Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Silicon

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21
1
Flat Earth General / Re: The reason for the round earth conspiracy
« on: April 17, 2018, 09:04:22 PM »
Here's my theory and guess for the round earth conspiracy. As I understand it, the plane we live on is infinite. And we live on a little circle on this infinite plane. But what if there are other circles on this plane with their own suns and sky domes? And what if some feature beings that have lived longer and more advanced than we are? And they have learned to travel from domed circle to domed circle? This would explain the so-called aliens from space and UFO's. And why the governments are keeping people out of Antarctica. That's where the other beings land! And they share their technology with us. But the government doesn't want people to know. So they send out disinformation about a round earth and outer space, so people will look on the wrong place for these beings!
Want do you think?

If we continue to consider your theory;

It is not enough only keep human beings stay far to out borders. It simultaneously requires keep other worlds people far to this world.

If we consider the factor of chemtrails with all factors, so this foreign power want to destroy the human life. This mostly possible if the demons and reptilians want to colonise the world.

We estimate as a religinal history about human beings vs demons war. Pre wars was ended with victory of demons; till Devil helps human beings. After Devil's help to human beings, human have won the war. So that, this world is our; but with the support of the Devil.

So that, there is agreement between Devil and human beings since thousand of years. If Devil has gave up to defend human beings, that possiblity is more meaningfull than other theories, so demons probably are capturing the earth day by day, year by year.

This is a type of colonisation.

As how demons and Devil in this world, there is few angels in this world. I mean, if your theory is true, so it must be an "angel world" exist. Perhaps demons are preventing us to arrive them. This makes everything logical.

It may be arriveable to angel world, if required. However the demons try to prevent the human; even so human beings can reach the borders and find the nation of angels. They may reach demon world too. It is not guarantee to choose where they arrive.

For now, I'm believing demons have not crossed the red line. Yes, they are making massacre to human beings by chemtrails, but mass deaths have not started. And the population of the human beings are still increasing; (this is important; if the statistics of population is true!"). I said this in the parentheses. Because I don't believe the statistics of population at all. Population in Europe is constantly decreasing. But countries such as India, Iran, Turkey is constantly increasing. Are they really so? I'm not sure. Recent days the government opened the population statistics for everyone. they allowed everyone to see their family pedigree. As a result, everyone have saw that although most of their family members dead, seem alive in the statistics. A cheat of statistics perhaps may be continue in countries such as Turkey, India, China, Brasil, and most populated ones like this; for hiding the reducing of the world population.

I'm not sure. But I'm sure I don't trust anyone.

So where is God in all of this? Have you tried reading the bible? It states very clearly what is going on, what is going to happen and when it will happen...

2
Flat Earth General / Re: The Arc of the Horizon
« on: April 17, 2018, 08:53:27 PM »
Next thing Yib is going to tell us is that we have 11 fingers...and offer the following video as proof.




3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gyroscope on a plane
« on: March 19, 2018, 11:20:13 PM »
Can anyone take a gyroscope on a plane and keep it spinning on their next trip across the US or to another country?

If it shifts according to Earth's curvature, that's an issue. If it stays the same the whole time, that's an issue too. Magazine issue

Artificial horizon is gyroscopic device and it has self-correction faster than the angle changes when airplane reaches new verticals along the path.



Basically this has an internal pendulum that the gyro self-corrects to. This is proof, these type of gyroscopes will never tell you anything of value in regards to the earths shape.  A true 100% mechanical gyroscope would have to be used, and of course it would show with 0 doubt the earth is flat.

4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Gyroscope on a plane
« on: March 19, 2018, 11:04:28 PM »
If it stays the same the whole time, that's an issue too.

Why would this be an issue? because this is what it should do if the earth is flat, which it is.

5
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: January 01, 2018, 10:32:50 AM »
Just fyi...Here's a guy who shines a spotlight on a flat table but creates calculations that show it to be a globe.




6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 30, 2017, 08:15:35 PM »
If I were to post any further information in regards to this it would have to be in the believers section.
Again, there is no valid reason to not post it here, unless you know it is pure bullshit which will be torn to shreds.
If you wish to disagree, tell us why.

I'm probably not as smart as many of you here so it takes a lot of time to go through this stuff and validate findings, respond to questions (many times things I never thought of or considered) test, re-test and test again to confirm what I've come up with before posting. With this particular line of discussion I can see its going to lead into many other things and become a lot of work and I'm already going to be extremely busy this coming year.

So bottom line is, if I'm going to invest lots of time and energy into FES this year, FES is going to invest in me.

Otherwise I'll just arrive here and chime in on things when I can.

7
Are you using the circumference of a globe (40000 km) to calculate the sun in relation to a flat earth?

Mike

I believe what they've done is just built the globe model around numbers based on the sun.  111.111km is not actually the distance per degree of lat, on a globe earth but rather 111.111km per degree of elevation of the sun.  It's not 10,000km as the distance to the equator, but rather the radius of the spotlight sun.

Rubbish! Even "the Wiki" has essentially the same information,
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Finding your Latitude and Longitude
Latitude
To locate your latitude on the Flat Earth, it's important to know the following fact: The degrees of the Earth's Latitude are based upon the angle of the sun in the sky at noon equinox.

That's why 0˚ N/S sits on the equator where the sun is directly overhead, and why 90˚ N/S sits at the poles where the sun is at a right angle to the observer. At 45˚ North or South from the equator, the sun will sit at an angle 45˚ in the sky. The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude.

Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.
From: Finding your Latitude and Longitude


Look at, "The angle of the sun past zenith is our latitude." and
"the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles, we can even derive our distance from the equator based upon the position of the sun in the sky.".

This 69.5 miles per degree is 111.8 km/° - the 111.1 km/° is a bit more accurate.
Then your claim of "It's not 10,000km as the distance to the equator" is also rubbish, again the Wiki says that
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
The Ice Wall
The figure of 24,900 miles is the diameter of the known world; the area which the light from the sun affects. Along the edge of our local area exists a massive 150 foot Ice Wall.
And this 24,900 miles is 40073 km, close enough to 40,000 km - making the distance from the North Pole to the equator 10,000 km.

Everything you mentioned lines up ok...  It can be the distance to equator as well I suppose.

8
No, Perspective wont make things appear to drop below the horizon.
It makes them get closer to the horizon, and appear smaller.

it is also completely impossible to calculate the height of something given only a single angle (or even 2).
It is effectively trying to solve a right angle triangle with just a single angle (other than the right angle).
This will give you the shape, but not the scale.
It will tell you the sun is somewhere along a line, but not how far along it.

If Sun is above Equator, and you know how far Equator is, then you not only know the angle, but also the side of the right triangle.

The problem is, measured from diferent distances from Equator, in FE model you can't get consistent results. In GE model everything fits.

Durham, NC, equinox, solar noon.
Sun angle 54.001 degrees.
Distance to Equator 4029km.
Easy to calculate height of the Sun above Equator: 4029 * tan(36) = 5546 km

But at the same time from Toronto the Sun angle is 46.33 degrees.
Distance from Toronto toe Equator is 4876 km.
It means Sun above ground is 4876 * tan(46.33) = 5107 km

Doesn't differnce of 439 km look a bit too much of a discrepancy?
Can Sun be at both heights at once?

There is third distance:
Hall Beach, Canada.
Sun angle 21.23 degrees.
Distance to Equator 7667 km.
Sun height above Equator: 7667 * tan(21.23) = 2978 km.

How big is discrepancy now?

EDIT: From Miami, FL the Sun is 64.17 degrees up, and from Miami to Equator is 2874 km.
2874 * tan(64.17) = 5937 km.

The spreadsheet shows the sun to equal a height of 5000km in all of these examples.  So I;m not sure what your point is.

9
Are you using the circumference of a globe (40000 km) to calculate the sun in relation to a flat earth?

Mike

I believe what they've done is just built the globe model around numbers based on the sun.  111.111km is not actually the distance per degree of lat, on a globe earth but rather 111.111km per degree of elevation of the sun.  It's not 10,000km as the distance to the equator, but rather the radius of the spotlight sun.

In other words, if I divide 8 by 2 or 40 by 10, do we not arrive at the same answer?

I suppose at the end of the day its all a matter of what you believe.

No, it isn't.

How could a round earth model base it's measurements on the shape of the spotlight when the spotlight has no defined shape? On the Winter Solstice(Dec 21st), the Sun can rise from that Southeast in Tierra Del Fuego and still be a couple hours from setting in the Southwest in Perth. Notice I said SOUTHeast and SOUTHwest. Meanwhile, the Sun can be seen from anywhere in Antarctica at the same time! What is the shape of this spotlight?

When you can create a mathematical model that can account for the position and height of the Sun on the Winter Solstice from Tierra Del Fuego at sunrise, let me know.

I could probably do it

10
The sun never 'sets' on a flat earth. It goes out of view due to perspective. To calculate the height of the sun, you need to use the below math to take this fact into account.
No, Perspective wont make things appear to drop below the horizon.
It makes them get closer to the horizon, and appear smaller.
How do you know what a 32 mile wide object circling 5000km above the earth will look like exactly?

it is also completely impossible to calculate the height of something given only a single angle (or even 2).
It is effectively trying to solve a right angle triangle with just a single angle (other than the right angle).
This will give you the shape, but not the scale.
It will tell you the sun is somewhere along a line, but not how far along it.
Just stop. There are other numbers involved.

The sun isn't special. If the formula works on the sun, then it should work for everything else with similar circumstances.
There is no condition here that the sun is so far away that paralax does not matter like there is for the RE case, so this should work for anything.
If I want to know the height of a building, I just note the angle to the top and then stick it in the formula and find that out.
But that shows a tiny building to be 5000 km high.
That can't be right.

Same for a fence, it says it is 5000 km high, but I can easily climb over it in a few seconds.

Something tells me your math is pure BS.


Something tells me you really didn't think this one through.  Just typing as fast as your fingers can go!  Or maybe someone in your shill team isn't quite up to the task.

And as per usual, you just provide a bunch of math, with no justification at all, so there is absolutely no basis for this being based upon a flat Earth.


As posted elsewhere, I could post further details in believers section.

I'll work backwards from your number, and I'll ditch the row part of the cell reference, and I will ditch the conversion between degrees and radians (i.e. the trig functions will use degrees, not radians). I will also use Z=10000, 4Z=40000, Y=90, 4Y=360, to make some of the writing out easier:
So you have the height given by:
T=TAN(S)*E

But S is simply given by:
S=ATAN(R)

As you are limited between 0 and 90 degrees, then tan(atan(x))=x.

This means you effectively have:
T=R*E
with one layer of extraneous BS removed.

Then subbing in
R=P/Q
E=(40000/360)*(90-C)=(4Z/4Y)*(Y-C)=(Z/Y)*(Y-C)
Thus:
T=(P/Q)*((Z/Y)*(Y-C))

Subbing in
P=J+N
Q=D*0.5
T=((J+N)/(D*0.5))*((Z/Y)*(Y-C))
T=2*(J+N)*(Z/Y)*(Y-C)/D

Then subbing in:
D=90-C=Y-C
T=2*(J+N)*(Z/Y)*(Y-C)/(Y-C)
T=2*(J+N)*(Z/Y)

So there goes a lot more of your extraneous BS.

Now, I'll just try and quickly work with (J+N) separately.
J+N=H+I+L+M

H=(E/4Z)*C
I=(E/4Z)*D
L=(F/4Z)*C
M=(F/4Z)*D

Then remembering from before that D=Y-C, this simplifies to:
H=(E/4Z)*C
I=(E/4Z)*(Y-C)
L=(F/4Z)*C
M=(F/4Z)*(Y-C)

And with that I can already see another layer being removed:
H+I=(E/4Z)*C+(E/4Z)*(Y-C)=(E/4Z)*(C+Y-C)=(E/4Z)*Y
Similarly:
L+M=(F/4Z)*Y
So J+N=(E/4Z)*Y+(F/4Z)*Y
J+N=(Y/4Z)*(E+F)

So subbing that back into T:
T=2*(J+N)*(Z/Y)
T=(2/4)*(E+F)=(E+F)/2

So that is now getting much simpler.

But what about E and F:
E=(40000/360)*(90-C)=(4Z/4Y)*(Y-C)=(Z/Y)*(Y-C)
F=(40000/360)*(C)=(4Z/4Y)*(C)=(Z/Y)*(C)

So:
E+F=(Z/Y)*(Y-C)+(Z/Y)*(C)
E+F=(Z/Y)*(Y-C+C)=(Z/Y)*Y
E+F=Z

Now subbing that back into T:
T=(E+F)/2
T=Z/2

Much simpler.
So why not do this as your formula to calculate the height of the sun based upon the angle:
Height=5000 km.
No need for any extraneous BS.

Or if you would like to pretend it is there, how about this one:
5000 km * (1+angle-angle).

It is effectively the same thing, your way is filled with more convoluted BS.
You know the height you want, and are simply wiping out the angle from the equation.


Why do you insist on making it so convoluted?
Is it so you can pretend that it might actually be complex math based upon reality, rather than BSing numbers?
Do you work in a sideshow somewhere where you "read people's minds" by asking them to pick a number then continually manipulating it (without them easily seeing the pattern) to then reveal what the final number is, even though there could only be one possibility for the final number?


So where is the FE based math?
All I see there is height=5000 km, a baseless assertion.

It's an identity right? 5000 = 5000.  Ok did you know the math for the spherical earth is deducted using exact same thing?  I'll use the supposed circumference since we can't do any calculation to see how far away the sun is on the globe earth model. So 40,075 = 40,075! 

Your globe earth number is simply an identity!

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 30, 2017, 09:25:24 AM »
Happy silly con?
I have gone through your other thread and torn it to shreds.

You have not any trig which shows the sun to have a height of 5000 km with no variance.
You have provided numerous formulas which you are yet to justify.
And the calculation you have actually done, i.e. where you take input data and don't simply discard it) still ends up with lots of variation.

You really didn't mount much of an argument.  It's almost not worth responding to, but I will for the reader's sake.  Again, I'll post more on this if the powers here grant access to the believers section.

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 30, 2017, 09:15:46 AM »
Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, that would be you, as you were clearly dreaming.
Your claimed "zero variation" still had massive variation.

It was also completely unjustified.

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you are only willing to post your garbage in a section where only liars are allowed to post and where it can't get torn to shreds.
This shows you know it is pure bullshit; you have no justification and still have variation.

Good grief. You don’t even understand what zero means? Zero as in 0.

Zero variation.
Sure, you effectively fudged the equations so that when the elevation = 90° - latitude the sun's height is exactly (flat earth circumference)/8.

Until you justify where your "magic equation" comes from, in my opinion it is still a totally useless exercise.
On the other hand, unless you can explain in simple terms what you have done it's simply meaningless mathematical gobbledegook.

If I were to post any further information in regards to this it would have to be in the believers section. 

Still I've learned to take your claims with a grain of salt after this thread:
I'm curious where you think the sun is in this photo.  Last time I checked Stellarium puts it halfway under the horizon.  I took this picture when beginning FE research years ago, because it seemed impossible for the 'full' moon and the sun to both be so high above the horizon at the same time.

This picture was taken at 8/8/2014 8:03PM at 30.0799° N, 95.4172° W

It only took a few minutes to find that the 8/Aug/2014 was 2 days before the "the 'full' moon" that you claimed so the moon was right where it was supposed to be.
The there was no evidence of "the sun . . . . . so high above the horizon", just a bright cloud that could have been lit by the sun near the horizon.


I don't accuse you of intentional deceit, just ignorance, lack of attention to detail and plenty of confirmation bias.
Anyone that is not in denial, can see where the sun is in that photo.  It's not anywhere near it's suppose to be.


13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 29, 2017, 06:19:40 PM »
Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, that would be you, as you were clearly dreaming.
Your claimed "zero variation" still had massive variation.

It was also completely unjustified.

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you are only willing to post your garbage in a section where only liars are allowed to post and where it can't get torn to shreds.
This shows you know it is pure bullshit; you have no justification and still have variation.

Good grief. You don’t even understand what zero means? Zero as in 0.

Zero variation.

14
Flat Earth General / Re: Your God is too small
« on: December 28, 2017, 07:57:15 PM »
Do any of the more religious minded Flat Earthers ever feel that reducing an Infinite cosmos to a domed chunk of rock a few tens of thousand of meters across kind of diminishes God?

One tiny world, fake stars, miniscule sun, one sentient race. Sure, this view might elevate your own feeling of importance in the universe, but at what price?

Isn't a huge(infinite?) universe populated by hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars and countless planets a far more grand creation? Isn't our existence clinging to the film on the surface of one of those world as it hurtles around one star among countless others far more miraculous?

Does belief in Flat Earth elevates God, or just yourself?

Why don't you ask God to reveal himself to you?  Let me know when you've done that and we'll go on to step 2.

He has. What is step 2?

He has to reply back and say.  "I've asked God to reveal himself to me" 

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 05:58:40 PM »
You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up?
No, we saw your pathetic excuse of a formula which was completely unjustified and still had significant variation.

Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, Mr Silicon, we were very much awake when you literally fudged an equation to match the result that you wanted.
Please justify the theory behind your zero variation version. An equation with no physical justification is totally meaningless.

I can fully justify the method that I used, but I doubt that you can justify your fudge!

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you admit that you cannot justify the theory behind your zero variation version, an equation with no physical justification that is totally meaningless.


I never said that

16
Flat Earth General / Re: Your God is too small
« on: December 28, 2017, 05:44:35 PM »
Do any of the more religious minded Flat Earthers ever feel that reducing an Infinite cosmos to a domed chunk of rock a few tens of thousand of meters across kind of diminishes God?

One tiny world, fake stars, miniscule sun, one sentient race. Sure, this view might elevate your own feeling of importance in the universe, but at what price?

Isn't a huge(infinite?) universe populated by hundreds of billions of galaxies each with hundreds of billions of stars and countless planets a far more grand creation? Isn't our existence clinging to the film on the surface of one of those world as it hurtles around one star among countless others far more miraculous?

Does belief in Flat Earth elevates God, or just yourself?

Why don't you ask God to reveal himself to you?  Let me know when you've done that and we'll go on to step 2.

17
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 05:24:03 PM »
You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up?
No, we saw your pathetic excuse of a formula which was completely unjustified and still had significant variation.

Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, Mr Silicon, we were very much awake when you literally fudged an equation to match the result that you wanted.
Please justify the theory behind your zero variation version. An equation with no physical justification is totally meaningless.

I can fully justify the method that I used, but I doubt that you can justify your fudge!

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section. 


18
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 01:22:38 PM »
You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up?
No, we saw your pathetic excuse of a formula which was completely unjustified and still had significant variation.

Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?

19
Flat Earth Debate / Re: trigonometry
« on: December 28, 2017, 10:29:55 AM »


As before, over a flat earth, the sun's height shows no consistency, but on the Globe the circumference comes out with exactly the same values.

Any thoughts?

You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up? 

20
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« on: December 21, 2017, 11:10:32 AM »
Is there a problem here?
Have a look at narcberry's fantasies and see what you think?

I'm glad narcberry is back and enjoy watching him make you and your crew look foolish :)

21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Where is the sun in this photo?
« on: December 20, 2017, 06:32:20 PM »
Is there a problem here?

22
Why bother when it's all done and set anyway?



At some point "Sly Sparkane" will wind up here and have his day ruined because his video has been decimated, destroyed, and obliterated by this very thread.  I just wonder if he'll post another video showing the angle generated in column S of the spreadsheet perfectly lining up with the sun as it were.  Nah, probably not.

23
Is that the best you can come up with?  I know you just about fell out of your chair running the numbers ;)  THIS CANNOT BE DENIED. 
Of course it can be denied!

You managed, either accidently or on purpose, ended up with an expression for sun height that is completely independent of the latitude.

Look!
Sun's height = (equator to pole dist) x (1 - Lat/90)/(2 x (1 - Lat/90))
or Sun's height = (equator to pole dist)/2
Of course the answer is going to always end up as 5000 km.


Well I suppose you can do that, but in my opinion the spreadsheet I presented doubles up, using different math (see above post) which leaves zero doubt to the fact that the sun is 5,000km above the earth. 

Also if you plug in your Vaupes, Colombia sun elevation angles into my spreadsheet it all works just fine.
I don't think you can say it leaves "zero doubt".  The flat earth position of the sun and moon don't fit any real world observation of them.

For instance, you still haven't answered my question about perspective, sun set/rise and how it relates to other objects in the sky (e.g. planes).  Not to mention much of our perspective of distance objects if heavily influenced by atmospheric conditions.   Yet, our view of the transit of the sun isn't influenced but those same atmospheric conditions in the same ways that other objects in the sky and at the horizon are affected.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) there is nothing like the sun that we know of to use for an apples to apples comparison.

Add to this the fact that, in a flat earth, eclipses (solar & lunar) are impossible without some invisible object causing the eclipse...ignoring the oxymoronic idea that an invisible object blocks light.

Why can't the moon just be passing in front of the sun for a solar eclipse on the FE?  As far as lunar, in my opinion it's equal on both sides for things that don't add up.  Too bad we'll just get the globe earth narrative, and not explore what is really happening.

And another complication, the setting/rising sun behind objects on the horizon such a ship, or the reflection of light from the setting/rising sun on the underside of clouds.  The fact that the calculations rely on some of the dimensions of the earth as a globe casts a lot of doubt.

I call these light tricks.  Haven't you seen clouds lit from below and above at the same time in the same view?

We can usually make the math fit a single view of nearly anything we want.  But, the fact is, that math also has to fit in a complete analytical model to explain all the observations of whatever you’re trying to describe.  IOW, other than possibly viewing angle, the calculations don’t explain any observations of the sun. Therefore, the calculations are flawed, casting so much doubt as to invalidate your spreadsheet. 

Well don't you think its ironic then, that we can calculate the height of the flat earth sun but cannot do the same thing on the globe model?

24
Is that the best you can come up with?  I know you just about fell out of your chair running the numbers ;)  THIS CANNOT BE DENIED. 
Of course it can be denied!

You managed, either accidently or on purpose, ended up with an expression for sun height that is completely independent of the latitude.

Look!
Sun's height = (equator to pole dist) x (1 - Lat/90)/(2 x (1 - Lat/90))
or Sun's height = (equator to pole dist)/2
Of course the answer is going to always end up as 5000 km.


Well I suppose you can do that, but in my opinion the spreadsheet I presented doubles up, using different math (see above post) which leaves zero doubt to the fact that the sun is 5,000km above the earth. 

Also if you plug in your Vaupes, Colombia sun elevation angles into my spreadsheet it all works just fine.

25
Are you using the circumference of a globe (40000 km) to calculate the sun in relation to a flat earth?

Mike

I believe what they've done is just built the globe model around numbers based on the sun.  111.111km is not actually the distance per degree of lat, on a globe earth but rather 111.111km per degree of elevation of the sun.  It's not 10,000km as the distance to the equator, but rather the radius of the spotlight sun.

In other words, if I divide 8 by 2 or 40 by 10, do we not arrive at the same answer?

I suppose at the end of the day its all a matter of what you believe.

26
1) After setup, you can just insert a row and enter just the angle into column [C] and it will calculate the following:

Column E & Column F shows the distance to the 90 Degree Sun
Sure.
Quote from: Silicon
Column P shows the unit of your perspective
What on earth does "the unit of your perspective" mean? It is so convenient that it is always 22.5°.
do you really want me to air the 'dirty laundry' in regards to what I've found about this?

Quote from: Silicon
Column S shows the actual angle taking into account your perspective
Coulmn T shows the flat earth sun height

Could I be forgiven for suggesting that your whole magic fudge ends up with:
Sun's height = (equator to pole dist) x (1 - Lat/90)/(2 x (1 - Lat/90))
or Sun's height = (equator to pole dist)/2
Of course the answer is going to always end up as 5000 km.
Why not be up front and simply say the the sun's height = 5000 km but we haven't a clue about why the measured elevation don't fit?
Talk about knowing the answer before you start and forcing your "equations" to give your predetermined answer.
Stop wasting everybody's time with this garbage.
Yes the formula is simple.  That's what lets you know its real. Your oversimplification obviously can not work.
   
If you want to retain a shred of credibility, please justifiy why the sun should really appear to be at an elevation of 1.13° at 89° N 0°E on Sep 23rd, 2017 at solar noon, as in:
From: NOAA ESRL, Solar Position Calculator  and they know a lot more about the sun's angles than you do!
Is that the best you can come up with?  I know you just about fell out of your chair running the numbers ;)  THIS CANNOT BE DENIED. 

If you disagree, take a running jump off the edge of your fictional fantasy of a flat frittata that you try to pass off as the real earth,

I'm hungry now... 

Where's mom. Why'd you throw this back out here with these nuts? They can't disprove this...

27
The sun never 'sets' on a flat earth. It goes out of view due to perspective. To calculate the height of the sun, you need to use the below math to take this fact into account.

Bust out excel.  Enter the following:

[C3] Type in Angle Starting with 89 going down to 1 [/C91]
[D3] =90-C3 [/D91]
[E3] =(40000/360)*(90-C3)[/E91]
[F3] =(40000/360)*(C3) [/F91]

[G3]***SPACER COLUMN***[/G91]

[H3] =(E3/40000)*C3 [/H91]
[I3] =(E3/40000)*D3 [/I91]
[J3] =H3+I3 [/J91]

[K3]***SPACER COLUMN***[/K91]

[L3] =(F3/40000)*C3 [/L91]
[M3] =(F3/40000)*D3 [/M91]
[N3] =L3+M3 [/N91]

[O3]***SPACER COLUMN***[/O91]

[P3] =J3+N3  [/P91]
[Q3] =D3*0.5 [/Q91]
[R3] =P3/Q3  [/R91]
[S3] =(DEGREES(ATAN(R3))) [/S91]
[T3] =TAN(RADIANS(S3))*E3 [/T91]


Notes: 

1) After setup, you can just insert a row and enter just the angle into column [C] and it will calculate the following:

Column E & Column F shows the distance to the 90 Degree Sun
Column P shows the unit of your perspective
Column S shows the actual angle taking into account your perspective
Coulmn T shows the flat earth sun height

" Remembered by God "


28
The Lounge / Seen this Movie?
« on: October 11, 2017, 03:42:31 PM »
Just watched predestination; very well done.  Notice the bit about flat earth?

29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Flat Earthers explain this...
« on: October 05, 2017, 10:47:23 PM »
How wide is your vision.  If you were to see an object 'disappear' bottom up from 3 or so miles away, how would someone see the same object center and perpendicular to you and your object.

30
Flat Earth General / Re: PHI AIN'T 22/7. IT'Z 10/3 !!!!
« on: October 05, 2017, 03:18:55 PM »
Nope its 15,318/23  ::)

My presence in this thread is guaranteed to attract a Jackass that has Rabies.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 21