# The Flat Earth Society

## Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Fredo on April 19, 2008, 06:45:59 AM

Title: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 19, 2008, 06:45:59 AM
I posted this in another thread (well, most of it), but I wanted to make a new topic about it. Here is a picture I made (in paint) that shows the positions of the sun and Polaris (the north star, for those who don't know). During an equinox, the sun is directly overhead at the equator, shown here:

(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4180/sunandpolariszu3.png) (http://imageshack.us)

As you can see in the picture showing the position of the sun, it makes perfect sense that the Earth is round. The position (in degrees) of the sun in the sky during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude. On the round earth, all the arrows pointing to where the sun should be point in the same direction. That means that the sun is extremely far away in the direction. But look at the flat earth. The angles the sun is at (compared to the ground) are the same as on the round earth. But look at where they point. With those 5 latitude positions, there are 10 places that the sun is at once, 4 of them being on the ground. How is that possible? Answer: It isn't.

Now look at the position of Polaris. As most of you (hopefully) know, Polaris hardly moves in the sky (.7 degrees off of the center of the earths axis according to Wikipedia). Its altitude (in degrees) in the sky at all times is equal to the latitude that you are at. So near the equator (0 degrees latitude) it is near the ground. At the north pole (90 degrees latitude) it is directly overhead. On the round earth, the arrows point in the same direction. That means that Polaris is extremely far away from us in that direction. Now look at the flat earth picture. Hmm... It seems that Polaris is at the north pole. How is that possible? Answer: Again, it isn't.

So there's proof that the earth must be round. I have even checked to see that my latitude (about 42 degrees north) is equal to the altitude of Polaris, and it is. You would be stupid to think that my information is wrong, because most likely millions of people have figured out the position of the sun during an equinox and the position of Polaris (and don't say that they are all in on the 'conspiracy', because that's impossible).

Still don't believe me? Here's another picture I made. It shows the distance from the sun to the earth if the earth was flat. As you can clearly see, the distance from the sun to the equator during an equinox is different depending on your latitude. Again, I ask: How is this possible? Again I answer: It isn't.

(http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5245/sundistancexl7.png) (http://imageshack.us)
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Althalus on April 20, 2008, 12:45:41 AM
Fake.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 20, 2008, 05:54:26 AM
No, it's real. If you are on the northern hemisphere, find Polaris and figure out the altitude of it at your position and it will be the same as your latitude. And just about everyone knows that the sun is directly overhead at the equator during an equinox. The altitude of the sun during an equinox is 90-your latitude no matter where you are.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Althalus on April 20, 2008, 03:17:09 PM
Can you verify your claims about the position of the sun and north star at equinox?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 20, 2008, 05:17:15 PM
I can't verify these claims (which are correct) over the internet, but you can try them yourself. Tonight (or a night on any day) find Polaris and figure out the altitude (in degrees) of it (0 being at the horizon, 90 being straight up) using an astrolabe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrolabe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrolabe)). When you do that, its altitude will be the same as your latitude (might be a little off due to human error). At 12 P.M. on an equinox (next one is around September 21-23) figure out the altitude of the sun. Its altitude will be 90-your latitude (again, there might be human error).
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Althalus on April 21, 2008, 12:57:00 AM
(again, there might be human error).
Yes, because the earth is flat.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 21, 2008, 03:54:18 AM
Do you know what human error is? It's basically when humans miscalculate things because they are sometimes not precise. Look at a table or something and guess its length. Now take out a tape measure (or anything that is big enough to measure the length of the object) and find its length with it. Most likely you will be wrong by a few inches.

If you have a machine make 100 chairs (or something), they will all be the same. If you have a human make 100 chairs, some of them will have flaws because humans are only humans.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Althalus on April 21, 2008, 03:56:05 AM
And thus the earth is flat.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 21, 2008, 12:19:40 PM
Human error proves that the earth is flat? I don't think so. Do you have any ways to prove my evidence false? If so, I would like to hear it.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Althalus on April 21, 2008, 12:22:32 PM
If your evidence is correct the earth is round.

The earth is flat.

Your evidence cannot be correct.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: TheA1pha0mega on April 21, 2008, 01:12:11 PM
Oh... I thank you for providing so much proof to a FE.  ???
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on April 21, 2008, 01:19:45 PM
You are pretty damn good fredo, you must have just taken earth science, which would make you around 14 or 15. You have proven this FE theory wrong, now try and prvoe mine wrong. You can read about it and ask questions since I wasn't very specific in my thread "What's your flat earth". I'll be happy to answer any of your questions.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 21, 2008, 04:24:54 PM
If your evidence is correct the earth is round.

The earth is flat.

Your evidence cannot be correct.

I see you did some logic. I can do that, too.

With these premises:
If you still think the earth is flat then you are an idiot.
If my evidence is correct then the earth is round.
My evidence is correct.
You still think the earth is flat.

I can conclude that:
The earth is round.
You are an idiot.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2008, 04:51:39 PM
You didn't take the refraction of light via Snell's law into account. Snell's Law bends light as the sun's rays pass through the gradient of the atmosphere. That's how the sun sets into the horizon in the Flat Earth Model. If the atmosphere did not exist, the sun could never set.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: jdoe on April 21, 2008, 04:59:19 PM
You didn't take the refraction of light via Snell's law into account. Snell's Law bends light as the sun's rays pass through the gradient of the atmosphere. That's how the sun sets into the horizon in the Flat Earth Model. If the atmosphere did not exist, the sun could never set.

The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2008, 06:19:42 PM
You didn't take the refraction of light via Snell's law into account. Snell's Law bends light as the sun's rays pass through the gradient of the atmosphere. That's how the sun sets into the horizon in the Flat Earth Model. If the atmosphere did not exist, the sun could never set.
So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: CyborgJesus on April 21, 2008, 06:22:47 PM
You didn't take the refraction of light via Snell's law into account. Snell's Law bends light as the sun's rays pass through the gradient of the atmosphere. That's how the sun sets into the horizon in the Flat Earth Model. If the atmosphere did not exist, the sun could never set.
So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.
He has yet to answer that and is obviously stalling for time while he concocts another ludicrous Theory. If you don't answer within 1 hour Tom then I declare a win for RE.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Tom Bishop on April 21, 2008, 06:39:56 PM
Quote
The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Light is bent downwards as it passes through a thick medium, not upwards. That's why a straw's image appears lower when placed into a glass of water.

(http://www.spiritualliving.net/straw%20glass%20smalll.jpg)

Quote
So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

30,000 feet isn't very high. There's still a significant amount of atmosphere there. It's certainly possible to breath. The atmosphere is a gradient which sits on the earth and stretches several hundred miles. 30,000 feet is nothing.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2008, 07:04:15 PM
Quote
The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Light is bent downwards as it passes through a thick medium, not upwards. That's why a straw's image appears lower when placed into a glass of water.

(http://www.spiritualliving.net/straw%20glass%20smalll.jpg)
Ummm... Tom, you have a couple of different things going on in the picture.  First off, you have the top part of the glass that has air (less dense) to glass (more dense) back to air (less dense) then to water (more dense) transitions.  Then in the lower part of the glass you have air (less dense) to glass (more dense) to water (less dense) transitions.  Neither part is an accurate analogy for a vacuum (less dense) to air (more dense) transition let alone along an atmospheric gradient.

Quote
Quote
So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

30,000 feet isn't very high. There's still a significant amount of atmosphere there. It's certainly possible to breath. The atmosphere is a gradient which sits on the earth and stretches several hundred miles. 30,000 feet is nothing.

Maybe you could breath at 30,000 ft, but I wouldn't recommend it.  The difference in air pressure between sea level and 30,000 ft is more than 10psi.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html

I could be wrong, but I'd guess that's about 2/3 of the atmosphere.  Seems pretty significant to me.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: jdoe on April 22, 2008, 01:32:42 AM
Quote
The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Light is bent downwards as it passes through a thick medium, not upwards. That's why a straw's image appears lower when placed into a glass of water.

(http://www.spiritualliving.net/straw%20glass%20smalll.jpg)

(http://i307.photobucket.com/albums/nn291/gary2914458/Untitled-1.jpg?t=1207957678)

We've been over this many times before, Tom.  Snell's law implies that the sun will appear higher than it actually is.  Just, look at the diagram.  The light ray from the sun is bent towards the normal because air becomes more dense as the light propagates downward.  We assume light travels in straight lines, so the sun will appear in the direction of the line tangent to the actual path of light.  Follow the dotted line on the diagram, and that will give the apparent position of the sun.  Notice that it appears higher than the actual position of the sun.

Quote
Quote
So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

30,000 feet isn't very high. There's still a significant amount of atmosphere there. It's certainly possible to breath. The atmosphere is a gradient which sits on the earth and stretches several hundred miles. 30,000 feet is nothing.

Mt. Everest Tom?  It's at 29,000 feet, and people need oxygen masks up there.  Air pressure is 1/3 of what it is at sea level.  That means there is 2/3 less of the blanket of air at that altitude.  30,000 ft isn't nothing; it's very significant.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on April 22, 2008, 05:28:09 AM
Is it? Is it really that significant? Answer: YES. Tom is an idiot.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 23, 2008, 04:05:21 AM
I agree with taters343. Tom, you are an idiot. I also agree with jdoe and markjo. In the picture of the straw and glass of water, there are different densities. It needs to be a single density (or an increasing one to be more realistic). And from jdoe's picture, it is obvious that Snell's law would make the sun seem higher than it really is, making sun rises and sunsets impossible on a flat map.

Why is it so hard to believe that the earth is round? What makes more sense? That we happen to be in the center of the universe, constantly accelerating upwards with the rest of the universe for no known reason and everything is going around us (or just circling above us)? Or that we happen to be on 1 in trillions of planets in the universe and we aren't special (unless you count there being life here special)? I would go with the latter.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on April 23, 2008, 06:32:55 PM
I agree with fredo, I am quite confident in the statement "Tom is an idiot," as I should be since I said it. Also I have up most confidence in the entire species of gnome.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 26, 2008, 06:58:35 AM
Two and a half days without a reply? No argument against my evidence (as well as jdoe's and markjo's evidence)? Well, it would appear that RE'ers win. You lose, Tom.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: EvilToothpaste on April 26, 2008, 09:18:19 AM
I posted this in another thread (well, most of it), but I wanted to make a new topic about it. Here is a picture I made (in paint) that shows the positions of the sun and Polaris (the north star, for those who don't know). During an equinox, the sun is directly overhead at the equator, shown here:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4180/sunandpolariszu3.png

As you can see in the picture showing the position of the sun, it makes perfect sense that the Earth is round. The position (in degrees) of the sun in the sky during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude. On the round earth, all the arrows pointing to where the sun should be point in the same direction. That means that the sun is extremely far away in the direction. But look at the flat earth. The angles the sun is at (compared to the ground) are the same as on the round earth. But look at where they point. With those 5 latitude positions, there are 10 places that the sun is at once, 4 of them being on the ground. How is that possible? Answer: It isn't.

Now look at the position of Polaris. As most of you (hopefully) know, Polaris hardly moves in the sky (.7 degrees off of the center of the earths axis according to Wikipedia). Its altitude (in degrees) in the sky at all times is equal to the latitude that you are at. So near the equator (0 degrees latitude) it is near the ground. At the north pole (90 degrees latitude) it is directly overhead. On the round earth, the arrows point in the same direction. That means that Polaris is extremely far away from us in that direction. Now look at the flat earth picture. Hmm... It seems that Polaris is at the north pole. How is that possible? Answer: Again, it isn't.

So there's proof that the earth must be round. I have even checked to see that my latitude (about 42 degrees north) is equal to the altitude of Polaris, and it is. You would be stupid to think that my information is wrong, because most likely millions of people have figured out the position of the sun during an equinox and the position of Polaris (and don't say that they are all in on the 'conspiracy', because that's impossible).

Still don't believe me? Here's another picture I made. It shows the distance from the sun to the earth if the earth was flat. As you can clearly see, the distance from the sun to the equator during an equinox is different depending on your latitude. Again, I ask: How is this possible? Again I answer: It isn't.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5245/sundistancexl7.png[/img][/URL]

I love these kinds of arguments.  Your diagrams are beautiful, Fredo, don't get me wrong.  But you are generating your data based on the idea of the Round Earth then applying it to the Flat Earth and concluding that because you assume the Earth is round it is not flat.

One has to actually gather evidence, not just claim "the sun is here at the north, here at the equator, et cetera."  Do you see how you are brainwashed by the RE model?  That's called pseudo science.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on April 26, 2008, 09:50:53 AM
I posted this in another thread (well, most of it), but I wanted to make a new topic about it. Here is a picture I made (in paint) that shows the positions of the sun and Polaris (the north star, for those who don't know). During an equinox, the sun is directly overhead at the equator, shown here:

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4180/sunandpolariszu3.png

As you can see in the picture showing the position of the sun, it makes perfect sense that the Earth is round. The position (in degrees) of the sun in the sky during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude. On the round earth, all the arrows pointing to where the sun should be point in the same direction. That means that the sun is extremely far away in the direction. But look at the flat earth. The angles the sun is at (compared to the ground) are the same as on the round earth. But look at where they point. With those 5 latitude positions, there are 10 places that the sun is at once, 4 of them being on the ground. How is that possible? Answer: It isn't.

Now look at the position of Polaris. As most of you (hopefully) know, Polaris hardly moves in the sky (.7 degrees off of the center of the earths axis according to Wikipedia). Its altitude (in degrees) in the sky at all times is equal to the latitude that you are at. So near the equator (0 degrees latitude) it is near the ground. At the north pole (90 degrees latitude) it is directly overhead. On the round earth, the arrows point in the same direction. That means that Polaris is extremely far away from us in that direction. Now look at the flat earth picture. Hmm... It seems that Polaris is at the north pole. How is that possible? Answer: Again, it isn't.

So there's proof that the earth must be round. I have even checked to see that my latitude (about 42 degrees north) is equal to the altitude of Polaris, and it is. You would be stupid to think that my information is wrong, because most likely millions of people have figured out the position of the sun during an equinox and the position of Polaris (and don't say that they are all in on the 'conspiracy', because that's impossible).

Still don't believe me? Here's another picture I made. It shows the distance from the sun to the earth if the earth was flat. As you can clearly see, the distance from the sun to the equator during an equinox is different depending on your latitude. Again, I ask: How is this possible? Again I answer: It isn't.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/5245/sundistancexl7.png[/img][/URL]

I love these kinds of arguments.  Your diagrams are beautiful, Fredo, don't get me wrong.  But you are generating your data based on the idea of the Round Earth then applying it to the Flat Earth and concluding that because you assume the Earth is round it is not flat.

One has to actually gather evidence, not just claim "the sun is here at the north, here at the equator, et cetera."  Do you see how you are brainwashed by the RE model?  That's called pseudo science.

But... But... That's the exact same process that Tom and the esteemed Dr. Rowbotham use.  How can it possibly be wrong?
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

How do you refute that?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 26, 2008, 09:59:32 AM
I actually went outside at night and found the position of Polaris. I had to (it was homework for Earth Science). So no, I'm not just claiming these. I didn't find the position of the sun during an equinox, though. But that doesn't really matter, because as markjo said, Tom and Mr Rowbotham used these positions.

EDIT: You can figure out the position of Polaris yourself if you don't believe me. It doesn't take long at all.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: EvilToothpaste on April 26, 2008, 10:02:27 AM
Nah, that's not the same logic process.  Fredo is making incongruous assumptions.  Tom, on the other hand, didn't take enough data samples.  If he had he would have quickly realized that there is no solution to his little experiment.  Not to say that Tom doesn't make incongruous assumptions, too...
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 26, 2008, 10:08:32 AM
As I said, you can figure out the positions of both the sun and Polaris if you don't believe me. If my evidence wasn't correct, don't you think that somebody would have said that NASA and everyone else that would say this evidence is correct is wrong? Go on any website or look in any book that has information like this, and it will have this data. Wouldn't somebody have said they were wrong? Or are you going to say that they must have been killed by the conspirators before the truth got out?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: EvilToothpaste on April 26, 2008, 10:09:45 AM
Well, that is what the whole conspiracy theory is about.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on April 26, 2008, 10:14:57 AM
I actually went outside at night and found the position of Polaris. I had to (it was homework for Earth Science). So no, I'm not just claiming these. I didn't find the position of the sun during an equinox, though. But that doesn't really matter, because as markjo said, Tom and Mr Rowbotham used these positions.

EDIT: You can figure out the position of Polaris yourself if you don't believe me. It doesn't take long at all.

I knew it! You have recently taken earth science!
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 26, 2008, 10:16:20 AM
If that is what the whole conspiracy is about then why isn't Tom Bishop dead? I would have expected them to kill him (most likely staging and accident so nobody gets blamed) before he got the "truth" out.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on April 26, 2008, 10:18:05 AM
The gnome is right, someone go kill Tom.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Althalus on April 26, 2008, 03:15:05 PM
whats wrong with all of you the earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round earth is round  ;D

THE EARTH IS ROUND BECAUSE IF YOU WALK ALONG THE EQUATOR YOU WILL EVENTUALLY GET RIGHT BACK TO WHERE YOU STARTED
You can do that on a flat earth also.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: brox5783 on April 26, 2008, 03:22:07 PM
only idiots could do that on a flat earth

you realize that nothing makes sense about your pointless theory and that tom bishop is not a real person and that you all need help and electroshock therapy
btw the earth is round
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on April 26, 2008, 03:25:34 PM
If you look at the FE model (which is wrong, because the earth is round) you will see that the equator goes in a circle. I agree with you, brox, but can you not spam my thread? And Althalus, there was no need to quote that entire thing.

EDIT: I noticed that brox has spammed a bunch of threads with this same message. Was that really necessary? Before you have a chance to answer, I will say "No it wasn't."
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: brox5783 on April 26, 2008, 03:29:18 PM
ok i'll stop its all just so pointless     chow = brit
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on May 06, 2008, 03:18:11 PM
Ok I'm going to bring this back so that people can try to prove my evidence wrong. It would also be good if someone could move this to the flat earth debate & discussion thread.

I remembered today that I had in fact figured out the altitude of the sun during an equinox. I had forgotten about it because it didn't seem that important to me at the time I did it in earth science class last year. I don't really remember much of it, but throughout the day we went outside during the September equinox. We had these clear domes (representing the sky from our point of view), and a toothpick (held up with modeling clay) at the side. I don't remember what it looked like exactly, but we used markers to put the endpoints of the shadow on the dome, which represented the altitude of the sun at that time. We did this about 8 times that day. At the end of the day, in science class, we connected the dots and figured out the zenith (highest altitude of the sun). I live at about 42 degrees north, and the zenith was 48 degrees. This goes with what I said before - the altitude of the sun at an equinox is equal to 90 minus your latitude.

Now nobody can prove me wrong by saying that I didn't gather my own evidence.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on May 06, 2008, 03:21:42 PM
90-42 does not equal 48. You fail.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2008, 03:26:04 PM
90-42 does not equal 48. You fail.

Must be that new RE math that they keep talking about.   ???
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on May 06, 2008, 03:27:21 PM
When you fake math it is easy to prove the earth round.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2008, 03:29:50 PM
When you fake math it is easy to prove the earth round.

First they fake the pictures, now they fake the math.  RE bastards!!   >:(
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on May 06, 2008, 03:30:10 PM
Gargh!
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on May 07, 2008, 12:06:13 PM
Ok, does anyone have some real arguments against my evidence? I assure you, taters, that 90-42 is in fact 48.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on May 07, 2008, 12:34:33 PM
I did the math wrong. I was thinking 52 and 48 but then I realized that that is one hundred.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on May 08, 2008, 12:17:42 PM
OK, since its been about a day without a reply (more if you include the other days nobody has posted), so I guess nobody can prove me wrong.

Win for RE!

That must mean the earth is round.   :)

You can't argue that that must mean that every time someone says 'Win for FE' that the earth is flat, because you people only say that when RE'ers leave because they don't want to argue anymore because you guys are idiots. I have successfully proven that the earth is round. People can still post here if they have a way to prove my evidence wrong.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Deist on May 09, 2008, 05:46:20 AM
Let me get this straight:
You provide an anecdote for an experiment you did, then provide two figures (42 and 48) and show that they add up to 90...

Well, I'm convinced.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on May 09, 2008, 12:23:04 PM
Let me get this straight:
You provide an anecdote for an experiment you did, then provide two figures (42 and 48) and show that they add up to 90...

Well, I'm convinced.

Unless you have some evidence to contradict his experiment or his math skills, I suppose that does qualify as a win.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on May 09, 2008, 01:07:30 PM
90-42 = 48 shows that the altitude of the sun during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude. I live at about 42 degrees, and the sun's altitude during an equinox is 48 degrees. At the equator (0 degrees), the sun is directly overhead during an equinox (90 degrees).

42+48 = 90
0+90 = 90

That proves that the altitude of the sun is 90-latitude, which is only possible on the round earth model.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on May 09, 2008, 01:08:52 PM
Have you measured the angle from the north pole?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Fredo on May 09, 2008, 01:19:40 PM
I don't think I really need to. It's common knowledge that the sun's altitude during an equinox is 90-their latitude. If it was otherwise, people would know. I had to find it out in earth science class, which means that other people had to find it out, too.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on May 09, 2008, 01:20:53 PM
LIES!
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on May 11, 2008, 05:48:12 PM
only idiots could do that on a flat earth
You'd be fairly fucking retard(t)ed attemping that on a RE model, both models share vast ammounts of water over the equator.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Sean O'Grady on August 07, 2008, 03:19:21 AM
The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Yes, but this can be explained by the anti-Snell's law so everything is okay now.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on August 07, 2008, 04:26:07 AM
The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Yes, but this can be explained by the anti-Snell's law so everything is okay now.

I actually used this arguement in school once. Left my friend speechless. Laughing, but still speechless.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on August 07, 2008, 08:26:44 AM
The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Yes, but this can be explained by the anti-Snell's law so everything is okay now.

Hmmm...  But doesn't anti-Snell's law only work on anti-light from the anti-sun?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Ski on August 07, 2008, 09:49:34 AM
Who has been to the bottom of the disc to say?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on August 07, 2008, 12:46:31 PM
Who has been to the bottom of the disc to say?

Well, you seem pretty convinced that there is an anti-moon and an anti-sun down there and a true zetetic knows better than to speculate on such things if he hasn't personally witnessed them, so I'm guessing that you have down there.

That is unless you haven't been down there and you are just making all of this up.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: semperround on August 07, 2008, 06:01:54 PM
Quote
The problem is that Snell's law says that light would be bent in the opposite direction needed for the sun to set.

Light is bent downwards as it passes through a thick medium, not upwards. That's why a straw's image appears lower when placed into a glass of water.

(http://www.spiritualliving.net/straw%20glass%20smalll.jpg)

Quote
So, then why do you not see the sun when flying at night?  Flying at 30,000 - 40,000 feet should put you above enough of the atmosphere to at least partially offset the refraction of the sun's rays.  Maybe not full daylight, but at least twilight.

30,000 feet isn't very high. There's still a significant amount of atmosphere there. It's certainly possible to breath. The atmosphere is a gradient which sits on the earth and stretches several hundred miles. 30,000 feet is nothing.
this photo is a fake.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: cbarnett97 on August 07, 2008, 08:07:57 PM
90-42 does not equal 48. You fail.

Must be that new RE FE math that they keep talking about.   ???
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: narcberry on August 07, 2008, 08:09:47 PM
That was clever! Do it again!
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Pyriform on August 08, 2008, 03:02:29 AM
(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4180/sunandpolariszu3.png) (http://imageshack.us)

As you can see in the picture showing the position of the sun, it makes perfect sense that the Earth is round. The position (in degrees) of the sun in the sky during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude.

but

Snell's law implies that the sun will appear higher than it actually is.

therefore the sun should appear higher than 0 degrees at the north pole at the equinox. How is this possible? Answer: It isn't. So the earth cannot be round.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on August 08, 2008, 05:33:00 AM
(http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/4180/sunandpolariszu3.png) (http://imageshack.us)

As you can see in the picture showing the position of the sun, it makes perfect sense that the Earth is round. The position (in degrees) of the sun in the sky during an equinox is equal to 90-your latitude.

but

Snell's law implies that the sun will appear higher than it actually is.

therefore the sun should appear higher than 0 degrees at the north pole at the equinox. How is this possible? Answer: It isn't. So the earth cannot be round.

According to FET, the sun at the north pole at equinox should appear 17.45 degrees above the horizon.  Why is this not observed?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Parsifal on August 08, 2008, 06:12:30 AM
According to FET, the sun at the north pole at equinox should appear 17.45 degrees above the horizon.  Why is this not observed?

The EA. (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21912.0)
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Pyriform on August 08, 2008, 06:53:23 AM

According to FET, the sun at the north pole at equinox should appear 17.45 degrees above the horizon.  Why is this not observed?

I make it:

height of sun over equator: 3000mi
distance of poll from equator: 24900mi/2 = 12450mi
altitude of sun: atan(3000/12450) = 13.55 degrees
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Parsifal on August 08, 2008, 07:11:14 AM
distance of poll from equator: 24900mi/2 = 12450mi

That's a long way to go just to cast a vote.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on August 08, 2008, 07:14:57 AM

According to FET, the sun at the north pole at equinox should appear 17.45 degrees above the horizon.  Why is this not observed?

I make it:

height of sun over equator: 3000mi
distance of poll from equator: 24900mi/2 = 12450mi
altitude of sun: atan(3000/12450) = 13.55 degrees

Actually, it's 6225 miles from pole to equator.  12,450 miles is from pole to rim (according to the FAQ).
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Pyriform on August 08, 2008, 07:22:12 AM
Actually, it's 6225 miles from pole to equator.  12,450 miles is from pole to rim (according to the FAQ).
We're talking about FET. Why are you bringing actuality into it.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: markjo on August 08, 2008, 08:13:20 AM
Actually, it's 6225 miles from pole to equator.  12,450 miles is from pole to rim (according to the FAQ).
We're talking about FET. Why are you bringing actuality into it.

Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Pyriform on August 08, 2008, 08:18:47 AM
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: rodeoboy on August 19, 2008, 08:13:06 AM
90-42 does not equal 48. You fail.

Lol, the stupid 15 year old doesn't even know his basic maths.

I blame the American education system.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Taters343 on August 19, 2008, 08:19:03 AM
90-42 does not equal 48. You fail.

Lol, the stupid 15 year old doesn't even know his basic maths.

I blame the American education system.

Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: zeroply on August 20, 2008, 10:53:21 PM
Ok, does anyone have some real arguments against my evidence? I assure you, taters, that 90-42 is in fact 48.

Well, the problem is really in your latitude assumption. How do you KNOW that you're at 42 degrees? You're basing that on an assumption that the Earth is round, so obviously all your results are going to lead you back there.

If you used an FE map, you wouldn't be at 42 degrees, and you would have different results.

Other terms: suppose everyone on this forum told me what city they're in. I send them back the latitude that I claim they're at. They take that number as gospel, make declination measurements of Polaris and the sun, and post them. All their measurements would corroborate that the sun is 8 miles away if I had manipulated the latitudes I fed them.

You need to post proof of your latitude for your argument to hold any water at all, and I doubt you'll be able to do that without first proving the Earth is round...
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Parsifal on August 20, 2008, 10:55:33 PM
Other terms: suppose everyone on this forum told me what city they're in. I send them back the latitude that I claim they're at. They take that number as gospel, make declination measurements of Polaris and the sun, and post them. All their measurements would corroborate that the sun is 8 miles away if I had manipulated the latitudes I fed them.

That wouldn't work.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: zeroply on August 21, 2008, 11:56:56 AM
Other terms: suppose everyone on this forum told me what city they're in. I send them back the latitude that I claim they're at. They take that number as gospel, make declination measurements of Polaris and the sun, and post them. All their measurements would corroborate that the sun is 8 miles away if I had manipulated the latitudes I fed them.

That wouldn't work.

Are you seeing a specific flaw or do you just need more detail?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Parsifal on August 21, 2008, 03:14:16 PM
Are you seeing a specific flaw or do you just need more detail?

A specific flaw.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: zeroply on August 22, 2008, 10:48:15 AM
Are you seeing a specific flaw or do you just need more detail?

A specific flaw.

This is asking a lot, I know, but is there any way you could share what it is so that I can actually try to correct it? Or are you modeling your scientific paradigm on the Patriot Act?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Parsifal on August 22, 2008, 10:52:54 AM
This is asking a lot, I know, but is there any way you could share what it is so that I can actually try to correct it? Or are you modeling your scientific paradigm on the Patriot Act?

I certainly can share. Not every member on this website can see Polaris.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: zeroply on August 22, 2008, 03:10:29 PM
This is asking a lot, I know, but is there any way you could share what it is so that I can actually try to correct it? Or are you modeling your scientific paradigm on the Patriot Act?

I certainly can share. Not every member on this website can see Polaris.

That won't be a problem. Obviously if you're too far the amount of atmosphere in between will make seeing some objects impossible. If my calculations are correct then everyone who lives far from the North Pole will see Polaris very close to the horizon, and people even beyond are just too far away to see it.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Parsifal on August 22, 2008, 05:19:45 PM
That won't be a problem. Obviously if you're too far the amount of atmosphere in between will make seeing some objects impossible. If my calculations are correct then everyone who lives far from the North Pole will see Polaris very close to the horizon, and people even beyond are just too far away to see it.

It will make measuring the declination of Polaris difficult for me at 34° S latitude.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: zeroply on August 23, 2008, 01:39:19 AM
That won't be a problem. Obviously if you're too far the amount of atmosphere in between will make seeing some objects impossible. If my calculations are correct then everyone who lives far from the North Pole will see Polaris very close to the horizon, and people even beyond are just too far away to see it.

It will make measuring the declination of Polaris difficult for me at 34° S latitude.

No, that 34 degree figure is from the RE maps and is wrong. If you tell me what city you're in, I'll tell you the real latitude based on my correct FE maps. More than likely you'll just be too far away to see Polaris from where you are. It's a matter of distance, not curvature.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Parsifal on August 23, 2008, 02:28:37 AM
No, that 34 degree figure is from the RE maps and is wrong. If you tell me what city you're in, I'll tell you the real latitude based on my correct FE maps. More than likely you'll just be too far away to see Polaris from where you are. It's a matter of distance, not curvature.

Regardless, not being able to see it will make measurement of its declination a bit tricky.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: zeroply on August 23, 2008, 01:29:58 PM
No, that 34 degree figure is from the RE maps and is wrong. If you tell me what city you're in, I'll tell you the real latitude based on my correct FE maps. More than likely you'll just be too far away to see Polaris from where you are. It's a matter of distance, not curvature.

Regardless, not being able to see it will make measurement of its declination a bit tricky.

How do you know you can't possibly see it? Aren't you basing that on your assumption that the Earth is round?

Can you see Pluto?
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Parsifal on August 23, 2008, 05:35:25 PM
How do you know you can't possibly see it? Aren't you basing that on your assumption that the Earth is round?

I'm basing it on my assumption that people have thought the Earth to be round for so long that if Polaris could be seen from this latitude then somebody would have noticed by now.

Can you see Pluto?

No.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: zeroply on August 24, 2008, 07:49:30 AM
How do you know you can't possibly see it? Aren't you basing that on your assumption that the Earth is round?

I'm basing it on my assumption that people have thought the Earth to be round for so long that if Polaris could be seen from this latitude then somebody would have noticed by now.

To conduct an impartial experiment to gather data on whether the Earth is round or not, you must set aside your assumption. You are assuming that the Earth is round, and therefore trusting your terrestrial and celestial maps, and from there generating the result that Polaris is not visible. You haven't seen Pluto because you've never looked for it seriously - you've already been told that it's too far away to see with the naked eye so why bother?

Because people have taken it as obvious does not mean it's true. Refer to Mpemba effect.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: zork on August 24, 2008, 09:14:57 AM
Well, the problem is really in your latitude assumption. How do you KNOW that you're at 42 degrees? You're basing that on an assumption that the Earth is round, so obviously all your results are going to lead you back there.
Well, it's not assumption. RE people have methods to measure latitudes and longitudes. So you can take and measure for itself and you get same result as others before you. You on other hand haven't yet provided methods to calculate FE latitudes and longitudes so we must yet to rely on RE coordinates which work for now quite well. But as you have seem to have expertise in area I can't resist to ask you for FE map with latitudes and longitudes on it.
Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: ghost_hacked on August 24, 2008, 09:17:01 AM
That won't be a problem. Obviously if you're too far the amount of atmosphere in between will make seeing some objects impossible. If my calculations are correct then everyone who lives far from the North Pole will see Polaris very close to the horizon, and people even beyond are just too far away to see it.

It will make measuring the declination of Polaris difficult for me at 34° S latitude.

No, that 34 degree figure is from the RE maps and is wrong. If you tell me what city you're in, I'll tell you the real latitude based on my correct FE maps. More than likely you'll just be too far away to see Polaris from where you are. It's a matter of distance, not curvature.

I'd love to see 'your' maps. It is a matter of distance plus curvature. Also taking into account the speed of light which is measurable. The reason why the Sun is never in the position you are actually looking at is because it takes about 8 minutes for that sunlight to reach the earth at that distance. We should be able to measure the distance of the sun from the earth with our modern technology.

In the FE model, is the speed of light a constant? Does it even exist? If gravity does not exist, then neither does magnetism. Then there are a whole bunch of other things that cannot exist because of it.

How does the FE not slow down while getting hit by other objects in space... like asteroids. Or does the anti-moonsun  take care of that as well?

I am genuinly interested in hearing the theories of FEers.
Also, is being an FEer also like following a religion?
Do you have to give up common sense to beleive in the fantastical ideas you propose?

So why is there no physical or pictoral evidence of the Ice Walls in the FE model? Why is it always too far away. Why can we put stuff in space (according to the FErs it is a ruse) and not find evidence of this Ice Wall. Or was the Ice Wall an anwer to .. why does not all the water fall off the earth?? Which makes it a theory and nothing more. Since there really has been no proof of it.

Title: Re: The sun and north star positions
Post by: Rig Navigator on August 25, 2008, 08:27:23 AM
You need to post proof of your latitude for your argument to hold any water at all, and I doubt you'll be able to do that without first proving the Earth is round...

Well, I can post celestial observations of the Sun, Jupiter and stars.  Do those count?