There is no Flat Earth Theory

Quote from: Silicon on September 14, 2017, 04:12:32 PM

 You are joking, right? If the sun is at the place where your blue line directs then you just shorten the d1 so that the angle is 90 again. This is not fixed on place and when sun moves the base of triangle changes. Not the angle which you have circled.

Quote from: Silicon on September 14, 2017, 10:41:28 AM

Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 14, 2017, 08:01:10 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 13, 2017, 09:37:37 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on September 13, 2017, 08:10:04 PM

Quote

AN ALTERNATIVE MODEL
Eratosthenes' model depends on the assumption that the earth is a globe and that the sun is far away and therefore produces parallel rays of light all over the earth. If the sun is nearby, then shadows will change length even for a flat earth. A flat earth model is sketched below. The vertical stick casts shadows that grow longer as the stick moves to the left, away from the closest point to the sun. (The sun is at height h above the earth.)

Yes all right triangles are 90 degrees, but you can't seem to understand it's importance, so I have to double up on those terms.

The information in the flat earth wiki is not necessarily wrong but it's not presented correctly IMHO.  There is no possible way to know angle [1]...

Are you saying you can't know angle θ₁ in this scenario? You can measure it at point a if you have a vertical stick.

He's not out there measuring sticks, but is apparently attempting to use a formula that does.

I've a feeling I shouldn't have mentioned sticks. What I meant, of course, is that if you can measure the angle of the sun from the vertical at a, then you know angle θ₁ because it's the same angle.

Thus to convert to my angles and length you get:
h=d2/(tan(90-a2)-tan(90-a1)).

Quote from: zork on September 15, 2017, 12:18:07 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 14, 2017, 04:12:32 PM

 You are joking, right? If the sun is at the place where your blue line directs then you just shorten the d1 so that the angle is 90 again. This is not fixed on place and when sun moves the base of triangle changes. Not the angle which you have circled.

Please stay out of the conversation unless you have something useful to bring to the table.

Copper Knickers,  I dont know how long you've been following this debate for but these are 2 separate things. If Rab had actually measured sticks at the particular snapshot in time, then he would be posting different angles to work with.  Why? Because the stick angle can be calculated from 90 degree triangles.  The method you're describing here (not using sticks) still suffers from the same problem I keep describing.  I hope this makes sense.   

Quote from: Silicon on September 15, 2017, 10:47:18 AM

Quote from: zork on September 15, 2017, 12:18:07 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 14, 2017, 04:12:32 PM

 You are joking, right? If the sun is at the place where your blue line directs then you just shorten the d1 so that the angle is 90 again. This is not fixed on place and when sun moves the base of triangle changes. Not the angle which you have circled.

Please stay out of the conversation unless you have something useful to bring to the table.

Says person who hasn't brought anything useful to the table. Even your drawing is total BS and advertises your ignorance.
The level of ... you reached with this drwaing is dumbfounding. Like you haven't a glue about trigonometry. Do you really-really-really believe that if sun which is at the top of triangle moves then you just slant the h according to sun movement?

Quote from: zork on September 15, 2017, 11:29:49 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 15, 2017, 10:47:18 AM

Quote from: zork on September 15, 2017, 12:18:07 AM

Quote from: Silicon on September 14, 2017, 04:12:32 PM

 You are joking, right? If the sun is at the place where your blue line directs then you just shorten the d1 so that the angle is 90 again. This is not fixed on place and when sun moves the base of triangle changes. Not the angle which you have circled.

Please stay out of the conversation unless you have something useful to bring to the table.

Says person who hasn't brought anything useful to the table. Even your drawing is total BS and advertises your ignorance.
The level of ... you reached with this drawing is dumbfounding. Like you haven't a glue about trigonometry. Do you really-really-really believe that if sun which is at the top of triangle moves then you just slant the h according to sun movement?

Start reading here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71649.msg1944216#msg1944216

Try to actually understand everyone's point of view .  If you read through all of that, and still have the same response above I would be surprised.  If you do read through all of that and come to some new conclusion or have a question just ask.

Rab, your formula is correct.  It can be used on triangles in various situations, however it cannot be used in this situation as you move away from 45degrees.  You end up with incorrect angles, as I've described many times.

Please stay out of the conversation unless you have something useful to bring to the table.

Copper Knickers,  I dont know how long you've been following this debate for but these are 2 separate things. If Rab had actually measured sticks at the particular snapshot in time, then he would be posting different angles to work with.  Why? Because the stick angle can be calculated from 90 degree triangles.  The method you're describing here (not using sticks) still suffers from the same problem I keep describing.  I hope this makes sense.   

Just glancing at your info here, this part stuck out.  You can't just subtract angles from 90 in this situation, and I think you know that.

Start reading here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71649.msg1944216#msg1944216
Try to actually understand everyone's point of view .  If you read through all of that, and still have the same response above I would be surprised.  If you do read through all of that and come to some new conclusion or have a question just ask.

Quote from: Silicon on September 15, 2017, 10:42:45 AM

Rab, your formula is correct.  It can be used on triangles in various situations, however it cannot be used in this situation as you move away from 45degrees.  You end up with incorrect angles, as I've described many times.

Yes, that formula works. It can be used on triangles in basically any situation.
It can be used in this situation.
You are yet to show why it can't be used as you move away from 45 degrees.
You haven't described why ever (at least not that I have seen). Instead you have just repeatedly asserted it. There is a very big difference.

Quote from: Silicon on September 15, 2017, 10:47:18 AM

Please stay out of the conversation unless you have something useful to bring to the table.

Good advice, perhaps you should follow. You are yet to bring anything useful.
Perhaps you should stay out until you can justify your "correction" or explain where I used the 89.06 degree angle?

If you like, here is another example, using the same source of data as you did (all done at 14 00 GMT -6 Adjusted for DST (so really 13 GMT -6) on the 15th of September 2017):
https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php
Point 1: 29.0853165, -106.2371922, with the sun's azimuth being 180 degrees, and the elevation being 63.64 degrees.
Point 2: 49.0853165, -106.2371922, with the sun's azimuth being 180 degrees, and the elevation being 43.64 degrees.
Point 3: 69.0853165, -106.2371922, with the sun's azimuth being 180 degrees, and the elevation being 23.64 degrees.

Now then, the distance between them:
Point 1-Point 2, 20 degrees of longitude thus 2222.67 km calculated, or from Google maps 2223.90 km.
Point 1-Point 3, 40 degrees thus 4445.33 km calc or from Google maps 4447.80 km.
And Point 2 to Point 3, 20 degrees thus 2222.67 km calc or 2223.90 km.

And now the calcs of height from calculated distance:
1&2 - 4018.553 km
1&3 - 2484.776 km
2&3 - 1798.387 km

From Google maps distance:
1&2 - 4020.777 km
1&3 - 2486.157 km
2&3 - 1799.382 km


Happy, no right observation point where the sun is directly overhead at all.
You already admitted the formula works.

So what is your excuse now?

Quote from: Silicon on September 15, 2017, 10:54:51 AM

Copper Knickers,  I dont know how long you've been following this debate for but these are 2 separate things. If Rab had actually measured sticks at the particular snapshot in time, then he would be posting different angles to work with.  Why? Because the stick angle can be calculated from 90 degree triangles.  The method you're describing here (not using sticks) still suffers from the same problem I keep describing.  I hope this makes sense.   

As I pointed out, those stick angles can be calculated by simply using the elevation angle of the sun. They are complementary to it.
You do not need any observation point where the sun is directly overhead.
So no, this does not suffer from the problem you keep describing.

Quote from: Silicon on September 15, 2017, 10:56:48 AM

Just glancing at your info here, this part stuck out.  You can't just subtract angles from 90 in this situation, and I think you know that.

Yes I can, and I know I can.
Here is a right angle triangle:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Rtriangle.svg
The three angles are labelled A, B and C.
C is a right angle (i.e. 90 degrees).
The angle I am using (a1 and a2) in that formula, correspond to angle A in that picture. The angle rab is using is B.
The angles must add to 180 degrees.

This gives you this formula:
180=A+B+C
180=a1+t1+90
90=a1+t1.
Thus t1=90-a1.

Thus to convert from Rab's version, with angles t1 and t2, to my version, with angles a1 and a2, you MUST replace t1 with 90-a1.

And something tells me that you already knew that and are just looking for another pathetic excuse to avoid admitting you are full of shit.

Quote from: Silicon on September 15, 2017, 01:44:19 PM

Start reading here:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71649.msg1944216#msg1944216
Try to actually understand everyone's point of view .  If you read through all of that, and still have the same response above I would be surprised.  If you do read through all of that and come to some new conclusion or have a question just ask.

If they are rational and honest, they likely will have quite a similar conclusion.
We do not need to use an observation point with the sun directly overhead.
All reading that will do is affirm that you are full of BS.

And now I ask again:

CAN YOU SHOW WHERE I USED 89.06 DEGREES IN PLACE OF 90 DEGREES (or vice versa)??

YES I CAN. YOU'RE NOT USING A RIGHT TRIANGLE

If you like, here is another example, using the same source of data as you did (all done at 14 00 GMT -6 Adjusted for DST (so really 13 GMT -6) on the 15th of September 2017):
https://www.sunearthtools.com/dp/tools/pos_sun.php
Point 1: 29.0853165, -106.2371922, with the sun's azimuth being 180 degrees, and the elevation being 63.64 degrees.
Point 2: 49.0853165, -106.2371922, with the sun's azimuth being 180 degrees, and the elevation being 43.64 degrees.
Point 3: 69.0853165, -106.2371922, with the sun's azimuth being 180 degrees, and the elevation being 23.64 degrees.

Now then, the distance between them:
Point 1-Point 2, 20 degrees of longitude thus 2222.67 km calculated, or from Google maps 2223.90 km.
Point 1-Point 3, 40 degrees thus 4445.33 km calc or from Google maps 4447.80 km.
And Point 2 to Point 3, 20 degrees thus 2222.67 km calc or 2223.90 km.

And now the calcs of height from calculated distance:
1&2 - 4018.553 km
1&3 - 2484.776 km
2&3 - 1798.387 km

From Google maps distance:
1&2 - 4020.777 km
1&3 - 2486.157 km
2&3 - 1799.382 km

YES I CAN. YOU'RE NOT USING A RIGHT TRIANGLE

Quote from: Silicon on September 15, 2017, 04:58:27 PM

YES I CAN. YOU'RE NOT USING A RIGHT TRIANGLE

I know full well that Taraira, Colombia is not on the equator or directly under the sun and I am not assuming that!

I am sick and tired of your totally useful crap. There is no concern over any 89.06°!

Can't you do a little trigonometry without someone holding your hand and showing you every little step?

Look at this diagram with two points a known distance, d, apart with know sun elevation angles, A₁ and A₂:

From this:    d₁ = h/tan(A₁), d₂ = h/tan(A₂) and d = d₁ + d₂
     hence       d = h/tan(A₁) + h/tan(A₂)
           so       d = h (1/tan(A₁) + /tan(A₂)
Any objections?

The signs need to be watched is the points are on opposite sides of the "sub-solar point".

I see now.  I thought you were still plugging in distances starting with Vaupes Columbia.

Yes I most certainly have objections.  This formula h = d/(1/tan(A1) + 1/tan(A2)) can not work here just logically speaking.

Say you select 2 points, (lets just use your original ones to make things easier to reference) I'll do Santo Domingo, and Chupa District.  These are 2107 & 1610 KM from Vaupes Columbia, so you have maybe 3717 KM between the two.  Your formula uses this distance and divides the cotangent of these observed angles, and comes up with some "height".

Now this example may get close but you know every other point south of Chupa District using this formula must be really wrong.  Why?

Because you are just adding more distance into the equation, and keeping the same angle of elevation.

So if you match Santo Domingo and Punta Arenas Chile as your points, then your distance has increased massively (d1+d2) but your elevation angle has remained the same

So the bottom line is you will end up with legs way outside the distance to the supposed 90 degree sun's location, and the other angle you're adding in will not be anywhere near enough to offset this even using the initial 'fake height calculation'

I think the more points that are added on your vertical Rab, the more this formula falls apart.

In order for the formula to not work, either trigonometry is broken, or Earth isn't flat.
Unless you can show that trigonometry is broken, this means Earth isn't flat.

We calculated the "closest" sun distance depends on cities from cities North America, South America, Middle East and Europe.
As a result, we calculated the closest distance of sun as 2289 kms.
We can easily say that the altitude of the sun should be about 2 200 kms +-%10 error limit.

Now this example may get close but you know every other point south of Chupa District using this formula must be really wrong. 

Why? Because you are just adding more distance into the equation, and keeping the same angle of elevation.  So if you match Santo Domingo and Punta Arenas Chile as your points, then your distance has increased massively (d1+d2) but your elevation angle has remained the same when you calculate the distance to the 'sub solar point' from that location. 

So the bottom line is you will end up with legs way outside the distance to the supposed 90-degree sun's location, and the other angle you're adding in will not be anywhere near enough to offset this even using the initial 'fake height calculation'

Also if one of the angle pair fails greatly (which it will) it means the other paired angle will be quite incorrect as well.

I think the more points that are added on your vertical Rab, the more this formula falls apart.

Nice try.

Quote from: JackBlack on September 17, 2017, 03:46:28 PM

In order for the formula to not work, either trigonometry is broken, or Earth isn't flat.
Unless you can show that trigonometry is broken, this means Earth isn't flat.

No.  We're using globe distances, observed elevations, with your/rab's formula.  It gives us numbers, however when you break it apart, it won't match back up. This can only mean one thing.  The earth is NOT a globe.

Quote from: Silicon on September 18, 2017, 04:19:59 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on September 18, 2017, 02:57:42 PM

The only thing you destroyed was any credibility you or the FE had.

I've shot down numerous attempts by you and your borg buddy Rab to get around the 90 degree issue, and I've consistently, refuted other fraudulent claims you've attempted to pass off as well.

No, Mr Silicon, you have not! There is not and never has been any "90 degree issue", nor any "fraudulent claims".

Quote from: Silicon

The formula works, and you can't disprove that, and it makes you mad.

No, Mr Silicon, you should not "make up" a formula fit force it to match the result you want to get.
Just as you should not pretend that upside down grossly exaggerated refraction can explain sunsets.

But, what makes me sick in the stomach is that you have to fudge your formula to fit what you think the answer should be.

Quote from: Silicon

In fact, I think because of the formula you realized your job as a RE shill is pretty pointless because the earth cannot be a globe.

Stop being idiotic about "RE shill". I am just a retired person sick to death of the outright deception of YouTube videos and now you and a few others are bringing it over here.

Sorry about that, but a flat earth just does not fit with numerous simple observations and this is just one, others are:

• Sunrise and sunset appearance.
• Sunrise and sunset directions, especially in the Southern Hemisphere summer.
• The sun and moon remaining essentially the same size from rising to setting.
• The distances between the Southern Hemisphere continents, say Buenos Aries-Johannesburg, Johannesburg-Sydney, and Sydney-Santiago.
  I picked those because they are such commonly flown air routes.

Shall I go on?

Quote from: Silicon

If that didn't do it, then the enormous fail of the latest function you presented certainly will, but you're already distancing yourself from it, which is about the best thing you can do at this point.

I do not distance myself from any expression I have and I am sure JackBlack doesn't.
We have always presented expressions for distance based on simply geometry.
What you do is to add your "correction" (AKA fudge factor) in a poor attempt to bring the heights into line with your preconceived ideas.

Quote from: Silicon

Anyway I won't respond to you here again, there are too many threads mucked up with your slime on this subject already.

(Same goes with you Rab)

Good, because you have proved conclusively what you are - a cheat.

All you have done is started with a height of 4828 km, which had no basis in the first place and fudged the equations to fit that number.

In scientific circles, what you have done is pure and simply cheating.

So run away and please don't come back. I don't like arguing with idiots and I refuse to debate with out and out cheats.

Bye bye.

Oh I'm not going anywhere. Just don't want to keep stringing this debate across 3 or 4 different threads. Also I did not call you a shill, that reply was sent to JB...the same goes to you was meaning I would not respond to you in the other thread.