No way. I've read his 'debates' with Jane and Sandokhan. I think the best thing to do is just tell him he's right first thing... then he'll just argue against himself for pages and pages and implode
Well you get one thing right, it is quite pointless lying and pretending I am wrong and continually spouting garbage like you have been doing.
Now that you are back are you planning on showing us how the FE is consistent with sun elevation angles?
You're right about the sun, its about 5000, km high. You've proven it. Congrats. What do you want? A medal?
No JackBlack did not say he'd proven it!
He asked "are you planning on showing us how the FE is consistent with sun elevation angles?".
It look's like you can't even read simple words now.
But you still can't face simple facts, so you just ignore them.
That's the typical flat earth approach! Either declare inconvenient facts are fake or simply ignore them.
You totally ignore all I say and concentrate on your deceitful fudging of the maths.
Guess there's nothing new there with your massive upside down refraction explanation of sunsets.
Have another look!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- I could not care less about your fudge factors!
- You have never responded to the very simple straightforward claims that I have made.
- I still can't find any reference to your magic video that shows the sun's size changing,
So please Mr Silicon, just face the facts!
- Unless you claim that the light from the sun bends through impossible angles your model of the sun over the flat earth is impossible.
- The size of the sun does not change measurably from rising to setting, except for possible small changes near the horizon
Here, I've put the North Pole into the mix, I'll add it to the diagrams when I get time.
The following table gives the data for each location.
All sun elevation was obtained from Sun Earth Tools as close as possible to the local midday on the equinox of UTC 20/Mar/2016 16:48.
Location
|
Latitude
|
Longitude
|
Sun Elev
| Dist from
Vaupes |
Flat Sun Ht
| Lat Diff from
Vaupes | Calc
Circum |
North Pole | 90.000° | -70.000° | 0.53° | 10,065 km | 93 km | 90.41° | 40,077 km |
Kimmirut, Canada | 62.847° | -69.869° | 27.36° | 7,034 km | 3,609 km | 63.58° | 39,828 km |
Santo Domingo | 18.486° | -69.931° | 71.72° | 2,107 km | 6,077 km | 19.22° | 39,465 km |
Municipio de Taraira, Vaupes, Colombia | -0.565° | -69.634° | 89.06° | 0 km | ------ | | |
Now you try to fit a sun elevation of 0.53° and flat earth sun height of 93 km into your fudged equations.
There is no logical justification for assuming that the sun is 5000 km above the earth.
Look again at: Sun Height on Flat Earth along 70°W Long | |  Sun Height on Globe Earth along 70°W Long |
Likewise there is no justification for claiming that the angular size of the sun changes significantly from sunrise to sunset.
As in this video from the flat earther, Matrix Decode:[youtube][/youtube]
Flat Earth - The Size Of The Sun, Matrix Decode
.
These facts
are not consistent with a close sun and a flat earth but
are perfectly consistent with a very distant sun and a Globe shaped earth.
Nothing that you have shown, even with all your fudging (cheating) has proven otherwise, just get used to it.
I have completely destroyed this. You could never "make" a 30,000 mile high sun or a 1,000 mile high sun using the same variables in such a simple formula consistently. It's over. There is no "fudging of maths" You know it, Jackass knows it, and everyone here knows it.
Now, there is more to this but its takes time to get a handle on it. In the mean time, watch this recently released video. What we have debated here is probably only scratching the surface....try to wait out the music, its worth it.
Show Posts
" or "In the trees of Golden Gate Park, San Francisco 