1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« on: July 10, 2017, 02:46:38 PM »
By the way, hello Alpha2Omega
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.
2
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« on: July 10, 2017, 01:36:44 PM »
Good to see you too.
I'm not sure why you think there should be an opposite effect in a heliocentric model. If the sun is higher in the sky, as it is during the summer solstice, then that means the sun's range of motion during a day is larger. If it is lower, as it is during the winter solstice, then that means that suns range of motion is less.
Look at this model. http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf
You can use the top right diagram to change the position of an observer. Try putting him somewhere in Canada. You can use the left diagram to switch between summer and winter solstice and then observe that during the winter solstice, the sun's rays are indirect and the sun appears lower thus allowing a shorter day. The opposite can be seen during the summer solstice with more direct rays, the sun at a higher position and a longer day.
With this diagram you should be able to see clearly that the sun must appear to travel in a wider arc in the summer than the winter simply due the fact that the day is longer and with the sun being higher, it must appear to go farther. It isn't a steeper climb, we can see very this very well with you drawing which shows parallel lines.
I'm not sure why you think there should be an opposite effect in a heliocentric model. If the sun is higher in the sky, as it is during the summer solstice, then that means the sun's range of motion during a day is larger. If it is lower, as it is during the winter solstice, then that means that suns range of motion is less.
Look at this model. http://astro.unl.edu/naap/motion1/animations/seasons_ecliptic.swf
You can use the top right diagram to change the position of an observer. Try putting him somewhere in Canada. You can use the left diagram to switch between summer and winter solstice and then observe that during the winter solstice, the sun's rays are indirect and the sun appears lower thus allowing a shorter day. The opposite can be seen during the summer solstice with more direct rays, the sun at a higher position and a longer day.
With this diagram you should be able to see clearly that the sun must appear to travel in a wider arc in the summer than the winter simply due the fact that the day is longer and with the sun being higher, it must appear to go farther. It isn't a steeper climb, we can see very this very well with you drawing which shows parallel lines.
3
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Sunset/Sunrise
« on: July 10, 2017, 12:36:55 PM »
Don't worry, jroa has already received the explanation that he is all backwards on how refraction works with sunsets and sunrises. He's well aware. His refraction excuse is just a canned argument that he uses to troll people who are new and might not be aware of it.
4
Flat Earth Debate / Re: ANALEMA PROBLEM
« on: July 10, 2017, 12:06:37 PM »
I think you are talking about the red lines you drew and questioning why it is that the apparent arc of the top line travels a seemingly farther path than the bottom line, both of which are opposite solstices?
To that I'd say that the difference between apparent and real is important. We aren't observing the physical movements of the sun but rather our apparent view of it at two different times of the year. Because of what sokural mentioned, Earth's tilt, our view of this path is from a new angle at the opposite solstices, producing a new apparent path. Furthermore, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse that the sun isn't directly in the center of also plays a role.
I understand your assumption that sokural didn't directly answer your question just because he didn't address your lines directly, but his answer was indeed correct.
To that I'd say that the difference between apparent and real is important. We aren't observing the physical movements of the sun but rather our apparent view of it at two different times of the year. Because of what sokural mentioned, Earth's tilt, our view of this path is from a new angle at the opposite solstices, producing a new apparent path. Furthermore, the fact that the earth revolves around the sun in an ellipse that the sun isn't directly in the center of also plays a role.
I understand your assumption that sokural didn't directly answer your question just because he didn't address your lines directly, but his answer was indeed correct.
5
Flat Earth General / Re: Mars One - The Latest Scam?
« on: March 22, 2015, 12:14:01 PM »
I haven't been here for months but I saw this story and thought, "I bet legion wrote a post about this and thinks this actually matters." Sure enough.
So you know...
Correlation does not imply causation.
So you know...
Correlation does not imply causation.
6
Suggestions & Concerns / Favicon for the forum.
« on: January 07, 2015, 08:50:37 AM »
Yes, I'm nitpicking but it would be nice.
7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 21, 2014, 12:45:59 PM »
I'll make a more detailed post later but I got 11.5° and a haight for the sun of 1000 miles.
8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 21, 2014, 11:15:03 AM »
I'd ve happy to discuss the nonexistence of god elsewhere but please stop derailing this thread. I actually want people to participate and today is the day.
9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 21, 2014, 08:50:51 AM »Do you honestly thibk that insulting me will make me become an atheist? All it does is make me want to not be like you. I have heard just about every anti Christian argument that atheists have and none can disprove the existance of God. I know that it's impossible to prove a negative, but rather then bash my belief why can't you just be happy that I'm a Christian that accepts science to be valid. Even if my belief is false, it has made me a better person which means that it's a good thing.By saying that there is no God you are making an even bigger uneducated assumption then the flat earthers do by saying that space travel is a conspiracy. Science has never proven or disproven the existance of God, so don't pretend like you know the answer.And if you took the time to read the page linked in the Book of Enoch above, you may have noticed the last verse which states, "37. As he rises, so he sets and decreases not, and rests not, but runs day and night, and his light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they are both equal."Considering around 80% of the US population is Christian, it sounds a bit hypocritical of you to be denouncing atheists who go against the grain and aren't gullible enough to give in to religion, kind of like how you say RE'ers are gullible and shills for giving in to RE.
You atheists just can handle the Truth in God's Word. Give it up shills, Jesus Christ is Lord.
From Nasa's website:QuoteThe Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size.
WRONG NASA idiots, they appear the same size because THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE MORONS. Geez Louise.
So... if you're going to attempt (and fail) to use Christianity to prove FET- that's for another thread.
God's not dead.
Science has also not proven or disproven the existence of leprechauns.
Leprechaun's aren't dead.
It was not a personal insult and I don't care about "converting" you. On a personal level, fine, believe what you want but society as a whole is better off without it.
10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 21, 2014, 12:25:16 AM »By saying that there is no God you are making an even bigger uneducated assumption then the flat earthers do by saying that space travel is a conspiracy. Science has never proven or disproven the existance of God, so don't pretend like you know the answer.And if you took the time to read the page linked in the Book of Enoch above, you may have noticed the last verse which states, "37. As he rises, so he sets and decreases not, and rests not, but runs day and night, and his light is sevenfold brighter than that of the moon; but as regards size they are both equal."Considering around 80% of the US population is Christian, it sounds a bit hypocritical of you to be denouncing atheists who go against the grain and aren't gullible enough to give in to religion, kind of like how you say RE'ers are gullible and shills for giving in to RE.
You atheists just can handle the Truth in God's Word. Give it up shills, Jesus Christ is Lord.
From Nasa's website:QuoteThe Moon's size and distance contribute to a wonderful coincidence for those of us who live here on Earth. The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun, but it also just happens to be about 400 times closer. The result is that from Earth, they appear to be the same size.
WRONG NASA idiots, they appear the same size because THEY ARE THE SAME SIZE MORONS. Geez Louise.
So... if you're going to attempt (and fail) to use Christianity to prove FET- that's for another thread.
God's not dead.
Science has also not proven or disproven the existence of leprechauns.
Leprechaun's aren't dead.
11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 20, 2014, 06:12:32 PM »
Googleotomy, those rays cannot be explained by lens flare but they can be explained by simple perspective and its been discussed at length in a thread on these forums before. Just look at these railroad tracks.
We know these tracks are parallel but because of the perspective, they don't appear to be.
We know these tracks are parallel but because of the perspective, they don't appear to be.
12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: December 12, 2014, 07:41:08 AM »
Speaking of which, cikljamas has referenced me a couple of times because I said that if the earth was not tilted then there would ve no variation in daylight. I hope my comment above cleared this up as I was referring to the heliocentric model. If the earth were not tilted and the earth was orbiting the sun then there would be no variation. If the solar system is geocentric though, then I don't see the problem. Of course the earth is tilted though. If it isn't, then I want to know what governs the suns movement on a round, fixed, geocentric earth.
13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: December 12, 2014, 07:23:19 AM »@ Cartesian, what are you talking about? You are very confused...
I have just shown you how some places on an untilted geocentric round Earth could have longer day length than others. If you're still confused with the diagram then I cannot help you apart probably from suggesting some exercises which may help to stimulate your brain.
Please check wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day_lengthand you will see that "In general, the length of a day varies throughout the year, and depends upon latitude. This variation is caused by the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation with respect to the ecliptic plane of the Earth around the sun."
Not sure why you're arguing when this is even recognized by science, it is not a conspiracy at all.
Saros, that is in reference to the ecliptic plane which applies to heliocentrism. The Wikipedia article isn't implying what is or isn't possible if the earth is geocentric. If the earth is fixed then one can't say it is tilted and if that is the case, then the sun just makes its own motion causing variation.
14
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE sun distance and trigonometry.
« on: December 12, 2014, 07:14:54 AM »Can any mathematically inclined FE'r show me a trigonometric tangent function for the suns height above the equator for any location that isn't exactly 3000 miles from the equator?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26936.0#.VIn0lNLF-Gc
Ahhhhh, the memories. This was one of the first of a many step journey to the conclusion of a flat-earth. It's easy to come here and be a round-earther when all you do is shout with your eye and ears plugged shut. However, when you start actually doing research and learning things, your world comes crumbling down.
First of all, I was talking about the sun. Second of all, I asked for a mathematically inclined flat earther, you know, someone that knows that trig functions apply to right triangles.
The maths can apply to any celestial object provided your measurements are accurate enough. Also, everyone chose the wrong hole to poke in the experiment. If the earth were round, then the distance would be measured to the point between the two participants; a location under the supposed round earth and therefore not give a truly accurate measurement of the distance to the moon/sun/bird/cloud/anythingYouSeeInTheSky.
It's amusing that when I first posted this, round-earthers were the ones lauding this as yet another proof against the claims of flat-earthers. Yet, years later when I reference the same post as a flat-earther, it's suddenly a deeply flawed experiment.
I'll give you a moment to contemplate the ramifications of Confirmation Bias and how it applies to your everyday life.
I wasn't there to point out the glaring problem the first time so don't blame me for other round earthers. You didn't mention at all in the experiment that the moon needed to be somewhere specific, it's not even implied. You also didn't finish the experiment so there's that. Basically, the experiment is highly unlikely to be done faithfully (since the chances of the moon appearing directly above a spot between you and your hooker is slim). By the way, you can do this experiment on a round earth but instead of using the arc distance between observers you would use the chord distance.
Anyways back to the op.
16
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE sun distance and trigonometry.
« on: December 12, 2014, 06:49:42 AM »IfyourPongo's money's good, then the planet can be whatever shape you want it to be, big boy.
Citation needed.
17
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE sun distance and trigonometry.
« on: December 12, 2014, 06:07:13 AM »So at least we can conclude that Pongo is not a mathematically inclined FE'rOr at least his hooker was [a flat earther].
Citation needed.
18
Flat Earth General / Re: I have seen the International Space Station with my own eyes.
« on: December 11, 2014, 01:11:24 PM »Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.There are numerous possibilities regarding ISS.
1. a holographic projection
2. a near earth asteroid
3. an unmanned drone
I would say the most plausible is a projection. Waiting to prove me wrong.
1. Projected from what, on what, and from where?
2. It's been imaged and looks man-made. It's possible to see other craft docking with it.
3. How high? Powered by what? How fast is it going? What does it look like?
You've tossed out three pretty implausible alternatives. Can you explain them any further?
Honestly, how far down in the depths of fantasy do you people have to go before you will wake up to stark reality. This isn't star wars. It's not star trek. It's not flash Gordon.
Stop being so silly for crying out loud.
Craft docking with it.
Laugh all you want. Your response isn't convincing that imaging the ISS can't be done. Simply declaring so means nothing. Any thoughts about the other two?
Saros brought up these alternatives. Still waiting for his response.
The burden of proof something is real lies on the person who makes the claim not on the one who denies it till he is granted the evidence. There is no reason for the ISS to be a real manned space station. Please name at least one good reason which strongly suggests it is manned and it is not just a drone-like thingy or a projection. I just gave you alternatives never said they are definitely true or I have evidence to back them up, but once again you're the one believing it is real, so where is the proof?
The funny thing is that many of you believe in stuff you cannot prove. I would believe anything you say if you can actually prove it without actually forcing me to believe something is a fact without any evidence.
What the hell are you talking about? There are pictures of it and you can look at it yourself. That is the evidence. It is now your turn to rebut. Your denial isn't a rebuttal.
19
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further Denprssure Questions
« on: December 11, 2014, 12:37:27 PM »Sensation of depth. Hmmm. How about answering the question. You see you people bang on about us not answering questions and here's you lot stumped. You're stumped because science says one thing and has to find another reason when questions are asked like this.I see. It's time to play silly.So there we go folks. The massive sun they say is shining on us from 93 million miles away that takes a so called 8 minutes for the light to arrive, should envelope the entire Earth diameter with white/yellow light and be seen as that no matter where you look. It should not show up as a small circle of light in the sky.why do you think that the sun being 8 light minutes away would make the whole sky appear glowing yellow? I need some mathematical and geometric proofs if I am going to believe you.
These people can argue about vacuums but none of them have a clue what a vacuum is. They mention silly evacuation chambers that are nothing more than low pressure creators, not vacuums.
Just remember. It takes 8 minutes for the light of the sun to reach your eyes. 8 minutes.
This is what the bozo's tell us.
When they get challenged about this light enveloping the Earth, they then shout, " not all of the light hits Earth, it goes off in all directions with it being a ball, so only a portion of it hits Earth.
Guess what folks?
If that's the case, then what the hell are they measuring?
Are they measuring the small amount of light that took 8 minutes to get to Earth and managed to equate that to a huge sun?
Can anyone figure out this absolute maze of utter bull crap that gets spewed out of these people's mouths?
The pathetic stuff that gets made up for this stuff is laughable in the extreme.
Anyone of you bozo's got an answer for this that does not require magic?
Ok but you need to answer if you people want to keep up the shit.
Read this carefully and answer it.
When you look up at the sky on your globe, do you see the sun as it is or as it was 8 minutes previous?
I'll make it easier for you.
When we look at stars, we are told that we are looking at those stars as they were, 100,500,1000, 1,000,000 years ago and only receive that light from that time.
Ok? fair enough?
Now the same with the sun. We are told that we see it as it was, 8 minutes ago. We see that light, 8 minutes later than when the sun gave it out.
Hopefully I've battered that into your head.
Now then. You lot came out with a load of flannel about the whole sun is not hitting the Earth and our eyes as most of it is sent in all directions and only a portion hits us.
So basically we see that bit that hits us 8 minutes after it set off towards Earth and our eyes.
I'm drumming it into your skull so you can't play silly.
Now there's a few problems here.
hat light that's hitting Earth 8 minutes later, should not come through like a small looking sun. It should fill the sky.
Now remember, we are not talking about looking at distance here, because to look at distance, we would have to see the sun, as is, not as was and the same would be with stars.
So why do we see a small sun in the sky?
Also, why do NASA show us pictures of the sun as a raging fire, as if it's been snapped from close range in terms of seeing a raging fire? surely this would be impossible?
Ok, now you can get on with answering the questions and not pretending you don't understand.
Are you trying to say that if light doesn't instantly hit your eye, then we can't experience the sensation of depth?
I accept you can't answer, now let this be a lesson to you.
Just clarify the question because if my flashlight explanation didn't clear it up for you then you are talking about something else and I need clarification. That's why I asked this.
20
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE sun distance and trigonometry.
« on: December 11, 2014, 12:34:00 PM »Can any mathematically inclined FE'r show me a trigonometric tangent function for the suns height above the equator for any location that isn't exactly 3000 miles from the equator?
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26936.0#.VIn0lNLF-Gc
Ahhhhh, the memories. This was one of the first of a many step journey to the conclusion of a flat-earth. It's easy to come here and be a round-earther when all you do is shout with your eye and ears plugged shut. However, when you start actually doing research and learning things, your world comes crumbling down.
First of all, I was talking about the sun. Second of all, I asked for a mathematically inclined flat earther, you know, someone that knows that trig functions apply to right triangles.
21
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Measure the FE distance to the sun.
« on: December 11, 2014, 12:09:38 PM »In my opinion, the Sun is nowhere NEAR 3000 miles up. It's more like 100-200 miles TOPS.
Take a look at this picture taken from a weather balloon at 110,000 Feet (~20 miles):
Look at the angle of the rays and the position of the Sun and you can see it's only about 100-200 miles up.
The Stars, on the other hand, are much higher up near the top of the Firmament.
You have to remember that the Sun doesn't take the same course every day, and has various routes throughout the year. The Book of Enoch explains the Sun's courses more thoroughly:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe075.htm
Here is a pretty good video explaining the angles of the Sun's rays on flat earth:
" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
Okay say then do the math.
atan(200/[your distance from Capricorn]) = Angle
Test it on the solstice.
22
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: FE sun distance and trigonometry.
« on: December 11, 2014, 09:32:14 AM »If you don't have a flat Earth question or answer, then please refrain from posting in the FE Q&A section. Thanks.
Do you have a flat earth answer for my flat earth question?
23
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Further Denprssure Questions
« on: December 11, 2014, 09:10:01 AM »I see. It's time to play silly.So there we go folks. The massive sun they say is shining on us from 93 million miles away that takes a so called 8 minutes for the light to arrive, should envelope the entire Earth diameter with white/yellow light and be seen as that no matter where you look. It should not show up as a small circle of light in the sky.why do you think that the sun being 8 light minutes away would make the whole sky appear glowing yellow? I need some mathematical and geometric proofs if I am going to believe you.
These people can argue about vacuums but none of them have a clue what a vacuum is. They mention silly evacuation chambers that are nothing more than low pressure creators, not vacuums.
Just remember. It takes 8 minutes for the light of the sun to reach your eyes. 8 minutes.
This is what the bozo's tell us.
When they get challenged about this light enveloping the Earth, they then shout, " not all of the light hits Earth, it goes off in all directions with it being a ball, so only a portion of it hits Earth.
Guess what folks?
If that's the case, then what the hell are they measuring?
Are they measuring the small amount of light that took 8 minutes to get to Earth and managed to equate that to a huge sun?
Can anyone figure out this absolute maze of utter bull crap that gets spewed out of these people's mouths?
The pathetic stuff that gets made up for this stuff is laughable in the extreme.
Anyone of you bozo's got an answer for this that does not require magic?
Ok but you need to answer if you people want to keep up the shit.
Read this carefully and answer it.
When you look up at the sky on your globe, do you see the sun as it is or as it was 8 minutes previous?
I'll make it easier for you.
When we look at stars, we are told that we are looking at those stars as they were, 100,500,1000, 1,000,000 years ago and only receive that light from that time.
Ok? fair enough?
Now the same with the sun. We are told that we see it as it was, 8 minutes ago. We see that light, 8 minutes later than when the sun gave it out.
Hopefully I've battered that into your head.
Now then. You lot came out with a load of flannel about the whole sun is not hitting the Earth and our eyes as most of it is sent in all directions and only a portion hits us.
So basically we see that bit that hits us 8 minutes after it set off towards Earth and our eyes.
I'm drumming it into your skull so you can't play silly.
Now there's a few problems here.
hat light that's hitting Earth 8 minutes later, should not come through like a small looking sun. It should fill the sky.
Now remember, we are not talking about looking at distance here, because to look at distance, we would have to see the sun, as is, not as was and the same would be with stars.
So why do we see a small sun in the sky?
Also, why do NASA show us pictures of the sun as a raging fire, as if it's been snapped from close range in terms of seeing a raging fire? surely this would be impossible?
Ok, now you can get on with answering the questions and not pretending you don't understand.
Are you trying to say that if light doesn't instantly hit your eye, then we can't experience the sensation of depth?
24
Flat Earth General / Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« on: December 11, 2014, 07:13:27 AM »Maybe I have to take baby steps with you.Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?
Ok let's do this slowly.
Do you agree that your model has the suns light hitting your eyes, around 8 minutes after it's emitted from the sun?
Do you also agree that your model sun does not send all it's light to Earth and most of os is sent into space to hit something else it can reflect off?
Answer these and we can see where we are going.
I agree with those things but you need to understand that every part of the sun that is facing us has some photon that also heads to earth. It isn't like a surface off to the right side of the sun only propogates lights toward your right. Most of that surfaces energy does go to the right but not all of it. The flashlight example I just mentioned should illustrate this for you easily. You could be that observer off to the right and be completely shrouded in darkness but you'd still be able to see all of the source of light coming from the flashlight.
25
Flat Earth General / Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« on: December 11, 2014, 06:25:09 AM »Ok Mr clever dick, let's see how you answer this.Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
The sun spreads a lot of it's light into space, away from the Earth. You all spout this crap so don't be backing out.
You also say that it takes 8 minutes for the sunlight to hit your eyes. That means you are seeing the part of the sun from 8 minutes earlier that is not directed all over into space. Meaning all this part of the sun is not reaching your eyes, it's dissipated into your space.
Having said all that. Now tell me how you calculate the size and distance of something that is only showing a portion of itself to your eyes, as in, that little circle in the sky.
Ok ladies and gentlement and now performing a magic trick for you...give it up for Rotty the magician. (applause)
Have you ever seen a flashlight? You can point it across the room away from an observer off in front of you but to the right and that observer can still see the entire shape of the source of light despite not receiving most of its energy. Why did you specifically mention the 8 minutes that it takes for the light to be received?
26
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: December 11, 2014, 05:36:43 AM »There's science forums that you can lick each others arse in, why don't you piss off over to them. You crap means nothing to me; never has done and never will.You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.
Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?
Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
Take you gang of cronies ot the lick arse forum where you can all punch in silly calculations and shout "hooray", then you will all feel better.
All you're doing here is frustrating yourselves when your silly indoctrinated fantasies get ripped to shreds, to which all you can do is cry and deny. Go on, be off with you.
Says the guy who blocks people who disagrees with him, dishes out ad hominems all day and deletes his posts.
27
Flat Earth General / Re: Simple Balloon "Rocket"...
« on: December 11, 2014, 05:30:44 AM »Ok, Gobble, let's see equations from you to describe anything in your universe. Just nice and simple and tell us what they mean and how they calculate what's happening, PHYSICALLY.You guys and your equations. You guys are happy to follow a lie with complex equations. The whole damn moon landing is a lie. They give you a fairytale, back it up with numbers and equations and you think you understand everything.
Equations bring concrete evidence. If you have a theory, specially a cosmological one, you will pretty sure need equations to support it and make predictions about it. If you as a flat earther are bringing something new to the table that is an alternative to the actual theories and laws about the universe, including physics, chemistry, aeronautic, just to name others... then yes.. you NEED to have equations and math to back it up. Until then, your case is lost frmo the very beginning.
In the flat earth sun measurement thread there is one that uses the tangent function. The tangent function allows you to calculate the height of any object as long as you know the distance to it and you can measure the angle to it. This is what is awesome about trig. You can calculate all the angles and all the sides of any triangle just as long as you have measured at least 2 parts (angle or side) of the triangle. You can test the calculation with smaller triangles to verify that it works and it does.
28
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: December 11, 2014, 05:09:53 AM »You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.You've been shown your model is not only wrong but it requires a host of magical bollocks to make it all work. How about you and your cronies just shut up and let the thinkers chat.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
Nobody takes any real notice of you people except to play with you, as you pretend to do with free thinkers but are actually so engrossed in trying to upstage, you become so frustrated it hurts you and you get bad tempered like a kid in a tantrum.
Your model is wrong on all accounts. Accept it and silently disappear.
There is a flat earth believers forum you are free to just talk about your theories without scrutiny. So why don't you just do it there if that is what you want?
Don't pretend like you've proven anything. You don't even know what a proof is.
29
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: December 11, 2014, 04:58:08 AM »
You clearly haven't read the thread unless that response was meant for cikljamas. He tried to demonstrate how everything from sundials to rotation were wrong by either not misrepresenting how they work or using the wrong models for his arguments. Then when we'd had enough we asked him to provide us an alternative model for sunsets and he brought up perspective which doesn't even try to explain a sunset. This, like your threads, is just a big fail.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
You have been shown proof and furthermore you have the opportunity to take part in a thread that measures the distance to the sun if the earth is flat. So try it, put up and shut up.
30
Flat Earth Debate / Re: GLOBAL CONSPIRACY
« on: December 11, 2014, 04:22:44 AM »Morons unite!You're right but there seems to be more of a build of you lot uniting since you were put on the back foot and floundered.
Keep uniting though and we'll keep putting you all in your place and laughing at you.
Have you even read the thread?