The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 06:46:27 AM

Title: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 06:46:27 AM
Please reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Distance+to+the+Sun (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Distance+to+the+Sun).

Quote
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.

Now let's start by commenting that suddenly the distance between the parallels is known. Half of the time, FEers claim they don't know that. Here they do. But that's not the end of the inconsistency here.

FEers argue that the Sun isn't where it appears to be most of the time. There's always an optical illusion or projection onto the atmolayer or even the laughable "bendy" light,  let's laugh at those comments some other time. Let's assume for the sake of this argument that the Sun appears where it is.

The mathematical formula for the height, h of an object above a point at the distance d over level, flat ground that appears to be at the angle theta above the horizon is given by tan(theta) = h/d or h = d tan(theta). The tan(45o) = 1. So the example works. What Tom Bishop forgets is that there are other positions that can also measure the height at the same time. Indeed we could easily have observers at each parallel. The observer at 1o would get the result: 3819 miles. The observer at 89o would get the result 104 miles. Since the Sun can't be at different heights at the same time, we can only conclude that FET is false. (d is given by the formula: parallel * 3000/45.)

So not only is this answer wrong, but also it disproves FET!
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on July 31, 2010, 06:59:19 AM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on July 31, 2010, 07:04:58 AM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.

You need to expand your answers to gain full marks.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:05:58 AM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.

You need to expand your answers to gain full marks.
That would've been true if I had been in school and you had been my teacher.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 07:10:25 AM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
When you're sure that it's incorrect, I'd ask you to tell us what's wrong and why. Until then, you aren't contributing to the debate.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:11:28 AM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
When you're sure that it's incorrect, I'd ask you to tell us what's wrong and why. Until then, you aren't contributing to the debate.
I am sure why I think it's incorrect. And what debate?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 07:13:14 AM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
When you're sure that it's incorrect, I'd ask you to tell us what's wrong and why. Until then, you aren't contributing to the debate.
I am sure why I think it's incorrect. And what debate?
I don't care that you're sure why you think it's incorrect. And this debate.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2010, 07:26:30 AM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.

Then perhaps you should get with Tom (or another FEW Editor) and fix the article.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:35:07 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 07:37:56 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
Did you have a point that you forgot to make? Your post just seems meaningless.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:39:41 AM
Yes, the point was that the OP is dumb and posts dumb things.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 07:42:46 AM
Yes, the point was that the OP is dumb and posts dumb things.
I see. I guess that's the best you've got. I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: General Disarray on July 31, 2010, 07:51:38 AM
I like to claim the OP is wrong then make people ask me why.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on July 31, 2010, 08:17:34 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?

Are you suggesting that it's impossible to calculate the distance to the sun?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: zork on July 31, 2010, 11:23:07 AM
I like to claim the OP is wrong then make people ask me why. And then I like to call them dumb and not tell them why it is wrong.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: zork on July 31, 2010, 11:27:49 AM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
He didn't use it. He critiqued the formula that Tom used. And it's nice that you discredit Tom's work.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on July 31, 2010, 02:29:03 PM
The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.

You need to expand your answers to gain full marks.
That would've been true if I had been in school and you had been my teacher.

Nope its true here, unless you're happy giving vacuous answers.

Where is your trigonometry now?

Same place it's always been?

Sig'd.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Johannes on July 31, 2010, 08:10:02 PM

it disproves FET!
???
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 08:15:12 PM

it disproves FET!
???
Did you have a question?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: General Disarray on July 31, 2010, 08:16:09 PM

it disproves FET!
???

Thank you for that high-content addition to this discussion.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on July 31, 2010, 08:51:01 PM
It''s funny how the op edited his opening post two hours after his last post in the thread and all the non-persons tried to explain to everyone what the op tried to say. Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.

The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
He didn't use it. He critiqued the formula that Tom used. And it's nice that you discredit Tom's work.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 08:59:39 PM
It''s funny how the op edited his opening post two hours after his last post in the thread and all the non-persons tried to explain to everyone what the op tried to say. Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.

The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
He didn't use it. He critiqued the formula that Tom used. And it's nice that you discredit Tom's work.
The definition of critique for you: tr.v. cri·tiqued, cri·tiqu·ing, cri·tiques To review or discuss critically.

So complaining about grammar issues is the best you've got this time, right? Again, I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on July 31, 2010, 09:13:11 PM
It''s funny how the op edited his opening post two hours after his last post in the thread and all the non-persons tried to explain to everyone what the op tried to say. Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.

The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
He didn't use it. He critiqued the formula that Tom used. And it's nice that you discredit Tom's work.
The definition of critique for you: tr.v. cri·tiqued, cri·tiqu·ing, cri·tiques To review or discuss critically.

So complaining about grammar issues is the best you've got this time, right? Again, I'm not surprised.
Now, please log in as zork and repost this again.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on July 31, 2010, 09:18:33 PM
It''s funny how the op edited his opening post two hours after his last post in the thread and all the non-persons tried to explain to everyone what the op tried to say. Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.

The mathematical formula that you had used makes an oversimplifying (and possibly incorrect) assumption.
He didn't use it. He critiqued the formula that Tom used. And it's nice that you discredit Tom's work.
The definition of critique for you: tr.v. cri·tiqued, cri·tiqu·ing, cri·tiques To review or discuss critically.

So complaining about grammar issues is the best you've got this time, right? Again, I'm not surprised.
Now, please log in as zork and repost this again.
I see you reached yet another unfounded conclusion. How typical of an FEer!
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Johannes on July 31, 2010, 11:51:08 PM

it disproves FET!
???
Did you have a question?
How does this disprove FET? The only thing you have proven is that the lines of latitude are utter nonsense, and the conspiracy hasn't released accurate measurements of the earth to use yet.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: trig on August 01, 2010, 12:10:02 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: trig on August 01, 2010, 12:29:12 AM

it disproves FET!
???
Did you have a question?
How does this disprove FET? The only thing you have proven is that the lines of latitude are utter nonsense, and the conspiracy hasn't released accurate measurements of the earth to use yet.
So, you are saying Eratosthenes was already in the conspiracy? The matter of the Earth's diameter has been settled since about 200 B.C,E. with less than 5% error, and has been improved to well within 0.1% since.

If you are telling us that the conspiracy has released a fraudulent report, then you can go measure it yourself, repeating Eratosthenes measurements from different latitudes. You can do it from three places, with maybe some 300 miles separation in latitude between them and a good sextant, and you will destroy every delusion the conspiracy has spoon-fed us.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: zork on August 01, 2010, 02:39:25 AM
It''s funny how the op edited his opening post two hours after his last post in the thread and all the non-persons tried to explain to everyone what the op tried to say. Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.
And your point is? You just failed to explain your point again and seems that you are not capable of understanding what OP said and just talk about grammar and make baseless hints about wrongness of the OP. But in same time you are unable to explain what is wrong with it. It kind of displays you as.... dumb? Or you just got cold feet when you realized that you just busted Tom's hard work he did proving the flat earth.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 06:31:31 AM

it disproves FET!
???
Did you have a question?
How does this disprove FET? The only thing you have proven is that the lines of latitude are utter nonsense, and the conspiracy hasn't released accurate measurements of the earth to use yet.
That's typical of FE. When confronted with your own logic using the same parallels that your proof uses, suddenly it's the Conspiracy's intervention. I guess we all know that FET is not falsifiable, and not Science. Thanks for the proof.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 06:39:24 AM
Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.

OMG Someone used the same word in the reply as found in the question?

The paranoia is strong in this one. I suggest you raise this in "Suggestions and Concerns".
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2010, 07:15:20 AM
How does this disprove FET? The only thing you have proven is that the lines of latitude are utter nonsense, and the conspiracy hasn't released accurate measurements of the earth to use yet.

If lines of latitude are "utter nonsense", then why are they still one of the primary tools used for navigation?  And why haven't FE "scientists" made any accurate measurements of the earth either?  It's really not that difficult or expensive.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:26:12 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.
What are you talking about?

It''s funny how the op edited his opening post two hours after his last post in the thread and all the non-persons tried to explain to everyone what the op tried to say. Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.
And your point is? You just failed to explain your point again and seems that you are not capable of understanding what OP said and just talk about grammar and make baseless hints about wrongness of the OP. But in same time you are unable to explain what is wrong with it. It kind of displays you as.... dumb? Or you just got cold feet when you realized that you just busted Tom's hard work he did proving the flat earth.

My point is that there are a lot of alts on these fora and that making an alt is a bannable offense.

Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.

OMG Someone used the same word in the reply as found in the question?

The paranoia is strong in this one. I suggest you raise this in "Suggestions and Concerns".

Yes, you are a true master in the art of alt making. You should know.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 07:27:05 AM
Yes, you are a true master in the art of alt making. You should know.

Saddam? Is that you?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:31:29 AM
Yes, you are a true master in the art of alt making. You should know.

Saddam? Is that you?

All you need to do is lurk moar and not post unrelated comments in the serious fora.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2010, 07:32:08 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.
What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:34:03 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.
What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?
I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 07:35:12 AM
All you need to do is lurk moar and not post unrelated comments in the serious fora.

Such as paranoid accusations based on the flimsy evidence that two people used the same word?

OK.

I believe you were about to expand your explanation of why the trigonometry used by Rowbotham in ENaG is incorrect, and provide your own calculations.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 07:36:51 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.
What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?
I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.
Please correct the Wiki entry that relies on the same premises then. Until then, we feel free to hold you to the same standard that the Wiki uses.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:40:54 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.
What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?
I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.
Please correct the Wiki entry that relies on the same premises then. Until then, we feel free to hold you to the same standard that the Wiki uses.
Do you see a 'FEW Editor' label under my profile?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 07:44:28 AM
(http://a.imageshack.us/img44/6441/blt1.png)

Where is your trigonometry now?
So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.
What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?
I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.
Please correct the Wiki entry that relies on the same premises then. Until then, we feel free to hold you to the same standard that the Wiki uses.
Do you see a 'FEW Editor' label under my profile?
I assume that means you're not qualified to edit the FEW. I guess you'll have to tackle that problem first. Good luck convincing your fellow FEers that you're worthy.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:47:49 AM
I assume that means you're not qualified to edit the FEW.
Lol. Assumptions.That's what led you in the position you are in now in the first place.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 07:49:52 AM
I assume that means you're not qualified to edit the FEW.
Lol. Assumptions.That's what led you in the position you are in now in the first place.
Yes, I have the superior RET and "first place". Thanks for the credit.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2010, 08:11:41 AM
I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.
I've been saying that for over 2 years, but Tom Bishop and other prestigious FE researchers still insist that this is the correct method to calculate the distance to the sun.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 08:14:14 AM
I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.
I've been saying that for over 2 years, but Tom Bishop and other prestigious FE researchers still insist that this is the correct method to calculate the distance to the sun.

Well, I speak for myself and don't necessarily subscribe to what Tom Bishop, James or John Davis claim.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2010, 08:26:31 AM
I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.
I've been saying that for over 2 years, but Tom Bishop and other prestigious FE researchers still insist that this is the correct method to calculate the distance to the sun.

Well, I speak for myself and don't necessarily subscribe to what Tom Bishop, James or John Davis claim.

Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 08:27:40 AM
I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.
I've been saying that for over 2 years, but Tom Bishop and other prestigious FE researchers still insist that this is the correct method to calculate the distance to the sun.

Well, I speak for myself and don't necessarily subscribe to what Tom Bishop, James or John Davis claim.

Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?
At this point, I don't know. But, I think this quantity is quite irrelevant.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 08:52:24 AM
Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?
At this point, I don't know. But, I think this quantity is quite irrelevant.

I'd say it's quite relevant to a thread debating the calculation of the distance to the sun.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AM
Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?
At this point, I don't know. But, I think this quantity is quite irrelevant.

I'd say it's quite relevant to a thread debating the calculation of the distance to the sun.
No, it is not. You are not making a distinction between an algorithm for calculating a quantity (namely the height of the Sun above the Earth's surface) and the calculated value by using that algorithm and the observational data used as input in the calculation.

I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.

Nevertheless, this in no way discredits the FE model and that is why I said the value of the quantity mentioned in the op is irrelevant.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 09:36:00 AM
Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?
At this point, I don't know. But, I think this quantity is quite irrelevant.

I'd say it's quite relevant to a thread debating the calculation of the distance to the sun.
No, it is not. You are not making a distinction between an algorithm for calculating a quantity (namely the height of the Sun above the Earth's surface) and the calculated value by using that algorithm and the observational data used as input in the calculation.

I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.

Nevertheless, this in no way discredits the FE model and that is why I said the value of the quantity mentioned in the op is irrelevant.
If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW either say or permitted to be said that this is the correct method and then if applying the approved method results in the disproof of FET then FET has failed miserably, yet again.

If you'd like to start your own theory about the Earth, you need to start your own website. Either that or earn enough respect here to post your theory to the FAQ and FEW. Unlike then, you're just a "wannabe". Good luck promoting your theory.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:39:17 AM
You forget that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 09:44:06 AM
You forget that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Therefore, your argument is invalid.
I made no argument based on an appeal to authority. Do pay attention.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:53:27 AM
A challenge to your claim:

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW either say or permitted to be said that this is the correct method and then if applying the approved method results in the disproof of FET then FET has failed miserably, yet again.

Red - Appeal to authority. If someone is considered 'an authority' and claims something, that is not necessarily true.

Green - Please provide experimental results where the above mentioned method leads to disproof of FET

Blue - Does not follow. You try to use 'modus tollens', but fail miserably in the process of doing so:

If P, then Q. (You use the fallacious appeal to authority to prove this claim as truthful.)

Not Q. (You have not provided any evidence.)
-------------------------------------------
Not P. (Try again.).
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:01:52 AM
A challenge to your claim:

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW either say or permitted to be said that this is the correct method and then if applying the approved method results in the disproof of FET then FET has failed miserably, yet again.

Red - Appeal to authority. If someone is considered 'an authority' and claims something, that is not necessarily true.

Green - Please provide experimental results where the above mentioned method leads to disproof of FET

Blue - Does not follow. You try to use 'modus tollens', but fail miserably in the process of doing so:

If P, then Q. (You use the fallacious appeal to authority to prove this claim as truthful.)

Not Q. (You have not provided any evidence.)
-------------------------------------------
Not P. (Try again.).
But the red text is not an appeal to authority...
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 10:05:45 AM
You are not making a distinction between an algorithm for calculating a quantity (namely the height of the Sun above the Earth's surface) and the calculated value by using that algorithm and the observational data used as input in the calculation.

If you discredit an algorithm, then you discredit the results produced by that algorithm. Unless you can produce the same results by other means. Which you seem unable to do.

I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.

If you know nothing and make no claims then why are you posting?

Nevertheless, this in no way discredits the FE model and that is why I said the value of the quantity mentioned in the op is irrelevant.

But it's the quantity that is being discussed. Pay attention 007.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:08:48 AM
You are not making a distinction between an algorithm for calculating a quantity (namely the height of the Sun above the Earth's surface) and the calculated value by using that algorithm and the observational data used as input in the calculation.

If you discredit an algorithm, then you discredit the results produced by that algorithm. Unless you can produce the same results by other means. Which you seem unable to do.
True, but irrelevant.

I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.

If you know nothing and make no claims then why are you posting?
I did not say I know nothing. I said I don't know what the height of the FE Sun is.

Nevertheless, this in no way discredits the FE model and that is why I said the value of the quantity mentioned in the op is irrelevant.

But it's the quantity that is being discussed. Pay attention 007.
No, it's the (failed) attempt to discredit the FE model.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:20:16 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
I point you to the Search function, again.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:20:59 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
I point you to the Search function, again.
Cool. My point stays unshaken. Nice to see you crawl in from the hole you came out from.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 10:23:09 AM
I said I don't know what the height of the FE Sun is.

You mean you don't believe the Tikifaq that says it's at 3000 miles?

Seems like you've disproven the Tikifaq for us!
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:23:45 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
I point you to the Search function, again.
Cool. My point stays unshaken. Nice to see you crawled out from the hole you came out from.
I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:24:29 AM
I said I don't know what the height of the FE Sun is.
You mean you don't believe the Tikifaq that says it's at 3000 miles?
How were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:26:47 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
I point you to the Search function, again.
Cool. My point stays unshaken. Nice to see you crawled out from the hole you came out from.
I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:28:53 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
I point you to the Search function, again.
Cool. My point stays unshaken. Nice to see you crawled out from the hole you came out from.
I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW
So again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 10:29:06 AM
How were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.


So you do believe the tikifaq?

Please indicate the evidence used to reach this belief.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:32:32 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
I point you to the Search function, again.
Cool. My point stays unshaken. Nice to see you crawled out from the hole you came out from.
I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW
So again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esteemed (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esteemed)

How were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.


So you do believe the tikifaq?

Please indicate the evidence used to reach this belief.
Please tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:35:00 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
I point you to the Search function, again.
Cool. My point stays unshaken. Nice to see you crawled out from the hole you came out from.
I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW
So again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esteemed (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esteemed)

How were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.


So you do believe the tikifaq?

Please indicate the evidence used to reach this belief.
Please tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?
So again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 11:16:33 AM
Please tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?

It would be a proof that you believe or don't believe something.

Do you believe the Tikifaq's claim that the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 01, 2010, 11:21:41 AM
It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.
But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.
Ok, then. What did you say exactly?
I point you to the Search function, again.
Cool. My point stays unshaken. Nice to see you crawled out from the hole you came out from.
I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW
So again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esteemed (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esteemed)

How were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.


So you do believe the tikifaq?

Please indicate the evidence used to reach this belief.
Please tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?
So again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?

lrn2synonims.

Please tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?

It would be a proof that you believe or don't believe something.

Do you believe the Tikifaq's claim that the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth?

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 11:25:28 AM
It would be a proof that you believe or don't believe something.

Do you believe the Tikifaq's claim that the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth?

Irrelevant.

If you don't know then why are you posting?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 11:33:28 AM
lrn2synonims.
So I didn't use the phrase. Do try to be more accurate, will you? So again, a reference is not an appeal to authority. I never said anything was true because of 'esteemed FE members'. The argument stands: FEW destroys FET.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: zork on August 01, 2010, 11:48:22 AM
My point is that there are a lot of alts on these fora and that making an alt is a bannable offense.
You should have something more than coincidental use of same word if you start accusing me having alt.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Roundy the Truthinessist on August 01, 2010, 11:51:17 AM
The argument stands: FEW destroys FET.

Not at all.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on August 01, 2010, 04:45:37 PM
I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid.
Why do you believe that using an isosceles right triangle is the wrong method for calculating the distance to the sun?  Simply saying it's wrong is not helpful in the least.  It help move the discussion forward if you would please explain why it's wrong.

I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.
The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 03, 2010, 08:13:19 AM
I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid.
Why do you believe that using an isosceles right triangle is the wrong method for calculating the distance to the sun?  Simply saying it's wrong is not helpful in the least.  It help move the discussion forward if you would please explain why it's wrong.
See the simple diagram that I had posted.

I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.
The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.
Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: General Disarray on August 03, 2010, 08:38:46 AM
Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?

Lurk moar.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on August 03, 2010, 02:57:11 PM
I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid.
Why do you believe that using an isosceles right triangle is the wrong method for calculating the distance to the sun?  Simply saying it's wrong is not helpful in the least.  It help move the discussion forward if you would please explain why it's wrong.
See the simple diagram that I had posted.
I did.  Perhaps you should have a caption for those of us who are a bit dense.

I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.
The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.
Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?
Sure.  Grab a sextant, a tape measure and then take a course in celestial navigation.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 04, 2010, 05:12:24 PM
I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid.
Why do you believe that using an isosceles right triangle is the wrong method for calculating the distance to the sun?  Simply saying it's wrong is not helpful in the least.  It help move the discussion forward if you would please explain why it's wrong.
See the simple diagram that I had posted.
I did.  Perhaps you should have a caption for those of us who are a bit dense.
Hint: In Euclidean geometry, triangles have straight lines as sides. The diagram I had drawn shows that this assumption might not be consistent with reality. Also, it shows the apparent position of the Sun in the continuation of the light ray trajectory's tangent at the point of observation.

I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.
The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.
Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?
Sure.  Grab a sextant, a tape measure and then take a course in celestial navigation.
I can't and I don't have time nor means to perform such an experiment. I believe Rowbotham had somewhere referred to the dubiousness of measuring the Earth's meridian.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: trig on August 04, 2010, 06:15:34 PM
Hint: In Euclidean geometry, triangles have straight lines as sides. The diagram I had drawn shows that this assumption might not be consistent with reality. Also, it shows the apparent position of the Sun in the continuation of the light ray trajectory's tangent at the point of observation.
Hint: It is bendy light all over again. But it is not finally explained in full, much less accompanied with information to make predictions, but just a hint.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: trig on August 04, 2010, 07:16:45 PM
I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.
The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.
Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?
Sure.  Grab a sextant, a tape measure and then take a course in celestial navigation.
I can't and I don't have time nor means to perform such an experiment. I believe Rowbotham had somewhere referred to the dubiousness of measuring the Earth's meridian.
You don't have to. This is a well known fact that has been used by every navigator during the last 400 years, at least. You can rely on them. But if you want to test whether all the navigators of the last centuries have been inept, you will have to at least learn some navigational skills.

But your record is not good. You do not spend hundreds of dollars in equipment, but you do not spend a few dimes either. You have not even made the experiment where you check where the Sun comes out during the Equinox, and that is an experiment that could cost you a dollar for a compass.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: markjo on August 04, 2010, 07:25:35 PM
I can't and I don't have time nor means to perform such an experiment.
Can't or won't?

I believe Rowbotham had somewhere referred to the dubiousness of measuring the Earth's meridian.
Rowbotham seemed fairly dubious himself.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: oscpaz00 on August 05, 2010, 02:12:03 AM
Good point. FE'ers don't believe in experiments or tests made by other people, but they also don't do any, so they can never be disproven. If the rest of the people were like them, we'd still live in caves, with no progress at all.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Username on August 09, 2010, 03:06:13 PM
Good point. FE'ers don't believe in experiments or tests made by other people, but they also don't do any, so they can never be disproven. If the rest of the people were like them, we'd still live in caves, with no progress at all.
We believe in tests by other people.  We just prefer easily repeatable evidence so that a common man can know the true nature of this infinite plane.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 09, 2010, 03:14:19 PM
We just prefer easily repeatable evidence so that a common man can know the true nature of this infinite plane.

Please give us these repeatable evidence tests that show the earth is an infinite plane.

Also, not all FEers believe the earth is an infinite plane.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Username on August 09, 2010, 03:21:41 PM
We just prefer easily repeatable evidence so that a common man can know the true nature of this infinite plane.

Please give us these repeatable evidence tests that show the earth is an infinite plane.

Also, not all FEers believe the earth is an infinite plane.
Of course they don't, because they will.

In Brief, the easiest test anyone can do to verify the infinite nature of the earth is to measure gravitational pull from high altitudes and again at lower altitudes fairly.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 09, 2010, 03:33:01 PM
Of course they don't, because they will.

People don't believe something because they will believe it. Does not compute. Stack overflow.

In Brief, the easiest test anyone can do to verify the infinite nature of the earth is to measure gravitational pull from high altitudes and again at lower altitudes fairly.


Wow that sounds really easy. Please tell us where you have performed this experiment, and what equipment you used, and then I'll try to reproduce it.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Username on August 09, 2010, 03:42:15 PM
Of course they don't, because they will.

People don't believe something because they will believe it. Does not compute. Stack overflow.

In Brief, the easiest test anyone can do to verify the infinite nature of the earth is to measure gravitational pull from high altitudes and again at lower altitudes fairly.


Wow that sounds really easy. Please tell us where you have performed this experiment, and what equipment you used, and then I'll try to reproduce it.
* but they will.

Apologies.

It is very easy.  Use an accelerometer and travel to Rock City, Lookout Mountain, TN, USA.  While there you can bask at seeing more of the earth than one would see if the earth was indeed a globe.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 09, 2010, 03:46:03 PM
Use an accelerometer and travel to Rock City, Lookout Mountain, TN, USA.

This experiment is incomplete.

Please post the equipment you used and the data and results you recorded. Then I'll repeat and see if I produce the same results.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Username on August 09, 2010, 04:11:00 PM
Use an accelerometer and travel to Rock City, Lookout Mountain, TN, USA.

This experiment is incomplete.

Please post the equipment you used and the data and results you recorded. Then I'll repeat and see if I produce the same results.
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 09, 2010, 04:15:07 PM
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Username on August 09, 2010, 04:16:55 PM
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
I can only conclude that you know you are wrong and don't wish to test your beliefs.

The experiment as you can tell is quite simple and you can review it, and the equipment over lunch. 

Likely though, you are just trolling and have no interest in repeating this experiment or showing your view to be correct.  If this is not the case, I will see you there.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 09, 2010, 04:19:36 PM
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
I can only conclude that you know you are wrong and don't wish to test your beliefs.
Again you can't provide VOE to support your claim. How sad.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 09, 2010, 04:23:42 PM
The experiment as you can tell is quite simple and you can review it, and the equipment over lunch. 

Naming a place != detailing an experiment.

Please tell us what equipment you used, how you used it, where you used it, what data you recorded, what conclusions you drew, and what permitted you to draw those conclusions.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Username on August 10, 2010, 10:32:58 PM
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
I can only conclude that you know you are wrong and don't wish to test your beliefs.

The experiment as you can tell is quite simple and you can review it, and the equipment over lunch. 

Likely though, you are just trolling and have no interest in repeating this experiment or showing your view to be correct.  If this is not the case, I will see you there.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 11, 2010, 11:59:07 AM
Naming a place != detailing an experiment.

Please tell us what equipment you used, how you used it, where you used it, what data you recorded, what conclusions you drew, and what permitted you to draw those conclusions.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: MrBoB on August 11, 2010, 12:39:56 PM
Are you stubborn?

Yeah, because everybody lives in TN, USA. Good thinking. Id love to come but I think its not worth the thousands of dollars that this journey would cost me. Instead, I would like some detail, too, so I could do the very same thing at home. In Europe.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 11, 2010, 12:42:35 PM
I tell you what, I'll bring the equipment, data, and results to Rock City at a date of your choosing.  We can repeat it then.  I used to know some of the management there, I'll see if I can arrange a private area to perform our experiments.

Bringing data and results to the site of an experiment is not usually considered to be the scientific method.

I can only take from your fumbling replies that you have not performed this experiment, and therefore have no easily repeatable tests to show the earth is an infinite plane.
I can only conclude that you know you are wrong and don't wish to test your beliefs.

The experiment as you can tell is quite simple and you can review it, and the equipment over lunch. 

Likely though, you are just trolling and have no interest in repeating this experiment or showing your view to be correct.  If this is not the case, I will see you there.
I'm sure that if John Davis had verifiable objective evidence that he'd published it. Until then, we cannot believe his lackluster claims. Science doesn't need challenges like this. Publish the data. Take credit for your effort. Substantiate your conclusions. --Or go home.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: eartheater on August 11, 2010, 01:42:05 PM
looks like he went home!   an infinite plane!? are you serious? what controls the weather  patterns of this infinite plane? also what mechanisn enables a infinate plane to generate an infinite magnetic field. does this infinite plane rotate. it has been proven that the earths magnetic field has reversed many times in the past. if the earth is flat, how can this happen?! do u think that the infinite plane is natural or created?!
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 11, 2010, 01:51:54 PM
looks like he went home!   an infinite plane!? are you serious? what controls the weather  patterns of this infinite plane? also what mechanisn enables a infinate plane to generate an infinite magnetic field. does this infinite plane rotate. it has been proven that the earths magnetic field has reversed many times in the past. if the earth is flat, how can this happen?! do u think that the infinite plane is natural or created?!
John Davis does a very poor job of describing or defending his model, so I can't fully answer your questions of me. I will say that he believes in an infinite surface area on the top side of the FE. He ignores the Laws of Thermodynamics (How does the known area stay warm when there's an infinite mass to conduct away its heat?) and the nature of the atmosphere (How does the composition of the solution of air change if its infinite? If not, then way hold it in?) I agree that John Davis cannot address your concerns about magnetism with his model either. John Davis does argue that there is a South Pole, but he can't seem to consistently describe it or place it on a map. Perhaps he guesses that magnetism is restricted to just the known area of the infinite FE. As far I know, he does not believe that the FE rotates or accelerates in any way.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Hortensius on August 12, 2010, 02:44:28 AM
He ignores the Laws of Thermodynamics (How does the known area stay warm when there's an infinite mass to conduct away its heat?) and the nature of the atmosphere (How does the composition of the solution of air change if its infinite? If not, then way hold it in?)

I totaly agree with you that for a number of physical reasons an (infinite) flat Earth is very unlikely, but the above argument is nonsense. The ratio of mass to surface area is not so drastically different for his infinite flat Earth than it is for a spherical Earth, and therefore both models should cool more or less at the same rate...
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 07:11:45 AM
He ignores the Laws of Thermodynamics (How does the known area stay warm when there's an infinite mass to conduct away its heat?) and the nature of the atmosphere (How does the composition of the solution of air change if its infinite? If not, then way hold it in?)

I totaly agree with you that for a number of physical reasons an (infinite) flat Earth is very unlikely, but the above argument is nonsense. The ratio of mass to surface area is not so drastically different for his infinite flat Earth than it is for a spherical Earth, and therefore both models should cool more or less at the same rate...
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Hortensius on August 12, 2010, 07:24:26 AM
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.

Not relevant. Space is more or less infinite in all directions, and you don't need conduction to cool. And who said that the whole plane can't have the same temperature roughly? In that case there is no net heat transport horizontally...
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 07:42:22 AM
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.

Not relevant. Space is more or less infinite in all directions, and you don't need conduction to cool. And who said that the whole plane can't have the same temperature roughly? In that case there is no net heat transport horizontally...
You'll need to explain to me why there can't be radiation of heat vertically into space. How would the infinite FE maintain that same temperature without an infinite number of Suns?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Hortensius on August 12, 2010, 07:46:25 AM
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.

Not relevant. Space is more or less infinite in all directions, and you don't need conduction to cool. And who said that the whole plane can't have the same temperature roughly? In that case there is no net heat transport horizontally...
You'll need to explain to me why there can't be radiation of heat vertically into space. How would the infinite FE maintain that same temperature without an infinite number of Suns?

There can be vertical radiation of heat ofcourse, and this is how the Earth, flat or spherical, cools. And if you're talking about the temperature of the Earth mass (so I'm not talking about the atmosphere) the Sun has virtually no influence on that.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 07:58:07 AM
I suggest that you didn't consider cooling of the known area by conduction to the infinite unknown area.

Not relevant. Space is more or less infinite in all directions, and you don't need conduction to cool. And who said that the whole plane can't have the same temperature roughly? In that case there is no net heat transport horizontally...
You'll need to explain to me why there can't be radiation of heat vertically into space. How would the infinite FE maintain that same temperature without an infinite number of Suns?

There can be vertical radiation of heat ofcourse, and this is how the Earth, flat or spherical, cools. And if you're talking about the temperature of the Earth mass (so I'm not talking about the atmosphere) the Sun has virtually no influence on that.
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 08:06:48 AM
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 08:10:32 AM
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Hortensius on August 12, 2010, 08:13:21 AM
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Who was talking about a heat source? What causes the non-zero temperature of the Earth is completely irrelevant for this discussion. The question was about how and how fast the Earth cools given its shape. And my point was and is that the Sun does not provide a significant amount of heat for the mass of the Earth, whether it is flat or spherical.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 08:13:26 AM
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?

Just to make sure you wikied it before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 08:24:18 AM
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?

Just to make sure you wikied it before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
What Wiki answers the question about the heat source for the Earth's mass?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 10:21:51 AM
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?

Just to make sure you wikied it before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
What Wiki answers the question about the heat source for the Earth's mass?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources)
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: ClockTower on August 12, 2010, 10:28:46 AM
Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?
No. Why would you ask?

Just to make sure you wikied it before continuing to make a fool out of yourself.
What Wiki answers the question about the heat source for the Earth's mass?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_sources)
Are you saying that source is accurate and that the Earth is a sphere?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 10:50:05 AM
Are you saying that source is accurate and that the Earth is a sphere?

Interesting. Are you suggesting that radioactive decay of the FE maintains the FE's mass's temperature? I had not considered that.

Are you suggesting that it does not on a RE?

You'll have to try harder than that, champ.  ;)
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 12, 2010, 10:52:12 AM
You'll have to try harder than that, champ.  ;)

Wow. You just failed.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: parsec on August 12, 2010, 10:53:46 AM
You'll have to try harder than that, champ.  ;)

Wow. You just failed.

Could you please elaborate?
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: Crustinator on August 12, 2010, 11:06:17 AM
You'll have to try harder than that, champ.  ;)

Wow. You just failed.

Could you please elaborate?

Sure. Your failure was initialised Today at 10:50:05. Cause was catastrophic backpedalling and weaseling. Please no flowers.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: trig on August 13, 2010, 06:33:22 AM
While we discuss the thermodynamics of a theoretical infinite plane, we should not forget that the real astounding failure this hypothesis has is that the Sun, stars and other celestial objects are just not in the right place. A hypothesis that really fails to predict that the stars appear to rotate around two points in space corresponding to the North and South poles is not worth too much elaboration. And we could and have talked for days about the whole list of errors that this hypothesis has with regards to the placement, brightness and apparent size of the celestial objects.

Anyway, you would have to have an infinite amount of mass just appearing from nowhere in a perfect plane to have this hypothesis work. Thermodynamics, gravitation, plate tectonics or anything else that disturbs the perfect initial plane will create an imperfection big enough to start the crumbling of the infinite plane into pieces that, with the help of gravity, will attract other pieces and in no time the perfect infinite plane will become, (you guessed it) a bunch of spherical planets and stars.

Remember, at planetary scales the solid objects do not have the consistency of steel, they rather have the consistency of wet clay.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: MrBoB on August 13, 2010, 07:27:37 AM
While we discuss the thermodynamics of a theoretical infinite plane, we should not forget that the real astounding failure this hypothesis has is that the Sun, stars and other celestial objects are just not in the right place. A hypothesis that really fails to predict that the stars appear to rotate around two points in space corresponding to the North and South poles is not worth too much elaboration. And we could and have talked for days about the whole list of errors that this hypothesis has with regards to the placement, brightness and apparent size of the celestial objects.

Anyway, you would have to have an infinite amount of mass just appearing from nowhere in a perfect plane to have this hypothesis work. Thermodynamics, gravitation, plate tectonics or anything else that disturbs the perfect initial plane will create an imperfection big enough to start the crumbling of the infinite plane into pieces that, with the help of gravity, will attract other pieces and in no time the perfect infinite plane will become, (you guessed it) a bunch of spherical planets and stars.

Remember, at planetary scales the solid objects do not have the consistency of steel, they rather have the consistency of wet clay.

But the cake, I mean gravity, is a lie!
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: trig on August 13, 2010, 09:10:46 AM
But the cake, I mean gravity, is a lie!
You have to discuss both contradicting hypothesis at the same time. When you try to show the absurdity of UA you suddenly get the visit of John Davis saying gravity exists, and then you show the absurdity of an infinite plane and get several FE theorists fighting for UA all over again.

If you are not careful, you will get into the "who said what" endless discussions and you will get called names because it is easier to play you against the other FE "theorists" than to show a complete, verifiable hypothesis.
Title: Re: FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun
Post by: TheJackel on September 11, 2010, 11:01:10 PM
In regards to the OP.. Parallax using Radar and triangulation.. And Radar being a key word here!