above the clouds" is just as idiotic under the flat earth model as it is for the globe.

  Any person claiming this should google for "crepuscular rays forest". According to this observed phenomenon sun is much-much-much lower, just above treetops.

Yes, flat earthers come up with such interpretations of crepuscular rays.

So the sun is in the trees of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco!

And is the sun in the clouds above this Scottish Loch?

Is "the sun in the clouds above this Scottish Loch  " or "In the trees of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco  ".
I must have missed it when I was in Scotland, maybe Nessie scared it away and it certainly wasn't in that tree last time I was in Golden Gate Park.

Seems that they now have to decide if the sun is a few tens of metres high in San Francisco, a few kilometers high over Scotland, no more than 15 km high (Sandokhan), no more than 700 statute miles (Rowbotham) or the 4828 km Silicon is trying to prove.

Now, I am confused!

Or look up anti-crepuscular rays.  These are seen on the opposite horizon as the sun. If they are supposed to point to the sun then the sun would be spread out over the whole sky.

I use to think people had a problem with reading comprehension, now it seems they can't even watch a 20 minute video and comprehend it.  If you watched the entire thing you would have NEVER posted this since the video agrees with you!

I was replying to Rabinoz, not some video. You can tell this because the nested quotes show I was responding to Rabinoz.  Must take some of the reading comprehension.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 01, 2017, 11:18:50 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on September 02, 2017, 01:46:25 AM

Whenever you jokers have something meaningful to discuss let me know

But deny everything you like, youu simply cannot wriggle out of the facts:
Look again at:
Likewise there is no justification for claiming that the angular size of the sun changes significantly from sunrise to sunset.
As in this video from the flat earther,  Matrix Decode:.

These facts
           are not consistent with a close sun and a flat earth but
           are perfectly consistent with a very distant sun and a Globe shaped earth.

Whenever you jokers have something meaningful to discuss let me know

What's the matter?
Have you run out of bullshit to spout to defend your lies?

Are you going to act like an honest, rational adult and admit you were wrong?
So far all the evidence indicates the elevation angle of the sun doesn't work on a FE but does on a RE.

The only way to make it "work" is by correcting for the fact that Earth is round and the sun is distant.

I use to think people had a problem with reading comprehension, now it seems they can't even watch a 20 minute video and comprehend it.  If you watched the entire thing you would have NEVER posted this since the video agrees with you!

No. It means they don't see any point in wasting their time on a 22 minute video.

The first 2.75 minutes is just crap with just music and animations without even starting an argument.

The first actual argument only starts at 4:24ish. All that argument does is show the FE is bullshit.
Around 9:40 there is a blatant lie, where they claim that we can't make a model to trace any object in the sky accurately. But we can, it is called the HC model.

He then lies about the crepuscular rays.
They can be seen from multiple angles, not just a single person. One example showing just how wrong he is is anti-crepuscular rays which you see with the sun at your back.
His model (at least the one he showed in the video) still models it completely wrong.

A rainbow is a fundamentally different phenomenon.

There is no evidence the sun is a source projection.
The source of a rainbow is the sun.

They don't have a super machine. They have what appears to be a server, which isn't made for rendering but instead is made for storing data.

Maybe they should have tried modelling Earth as a sphere and see what happens?

Their model also makes no sense as they are drawing in the path of the sun in 3D space based upon 2 angles, which you simply cannot do.
The azimuth and angle of elevation of the sun does not tell you how far away it is.
Then then discuss magnetic holography, discussing someone's work on it with no reference.

What they are discussing is pure bullshit.
The path of light is not effected my magnetic fields.

You need specific particles to make this happen, and it still isn't the light itself which is being bent. So the entire basis of the model is pure bullshit.

Why are they then discussing current for magnetic fields?
Current applies to electricity flowing through wires.

We also measure the Earth's magnetic field and isn't doing what they need, nor is it anywhere near strong enough.

Then the last few minutes are just more music and crap.

Happy now? Your shitty video has been watched and its garbage refuted.

Now are you going to admit your FE is a load of shit?

You can post this a 1000 times.  It won't make it come true.  You have been defeated.  Suck it up.

As for you, your posts grow more misleading and dishonest by the day.  You won't be here long, as I've noticed the shill rotation is fairly quick.

You should add this quote to your signature before you leave, so we have a little somethin to remind us about your character.

"It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by a bunch of turkeys"

You can post this a 1000 times.  It won't make it come true.  You have been defeated.  Suck it up.

Projecting much?
You disproved yourself, showing that the FE model doesn't work, that you get massive variation in the sun height.
Even with your BS "correction" which you have been completely unable to justify you still get large variations.
Meanwhile, the RE does not suffer from this.

So no, you have been defeated, suck it up princess.

As for you, your posts grow more misleading and dishonest by the day.  You won't be here long, as I've noticed the shill rotation is fairly quick.
You should add this quote to your signature before you leave, so we have a little somethin to remind us about your character.
"It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by a bunch of turkeys"

Again, just more pathetic projection. My posts have remained honest. I wont be running away any time soon. We aren't the shills here.

And yes, that quote would be applicable. It can be hard for me to soar like an eagle when I'm surrounded by turkeys like you.

Quote from: rabinoz on September 02, 2017, 01:40:11 PM

You can post this a 1000 times.  It won't make it come true.

I'll post better and wider range versions of it and they will be just a little bit more true.

You have been defeated.  Suck it up.

All I saw was an attempt at the most blatantly dishonest fudging that I has seen anyone try.
If you corrected that,  please post your explanations of why the sun's elevations simply will not fit a sun at any fixed height over a flat earth.

You attitude is typical. The first thing you do is see that your local bit of the earth looks flat , so you assume the whole thing is flat.
Then you are forced to fudge everything else to fit you erroneous first assumption.

The history of the Globe is quite different.
At first, just as with you, they saw that their local bit of the earth looked flat , so they thought the whole thing was flat.
But, as more evidence came in, those ancient people were prepared to revise those first opinions and see that a globe shape fitted observations so much better.

And when you take the time to study the ideas and beliefs of the period from say 500 BC to around 50 AD, you realise that those people were really pretty astute.

But none of this means a thing to modern flat earthers.  To so many of them it boils down to a mis-guided religious type belief.