The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...
The official flat earth wiki states the sun is 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter. So in FE world Venus would have to be very tiny. That, or aether. Which requires no explanation.
The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...
...if the sun was actually 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter (which most flat earthers dispute)...Really? Who are these people? How far away do they think the sun is? Where has anybody ever disputed the near, small sun?
...if the sun was actually 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter (which most flat earthers dispute)...Really? Who are these people? How far away do they think the sun is? Where has anybody ever disputed the near, small sun?
The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...Like many who visit this site gleaning what flat earthers believe or not can be rather confusing I'm just trying to clarify a few things.
I approve of your new attitude Nightsky, a well reasoned post.
For the record the spec on the picture is Mercury.
I like that you took the time to work out the relative sizes of the planets based on the wikis sun size and distance.
The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...Like many who visit this site gleaning what flat earthers believe or not can be rather confusing I'm just trying to clarify a few things.
Indeed the planets do pass in front of the sun, but only two do, Mercury and Venus, from our perspective, and from that we can determine relative size. The observed diameter of Venus is 115 times smaller than the Sun. I think the photograph posted by disputeone shows this quite nicely. Flat earth theory says the diameter of the sun is 32 miles. This would in turn give a diameter for Venus at around 400 meters and 180 meters for Mercury thereabouts, give or take a few meters either way.
Would these two sizes for the inner planets be in line with flat earth thought;
Venus 400 meters in diameter
Mercury 180 meters
It would be good to establish this before moving on.
Well, the reasons for transits are obvious enough; planets passing in front of the Sun. So the key question would end up being why only Mercury and Venus pass in front of the Sun.
Under the typical model, this is obvious enough. You can place other planets to in fact be higher than the Sun, so while they might occasionally vanish behind it, they'll never be in front. The issue then, here, is the size of Mercury and Venus, as you brought up.
In that case, personally I'd take issue with the measurement you used for distance to the Sun. Yes, that figure has been used a few times over the forum, but the methodology behind it was flawed; it used Eratothenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth to calculate how far away the Sun was, which is problematic because trying the same experiment at a different time of day would give an entirely new distance to the Sun. So whatever's going on with the Sun under FET, it can't be that intuitive. As such, that figure would be unreliable.
DET's where it gets trickier, because while it has an answer to the planets, my understanding of the model is that all the planets ought to be able to pass in front of the Sun. The size and distance to the Sun are much trickier under that model, so on that part of your argument fails as it could easily be more than 32 miles across, but I can't immediately say why only Mercury and Venus pass in front of the Sun. I'll see if JRowe's said any more about it when the search function starts working again.
I made no mention of the other planets as they were not part of this discussion.Just extending the point. The question of why only some planets have transits was bound to come up in this thread sooner or later.
I was trying to establish some facts derived from fairly basic visual data as given by the transits of these two planets.I'm a REer, so all I can do it quote what FEers have said. Some hold to specific figures, but generally those are more hobby-FEers like jroa for whom there is a very real chance they're not exactly serious. A lot of FEers don't give such concrete figures, because there's no real way to be able to find them, especially if they believe in atypical behaviour of light. As I pointed out, the means by which the distance to the Sun is calculated doesn't really work, unless something odd is happening with light, in which case that needs to be accounted for before any distance can be calculated.
I was using numbers regarding the Sun's diameter and distance from the earth as given by the flat earth society and often quoted here, by Jora for example.
I was not presenting any argument so there was nothing to fall, all I was attempting to do was establish what flat earth believers, believed.
If you don't agree with 3000 miles and 32 miles could you please enlighten us.
I made no mention of the other planets as they were not part of this discussion.Just extending the point. The question of why only some planets have transits was bound to come up in this thread sooner or later.QuoteI was trying to establish some facts derived from fairly basic visual data as given by the transits of these two planets.I'm a REer, so all I can do it quote what FEers have said. Some hold to specific figures, but generally those are more hobby-FEers like jroa for whom there is a very real chance they're not exactly serious. A lot of FEers don't give such concrete figures, because there's no real way to be able to find them, especially if they believe in atypical behaviour of light. As I pointed out, the means by which the distance to the Sun is calculated doesn't really work, unless something odd is happening with light, in which case that needs to be accounted for before any distance can be calculated.
I was using numbers regarding the Sun's diameter and distance from the earth as given by the flat earth society and often quoted here, by Jora for example.
I was not presenting any argument so there was nothing to fall, all I was attempting to do was establish what flat earth believers, believed.
If you don't agree with 3000 miles and 32 miles could you please enlighten us.
If you want to know what FEers believe, it's that a) generally there is very little consensus, most FEers have their own models, and b) it's mostly made up of rules and general descriptions, rather than intricate figures and equations, because the latter aren't really feasible to develop.
So, the upshot is we are no farther on. The sun is an unknown size at an unknown distance from us in the mind of a flat earther.You can get somewhere if you ask after mechanisms, but yeah, exact figures are hard to find.
Why are they not feasible?How would you find them? Equations take a lot of work and a lot of expertise to develop, and with the limited networking FEers have there's not much they can do in the way of working together. Without being able to find some way to gauge the behaviour of light (how would you study the degree to which it bends etc?) there's no way to gauge a distance to the Sun...
Use the search function, to find out the CORRECT flat earth distance to the Sun, also the correct diameter of the Sun (within my messages, of course).The search function does not work.
Use the search function, to find out the CORRECT flat earth distance to the Sun, also the correct diameter of the Sun (within my messages, of course).
Are you round?
What do the flat earth people make of these transitsNothing.
and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?Nothing.
What do the flat earth people make of these transitsNothing.and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?Nothing.
What is happening UP THERE has nothing to do with the true shape of the earth DOWN HERE.
From TheHollyWood position in the solar system, TheHollyWeirdoes can only see two (only 2???) other planets making a transit of the sun, Mercury and Venus. Which I suppose must be included in the next cartoon.
Transits have been used by truth-tellers and liars-alike down through the ages to work out all sorts of things, particularly using the transit of Venus, which has been used to fabricate the illusion of size of the sun and the solar system as well as in refining ways of deceiving the public about fictional exoplanets.
It kinda does. Generally speaking, flat earth goes along with a geocentric model whereas globe earth goes along with a heliocentric model. Trying to fit a flat earth into a heliocentric model causes big issues for the flat earth model. Even more than it already has.What do the flat earth people make of these transitsNothing.and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?Nothing.
What is happening UP THERE has nothing to do with the true shape of the earth DOWN HERE.
<snip>
It kinda does. Generally speaking, flat earth goes along with a geocentric model whereas globe earth goes along with a heliocentric model. Trying to fit a flat earth into a heliocentric model causes big issues for the flat earth model. Even more than it already has.What do the flat earth people make of these transitsNothing.and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?Nothing.
What is happening UP THERE has nothing to do with the true shape of the earth DOWN HERE.
<snip>
PS. You're not as charming as your username suggests.
Are you round?
Flat earth theory says the diameter of the sun is 32 miles.
This "theory" has been debunked countless times: it is completely erroneous.
Its very derivation is fraught with numerous and catastrophic assumptions.
Do your homework on this one also: here is the Schroeter effect.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427
The Evening Star and the Morning Star are TWO different planets, and not the same.
The Sun does rise and set (this much is obvious from the Fred Bruenjes photographs taken in Antarctica, well known to everyone here).That is ridiculous in so many ways that I can't be bothered trying to even list them!
The Sun's orbital altitude is some 15-20 km.
The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters (since one sacred cubit = 0.6356621 m, 1000 sc = 635 meters is a better figure for the diameter).
The Sun, Moon, Black Sun, Shadow Moon and Jupiter have the same diameter.
The Sun has the shape of a disk.
CNO cycle: total demolition of the nuclear furnace hypothesisI'll let you pretend fusion experts fight over that one!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1827377#msg1827377
Faint young sun paradox:Not my problem, I'm more concerned with what is happening now!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1707290#msg1707290
Likewise.
Martian faint young sun paradox:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1775118#msg1775118
ISS/Atlantis solar/lunar transits (also Mercury/Venus/Hubble solar transits):All that proves is that you have no idea about perspective. I've answered that before with the ISS ransit photos. They are quite insistent with the ISS, Venus, Mercury and th sun being at the well accepted distances. You can use the search facility to fingers that.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1786946#msg1786946
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1787025#msg1787025
Schroeter effect: the Evening Star and the Morning Star are two different planets, complete demonstrationYes, the Sagnac effect needs to be considered in the clock synchronisation, but since the Sagnac effect is dependent on the angular velocity, it's hardly a problem with the earth's orbiting the sun.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427
Calculations for the solar precession on a flat surface of the Earth (using the 635 meter diameter figure):
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1726000#msg1726000
20 page debate on the altitude of the Sun:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.msg1490160#msg1490160 (significant discussion starts here, on pg 5)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.150 (page 6)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=58190.180 (page 7)
The Earth does NOT orbit the Sun: the missing orbital Sagnac effect
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1782182#msg1782182
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1784780#msg1784780
If your theories are so wonderful, why are you the only one who believes them?
You still don't get it, do you?
Anytime YOU are unable to explain the Tunguska event, the Allais effect and much more, means that YOU agree wholeheartedly and completely with my assertions.Oh, rubbish!
[The orbital Sagnac Effect] is completely missing from the GPS satellites recordings.
A quick glance at this paper (http://areeweb.polito.it/ricerca/relgrav/solciclos/ashby_d.pdf) shows that the Sagnac effect is calculated based on a rotation rate of 7.2921151247 x 10-5 rad/s. This is the rotation rate of the earth with respect to the stars, not the sun. This takes into account both the rotation of the earth relative to the sun, and the rotation of the earth due to the orbit of the sun. There is no need for a separate "orbital Sagnac effect" calculation.
Are you round?
No, global say this. I'm looking for an answer.
The Sun does rise and set (this much is obvious from the Fred Bruenjes photographs taken in Antarctica, well known to everyone here).
The Sun's orbital altitude is some 15-20 km.
The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters (since one sacred cubit = 0.6356621 m, 1000 sc = 635 meters is a better figure for the diameter).
The Sun does rise and set (this much is obvious from the Fred Bruenjes photographs taken in Antarctica, well known to everyone here).
The Sun's orbital altitude is some 15-20 km.
The Sun's diameter is some 600 meters (since one sacred cubit = 0.6356621 m, 1000 sc = 635 meters is a better figure for the diameter).
With a disc sun at this altitude, can you explain the mechanics of the 2017 USA total solar eclipse that will last a total of 3.5 hours and will be 115 km wide at its peak, plus how the partial eclipse in a huge area either side also fits in. Do you have a link to previous calculations?