Distance to Venus, the sun, and beyond to STICKS!

In speaking about "proof" the earth is curved, how does the difference in shadow lengths of multiple sticks, at the same time, and at some distance apart NOT qualify as proof? Is there a FE explanation that undermines this observation?

For instance, the Sun being close may affect the length of two shadows as the sun would be at different angles due to its proximity. However, obtaining measurements with radar ranging to measure the distance to Venus as approximately 4.5 × 10^7 km, and seeing Venus pass in front of the Sun, this would seem to be physical proof the sun is at least further away than that. Likewise, laser measurements of the moon's distance give us concrete ranges for it as well, and we certainly see it pass in front of the sun during an eclipse. No extrapolation, just direct observation of the speed of light bouncing back and forth.

So, how to explain the difference in shadow lengths if not for a curved surface? Further, if you do this observation with multiple people using the genius of modern communications, you can make observations in dozens of locations across the globe giving significantly varied shadow lengths, and angles, sufficient to draw out a sphere.

True or False?

In speaking about "proof" the earth is curved, how does the difference in shadow lengths of multiple sticks, at the same time, and at some distance apart NOT qualify as proof? Is there a FE explanation that undermines this observation?

By multiple do you mean 2? Or do you mean more than 2?

If only 2, then by itself (e.g. without observations which show that the sun is very far away), it is underconstrained. You will get different results for the curvature of Earth depending on the distance to the sun. These include a round Earth as known, with a very distant sun, a flat Earth with a close sun, and an inside out Earth with an even closer sun.

For multiple sticks, some FEers appeal to nature itself conspiring to pretend Earth is flat by curving light to produce the same result as Earth being round.

However, obtaining measurements with radar ranging to measure the distance to Venus as approximately 4.5 × 10^7 km, and seeing Venus pass in front of the Sun, this would seem to be physical proof the sun is at least further away than that.

FEers would reject such ranging measurements as part of the conspiracy. If you could use that, you would also be able to use photos from space which clearly show Earth is round.

The rare few that do accept such measurements as having happened will instead appeal to people not knowing what the speed of light is between Earth and Venus or Earth and the moon, and instead act like some magic slows light to allow the moon or Venus to be much closer.

Yep it all comes down to FE being just another conspiracy theory.  You will never change the minds of any dedicated conspiracy theorists no matter what 'conspiracy' they believe in.  Flat Earth is no different.

So in your experience folks trying to maintain a FE theory need to discount information that contradicts their belief? It does seem there is a pattern of rejecting a premise, such as mine, since I personally did not do the measurement, but folks in the FE camp are happy to quote sources of information all day long if they find one that they feel supports their view. I just don't understand the vast contradictions and hypocrisies I am seeing as I read more and more on this forum. I had started reading through out of curiosity as there were some really good debates, but ultimately I can't find a compelling unifying theory for a flat earth. Rather, there seem to be numerous piece meal assertions, but each contradicts some other observed natural mechanism or phenomenon.

I think I am just overwhelmed as a new searcher.....I don't understand how people can outright dismiss repeatable results that are reviewed, tested, and honed by new techniques or technology. What is this psychological phenomenon? (Edit: Solarwind must have posted as I wrote this. Thanks for the input.)

So, thanks JackBlack. You seem to be saying the measurements with more than two sticks should be conclusive proof the earth is curved. With enough sticks and distance, you should be able to at least prove the earth is a sphere. I was curious what parts of FE theory contradict this and was aware of the sun locality question, but are there more? Someone who is well versed in FE theory might be kind enough to articulate the contradictions from their view which would be interesting. At least one of those FE contradictions should, in it self, be provable. 

I'm starting to conclude that anything which extrapolates curvature is summarily dismissed. If it can not be simply observed with your eyes from your perspective, then it can not exist and is somehow a fraud, wrong, or a conspiracy.

Am I on the right track?  Thank much.

So, thanks JackBlack. You seem to be saying the measurements with more than two sticks should be conclusive proof the earth is curved. With enough sticks and distance, you should be able to at least prove the earth is a sphere.

No, JackBlack is saying he can not be caught dead contemplating ideas
that his under powered think organ should be capable of exploring.

He has no ideas of his own. Never has. Never will.
He just tells us what other people think, or have said.

You know, someone who has read things but has never done anything.

He has some pathological need to force others to comply with his beliefs.
Mommy issues?

Don't engage him, he will nut up and start calling you a liar and an idiot.

He has a very thin skin and infantile brain.
Don't shake him.

Rather, there seem to be numerous piece meal assertions, but each contradicts some other observed natural mechanism or phenomenon.

That is basically how FE operates. Multiple contradictory models to explain different aspects of reality and/or rejection of evidence.

So, thanks JackBlack. You seem to be saying the measurements with more than two sticks should be conclusive proof the earth is curved. With enough sticks and distance, you should be able to at least prove the earth is a sphere. I was curious what parts of FE theory contradict this and was aware of the sun locality question, but are there more?

Yes, as pointed out, some will claim that light bends. So instead of light following a straight from the sun to observers on Earth, it will instead bend upwards.
This makes the sun appear lower than it should if light was following a straight line.

The problem they ignore with this is it also means that their "proof" of Earth being flat due to seeing a distant shore does't hold, as that light should also bend up and make the distant shore not visible.

Am I on the right track?  Thank much.

From their wiki (https://theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Place+of+the+Conspiracy+in+FET) :

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -
P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

*gulp* That is terrifying....the narrative above those points on that Wiki was enlightening. "The existence of 'The Conspiracy' is a consequence of the FET. Virtually no one begins with 'The Conspiracy' and develops a belief in the Flat Earth Theory. Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy."

Does anyone in the FE community agree with the above logical progression of flat earth belief developing into a necessary conspiracy?

I remained stunned, and terrified. I sincerely hope for an opposing view and some illumination as to why my "stick" and sun thesis may not be accurate from a member of the FE community.

In speaking about "proof" the earth is curved, ...

Hence, any flat earther did not give a heck to your issue. Your assumption is wrong. The fact is that all of the above writers, biased angry globularist like you and no flat earther have dealt with this issue, and sounds like will not.

I think its fair to say this experiment involves 'multiple' points.

http://eratosthenes.ea.gr

Quote from: Layperson on July 22, 2020, 01:29:47 PM

In speaking about "proof" the earth is curved, ...

Hence, any flat earther did not give a heck to your issue. Your assumption is wrong. The fact is that all of the above writers, biased angry globularist like you and no flat earther have dealt with this issue, and sounds like will not.

I got sidetracked in reading the Flat Earth Society’s own words. I hope you can understand what a shock it could be to walk into this forum out of curiosity about how observation feed into assessment and theory, and see the following words:

"Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy."

I interpret that, combined with what I have seen thus far as, a FE believer will only rely on their own observation, and even when shown how their assertion is flawed, will steadfastly ignore other evidence and continue to believe. That’s ok except they FE members are trying to refute a round earth. You can not call out an observation as proof. It’s just more evidence which has to be banged up against other evidence. That’s not what happens here for the most part. It’s just two sides saying the other is wrong, and citing sources. If FE is a belief, and the FES’ own credo states all contrary evidence one can’t personally prove must be wrong, and thus the amount of it must suggest a conspiracy...I don’t even know what to do with that.

Perhaps I should backtrack and get back to the purity of my original query....

How does the difference in shadow lengths of more than two sticks, at the same time, and at some distance apart NOT qualify as proof? Is there a FE explanation that undermines this observation? I’m curious with this observation personally doable,  what are the FE explanations for its failure to show a curved or spherical earth?

Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat

I would love to know where this 'knowledge that the Earth is flat' comes from. It is interesting though that they should claim to 'know' that the Earth is flat when in fact I would say there is far more evidence to say the opposite.

But then I suppose that's the difference between what you would like to think is true and what is actually true isn't it. For example to a flat Earth believer Rowbothams canal experiment carried out in the mid-19th century seems to offer more compelling evidence that the Earth is flat than the myriad of modern high resolution 21st century photos and videos taken from space from multiple sources provide evidence that we live on a globe 8000 miles across.

How does the difference in shadow lengths of more than two sticks, at the same time, and at some distance apart NOT qualify as proof? Is there a FE explanation that undermines this observation? I’m curious with this observation personally doable,  what are the FE explanations for its failure to show a curved or spherical earth?

There really isn't any explanation.  You either get people attacking science trying to 'disprove 'Glove Earth Theory' in response, or some vague and undefined explanation like Electromagnetic Acceleration that says some unknown (but very real) 'Bishop Constant' is used with 'ratio math' to bend light to make it all work, somehow.  It just does, trust them.

I always hope someone will square the circle and come up with something really interesting but so far, nothing.

Just remember that flat Earth 'theory' is belief based and not science based. In other words flat Earthers 'know' the Earth is flat which means they then have to come up with whatever explanations or claims they need to in order to make the laws of physics fit in with that 'knowledge'.

How does the difference in shadow lengths of more than two sticks, at the same time, and at some distance apart NOT qualify as proof? Is there a FE explanation that undermines this observation? I’m curious with this observation personally doable,  what are the FE explanations for its failure to show a curved or spherical earth?

Yes, as I already explained. Some appeal to magical bendy light.
With this nonsense, light will bend upwards as it travels.
A stick close to the subsolar point will not have a significant effect. But as you get further and further away the bending of the light becomes more and more significant until you reach a point where the shadow length would become infinite, or even go upwards, and then the sun is not visible.

This would be nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round.

How does the difference in shadow lengths of more than two sticks, at the same time, and at some distance apart NOT qualify as proof? Is there a FE explanation that undermines this observation? I’m curious with this observation personally doable,  what are the FE explanations for its failure to show a curved or spherical earth?

To Layperson I would say simply this. You claim you are part of the CIA so presumably being in such a privileged position you know all the answers to your questions already.  In fact it should be us asking the questions and you providing the answers don't you think?

Don't engage him, he will nut up and start calling you a liar and an idiot

A bit like some flat Earthers do towards the 'angry globalists'...

I don’t know that it gives me any particular special insights relevant to things here. I get some personal experiences like working with NGA that make it hard for me to understand how all their stuff could be wrong. But I can’t really think of any privileged information, per se. I looked up Area 51 once and didn’t find anything only a half joke. I did look it up, but information in general is very compartmented.

The closest I came to finding some bias for what people consider conspiracy is seeing historic documents about research into extra sensory perception. There were really tests and trials, but if anything came from it, i’ve Not seen it.

This would be nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round.

Or, ancient astronomers made observations and assumed that light was straight to conclude that the Earth was round. When really, straight line trajectories do not naturally occur in nature and it was light that they were looking at that was curved.

Quote

This would be nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round.

and it was light that they were looking at that was curved.

i.e. what I was saying, nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round.

Quote

This would be nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round.

Or, ancient astronomers made observations and assumed that light was straight to conclude that the Earth was round. When really, straight line trajectories do not naturally occur in nature and it was light that they were looking at that was curved.

Please explain your curving light theory with some actual working math.

Otherwise you're just claiming the world is flat, but looks round because of magic.

We think the world is round because we can see it from space and have measured it using many methods. If light bent so much as to literally do a 180 before reaching the ground from only a few thousand miles up we would be able to measure that. We would notice.

I had this argument with you before, and even brought up how we know light doesn't bend the way you claim because otherwise we wouldn't be able to talk with the Mars rover and other space probes if light was twisting and bending at such a degree as you claim.

When really, straight line trajectories do not naturally occur in nature

Pure crap.

When really, straight line trajectories do not naturally occur in nature and it was light that they were looking at that was curved.

So if I dropped a lead ball, inside my house, or perhaps down the stairwell of some tall building, what other trajectory would it take and why?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 28, 2020, 09:42:57 PM

When really, straight line trajectories do not naturally occur in nature and it was light that they were looking at that was curved.

So if I dropped a lead ball, inside my house, or perhaps down the stairwell of some tall building, what other trajectory would it take and why?

Good luck getting an answer.

Drive by denials and vague comments about magic bendy light is as much as he ever gives.

It's because there is no Electromagnetic Acceleration formula, no Bishop Constant, no theory on how light bends.  Just claims that it does, even though I've proven before that no it does NOT bend the way they claim at all.

All I know is according to the FE Wiki the sun is 300 miles or so in diameter and because Venus has been observed transiting the sun many times Venus is nothing more than a couple miles at best in diameter.

The real question is, what causes the "phases of venus"? and why is venus so bright? Are the stars even less miles in diameter?

The FE Wiki actually gives figures of 32 miles for the diameter of the Sun and 3000 miles for its distance.

Now as you say we observe transits of Venus and Mercury across the Sun.  I have seen and imaged them myself.  So for that to happen Mercury and Venus must lie between the Sun and Earth. Going by the FE figures above that means that Venus must be nearer than 3000 miles and also considerably less than 32 miles in diameter. The disks of Mercury and Venus are tiny compared to the Sun when you see them during a transit. I have no idea how FE can seriously believe that that is true but I'm sure they will come up with something.  It will certainly be interesting to see if they do and if so what.  The modern figure for the size of Venus is almost exactly the same as that of Earth but I'm sure FE believers will disagree.  They would have to for their models to work.

The phases of Venus and Mercury are easy to account for through conventional heliocentric models where they are both inferior planets. Not just the phases but the changes in disk size of Venus as its phase changes.

They would have to for their models to work.

What model?

Which ever model they have where they get the figures quoted for the size and distance of the Sun.  They must come from somewhere?!?

why is Venus so bright?

Because Venus is covered in clouds that have a very high albedo. If you could live on the surface of Venus you would never be able to see the Sun rise in the west and set in the east. Around 3/4 of the incident Sunlight on the tops of the clouds is reflected back out into space. Compared to just 39% for the Earth.

The phases of Venus and Mercury are easy to account for through conventional heliocentric models where they are both inferior planets. Not just the phases but the changes in disk size of Venus as its phase changes.

Please update your knowledge on astronomy.

Here is the Schroeter effect:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

Well I appreciate the link but I am quite happy with my knowledge of astronomy thank you very much. Are you really suggesting that I should 'update' my knowledge of astronomy based on a single persons observations made over 2 centuries ago ?!? If anyone is in need of an update then I think it is you rather than me. 

If you had observed Venus through a telescope and seen the phase and disk size change in the way that I have then I think you would agree that everything points to Venus orbiting the Sun.

I'm sure Mr J. H. Schroeter had his own reasons for saying what he saw or thought he saw back in 1793 but I tend to rely on what my own observations tell me.

Not so long ago (in June) we saw Venus edge closer to the Sun as its eastern (evening) elongation came to a close.  By eastern elongation I mean that Venus is trailing the Sun in the sky.  A few days later, after conjunction with the Sun (when Venus passes between the Earth and the Sun) we saw it appear to the west of the Sun (meaning it is now leading the Sun) and (not surprisingly) with the same phase but in reverse.  That's exactly what you would expect of a planet which is orbiting the Sun faster than the Earth don't you think? 

I always observe Venus during the day time (with an 807nm IR filter) because it reduces the glare. The IR filter reduces the effect of heat turbulence when observing planets.  CMOS chips have better senstivity to IR wavelengths. But then you probably know that already.

BTW in that link you sent me it says

THE EXTENDED SCHROETER EFFECT: THE EVENING STAR AND THE MORNING STAR ARE TWO DIFFERENT PLANETS

That is utter rubbish because you can actually track Venus during the day with telescopes and so you see it going all the way across the sky.  Then we have transits of Venus where you see it cross the face of the Sun between evening and morning elongations.

So all of your links are just self-generated propaganda to try and make others accept as true what you believe.  Take a step back from all your obscure Internet links for a moment (most of which just points back to your own 'advanced' FE theory posts from you anyway) and just go outside and watch Venus for yourself.

I notice that there are some conspiracy theory orientated websites that try to use the Schroeter effect as a way of trying to discredit the heliocentric model of the solar system while other, more scientific based websites point out that it could just as easily be accounted for by considering the differing levels of illumination of the clouds covering the Venetian surface around the terminator region.  Believe whatever you want.

Here is the Schroeter effect:

No, there is your ramblings.
Do you have a link to a credible source?
If not, I think I will stick with reality.

At the moment of maximum elongation (when the Venus is apparently the farthest from the Sun)
there is right triangle Venus-Sun-Earth with the right angle at Venus.
Radar can measure the distance to Venus so we calculate the distance to Sun using simple trigonometry.

If the maximum elongation angle was 46.36 degrees,
and radar measured the distance to Venus to be 103 million kilometers,
then the distance to Sun will be calculated as 103 / (cos 46.36) = 149 million kilometers: