Please Explain....

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=2844.0

boom headshot

Quote

Google search Tom, its pretty simple. Here is a couple link for jr. high students to figure these types of things out.

Each of those equations relies on a far away sun. If the distance from the sun changes, the distance from the planets change. You really should read what you post.

Please show me how we can accurately measure the distance between the Earth and Sun and get the Round Earth figure. I've been searching for years and have found no explanation for its size or distance.

By replicating the simple experiment in Chapter 5 of Earth Not a Globe I've followed the steps of Samuel Birley Robotham, coming to the conclusion of a close sun.

Let me help you out.  1 AU is very far away.  If its very far away than this argument applies:

If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface.

The calculation of 1 Astronomical Unit = 149 598 000 kilometers aka distance from earth to the sun

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys445/gettys/venus_ex/venus_ex.html

And the history

http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/sunearthday/2004/vt_edu2004_venus_back_his.htm

Where its all from

http://www.astro.uu.nl/~strous/AA/en/antwoorden/planeten.html#v439

If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface.

You're not going to bring this society down that easily.

First you will have to prove that shadow lengths vary in such a manner as to imply a spherical earth. Then you will have to supply video demonstrations, as well as mathematical proofs. You will have to create a hypothesis and produce experiments to confirm your hypothesis. You can't simply link us to a NASA website, you will need to show us.

As a constraint you will need to have a Flat Earth Proponent or neutral party double check your results every step of the way to ensure that false data is not being contrived out of spite. Only after that will we maybe think about considering your argument. Otherwise, you can get out.

The calculation of 1 Astronomical Unit = 149 598 000 kilometers aka distance from earth to the sun

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys445/gettys/venus_ex/venus_ex.html

This link assumes that the Sun has a diameter of 870,000 miles to get those results. It also assumes that Venus is a sizable planet located midway between the Earth and Sun.

Assumptions, assumptions.

Quote

If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface.

You're not going to bring this society down that easily.

First you will have to prove that shadow lengths vary in such a manner as to imply a spherical earth. Then you will have to supply video demonstrations, as well as mathematical proofs. You will have to create a hypothesis and produce experiments to confirm your hypothesis. You can't simply link us to a NASA website, you will need to show us.

As a constraint you will need to have a Flat Earth Proponent or neutral party double check your results every step of the way to ensure that false data is not being contrived out of spite. Only after that will we maybe think about considering your argument. Otherwise, you can get out.

lol

http://www.grecoreport.com/eratosthenes.htm

lol

http://www.grecoreport.com/eratosthenes.htm

Eratosthenes's measurements were accurate, but he assumed that the earth was spherical and the sun was infinitely far away.

One can discover the origin of the distance of the 3,000 mile distant sun by doing a little geometry and starting from a Flat Earth presumption. Eratosthenes assumed that the sun was effectively infinitely far away (or at least so far compared to the earth's size that the actual distance didn't matter). Then he calculated the diameter of the earth using a second assumption: that the earth was spherical.

But suppose we abandon Eratosthenes' two assumptions, and adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat. Then, triangulation from the same data gives the distance to the sun: 3000 miles! See how a simple change of assumptions can drastically alter the entire cosmos?

Quote

lol

http://www.grecoreport.com/eratosthenes.htm

Eratosthenes's measurements were accurate, but he assumed that the earth was spherical and the sun was infinitely far away.

One can discover the origin of the distance of the 3,000 mile distant sun by doing a little geometry and starting from a Flat Earth presumption. Eratosthenes assumed that the sun was effectively infinitely far away (or at least so far compared to the earth's size that the actual distance didn't matter). Then he calculated the diameter of the earth using a second assumption: that the earth was spherical.

But suppose you abandon Eratosthenes' two assumptions, and adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat. Then, triangulation from the same data gives the distance to the sun: 3000 miles! See how a simple change of assumptions can drastically alter the entire cosmos?

Where's the source to that pic.  Also Rowbo proved its 700 miles, not 3000.

They all seem to have disagreeing theories.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on March 15, 2007, 08:33:20 PM

Quote

lol

http://www.grecoreport.com/eratosthenes.htm

Eratosthenes's measurements were accurate, but he assumed that the earth was spherical and the sun was infinitely far away.

One can discover the origin of the distance of the 3,000 mile distant sun by doing a little geometry and starting from a Flat Earth presumption. Eratosthenes assumed that the sun was effectively infinitely far away (or at least so far compared to the earth's size that the actual distance didn't matter). Then he calculated the diameter of the earth using a second assumption: that the earth was spherical.

But suppose you abandon Eratosthenes' two assumptions, and adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat. Then, triangulation from the same data gives the distance to the sun: 3000 miles! See how a simple change of assumptions can drastically alter the entire cosmos?

Where's the source to that pic.  Also Rowbo proved its 700 miles, not 3000.

I as well cannot find the source to that data.  Plus, you cannot, "adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat."  Also, you did not include how refraction could alterthose results shown in your picture.

Where's the source to that pic.

Look up Eratosthenes' equation for determining the distance of the sun to the earth. Use this equation with the presupposition of a Flat Earth. The result come out to exactly 3,000 miles.

Finally, the angular size of the sun is 0.5°. Using this fact with a distance to the sun of 3000 miles, gives the sun's diameter: 32 miles.

Also Rowbo proved its 700 miles, not 3000.

The book on the sacred-texts website is an old edition. Robotham later revised his figures to 3000 miles, the one currently accepted by Flat Earthers and the FAQ.

I as well cannot find the source to that data.  Plus, you cannot, "adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat."  Also, you did not include how refraction could alterthose results shown in your picture.

Eratosthenes measured that shadows in Alexandria on that day were about 1/50th of a circle. Eratosthenes multiplies by 360 degrees in his calculations, presuming that the earth is round.

refraction could alterthose results shown in your picture.

There is no refraction when measuring shadows.

Quote

Where's the source to that pic.

Look up Eratosthenes' equation for determining the distance of the sun to the earth. Use this equation with the presupposition of a Flat Earth. The result come out to exactly 3,000 miles.

Finally, the angular size of the sun is 0.5°. Using this fact with a distance to the sun of 3000 miles, gives the sun's diameter: 32 miles.

Quote

Also Rowbo proved its 700 miles, not 3000.

The book on the sacred-texts website is an old edition. Robotham later revised his figures to 3000 miles, the one currently accepted by Flat Earthers and the FAQ.

Quote

I as well cannot find the source to that data.  Plus, you cannot, "adopt instead the assumption that the earth is flat."  Also, you did not include how refraction could alterthose results shown in your picture.

Eratosthenes divides by 360 degrees in his calculations, presuming that the earth is round.

Quote

refraction could alterthose results shown in your picture.

There is no refraction when measuring shadows.

Since Syrene to Alexandria is about 5000 stadia and 1 stadion is 185m then the distance is about 925km.  Now if i divide 925km by the tangent of 7.2 degrees (or 1/50 of a circle), I get 3,958km or 2,412 miles, not 3000 miles.  Also, how did Rowbotham produce his erroneous result if he performed the same method that you determined: triangulation of the sun and two points?

Since Syrene to Alexandria is about 5000 stadia and 1 stadion is 185m then the distance is about 925km.  Now if i divide 925km by the tangent of 7.2 degrees (or 1/50 of a circle), I get 3,958km or 2,412 miles, not 3000 miles.  Also, how did Rowbotham produce his erroneous result if he performed the same method that you determined: triangulation of the sun and two points?

"Stradia" as a different measurement depending on the source you look at. It's an ancient measurement that has become lost in translation. Oxford Dictionary defines one stradia as 200m.

"From the Greek 'stadion', which is both, the place for watching footraces, and the unit of measure, at 200 meters. The ancient Greek outdoor structure used for footraces was most often built into a hillside or sloped area to provide seating for the spectators. Long and narrow in shape, the dirt track had markers for the runners in a marble strip of pavement at both ends."

Plug in 200m for one stradia and see what you get.

Also, how did Rowbotham produce his erroneous result if he performed the same method that you determined: triangulation of the sun and two points?

After the first edition of Earth Not a Globe was published it became apparent to Flat Earth Proponents that the Sun's distance of 700 miles was hard to reconcile with Robotham's value for its diameter. After careful recalculation, Robotham revised the figure to 3,000 miles. This later value of 3,000 miles was tested and confirmed as accurate by the Flat Earth Society. The figure of 3,000 miles is the figure reflected in later Flat Earth Literature.

It's unclear why Robotham's original calculation was erroneous.

Quote

If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface.

You're not going to bring this society down that easily.

First you will have to prove that shadow lengths vary in such a manner as to imply a spherical earth. Then you will have to supply video demonstrations, as well as mathematical proofs. You will have to create a hypothesis and produce experiments to confirm your hypothesis. You can't simply link us to a NASA website, you will need to show us.

As a constraint you will need to have a Flat Earth Proponent or neutral party double check your results every step of the way to ensure that false data is not being contrived out of spite. Only after that will we maybe think about considering your argument. Otherwise, you can get out.

Did a Round Earth Proponent or neutral party double check Rowbowthams (or however you spell his name, cannae remember) results every step of the way?

(genuine question, I havent read the book yet so I dunno)

I have produced an error in the results.  If I devided 925km by tan of 7.2 degrees I get 7,322km or 4,497 miles.  Using your 200m value I obtain 1,000km Syrene-Alexandria distance, which divided by tan of 7.2 degrees, I obtain 7,916km or 4,861 miles. thus the 185m to 200m vlue estimate for a stadiom has to be way off for the distance of the sun to earth to be 3,000 miles.

Also, refraction can alter your results since the light from the sun passes through a medium of the atmosphere thus bending light.

Should have choose the mystery box Tom, Because your getting son'ed all over this thread. Dont you get tired of making yourself look stupid?

Can any FEer research Rowbotham's discrepancies to figure out why he produced his first error.

EDIT: The 3,000 mile distance is only obtainable when a stadium is 123m, a very significant difference compared to the estimated 180m.  Explain this huge dicrepancy, Tom.  How can our estimate be off by 32 - 39% (regarding the 180m and 200m values).

EDIT: I also seen from other sources taht s stadium is 160m due to the fact that the actual distance from Cyrene and Alexandria is approxciamtely 500 miles.  Using the 500 mile distance, and disregarding how much is a stadium, the distance from the sun to earth is calculated to be 3,958 miles.  How is this 3,000 mile calculation obtained?

Can any FEer research Rowbotham's discrepancies to figure out why he produced his first error.

EDIT: The 3,000 mile distance is only obtainable when a stadium is 123m, a very significant difference compared to the estimated 180m.  Explain this huge dicrepancy, Tom.  How can our estimate be off by 32 - 39% (regarding the 180m and 200m values).

It sounds like you're saying that Tom's numbers dont fit. Whats up with that Tom? Where you at man, you cant go out like this. Get um tom, tell them about the shadow object variable. your the man, Tom!

Hahaha, what a schmuck. Son'ed

I'm assuming that Mercury/Venus have orbit-like patterns like the sun/moon.  But if they are closer to the earth than the sun/moon, and the sun/moon move in those patterns because of some grooves in the TOP of the atmosphere(as said by TheEngineer).  Then how do Mercury/Venus move(if they do)?

Quote from: EIRD on March 16, 2007, 05:05:12 PM

I'm assuming that Mercury/Venus have orbit-like patterns like the sun/moon.  But if they are closer to the earth than the sun/moon, and the sun/moon move in those patterns because of some grooves in the TOP of the atmosphere(as said by TheEngineer).  Then how do Mercury/Venus move(if they do)?

Probably the same way FE sun and FE moon move.  Next time, Tom, Don't mess with the skill of my chief engineering officer, Geordi.

But dude, the sun/moon are on the TOP, and m/v aren't.

The book on the sacred-texts website is an old edition. Robotham later revised his figures to 3000 miles, the one currently accepted by Flat Earthers and the FAQ.

Wait a minute.

So you've been telling us to read a book that is freely available online, yet it's not the "current revised" edition?

That really says a lot, you know. It puts a damper on TFES' credibility.

Tom, you think Venus and Mercury are only 800 miles from the Earth...? So why haven't any satellites collided with them yet? Why has no astronaut ever noticed these planets? Better yet what keeps these tiny objects you describe from being pulled into the Earth?

I apologize. I know youre just joking. I did not mean to get this mean. I realized when i re read this after my last post.

I know that you are just messing with people and it is a joke to you. I am sorry. I just dont know how to respond to someone who is so bad at putting on his own show.

i would boo and throw trash if this was live.

Nice save, asshat.

Quote

If indeed the earth is round, then the shadows should all vary in length from one distant location to another, which means that the angle at which the parallel rays of sunlight struck each pole varied from one location to another. (recall the alternate-angles theorem from Geometry class) If the earth is flat, then the lengths of all the shadows should be identical when measured simultaneously, since all rays of sunlight that strike the earth are parallel. However, they are not identical, but in fact, varies in such a way that the angles indicate a spherical surface.

You're not going to bring this society down that easily.

First you will have to prove that shadow lengths vary in such a manner as to imply a spherical earth. Then you will have to supply video demonstrations, as well as mathematical proofs. You will have to create a hypothesis and produce experiments to confirm your hypothesis. You can't simply link us to a NASA website, you will need to show us.

As a constraint you will need to have a Flat Earth Proponent or neutral party double check your results every step of the way to ensure that false data is not being contrived out of spite. Only after that will we maybe think about considering your argument. Otherwise, you can get out.

Hmmm, so, by your way of thinking, your argument is completely moot, as well. Since, you can't truly prove it, why is it true? Just because you try to put someone else under the heat lamp, doesn't make you correct.
How are the links you post more true than his? It's simple. You are an egotistical narcissist who only takes a position of the underdog so you can 'over-come the evil doers', this time by way of debate, when, in reality, you just love to hear yourself talk... in this case, see yourself post.

If he loves to hear himself talk as much as it seems he does, he should probably get one of those text-to-speech programs. After actually listening to the complete BS that he posts, he would then proceed to have a massive existence failure and disappear forever.

We can dream, can't we?

He couldn't explain anything, so let's give him a break.