How did the planet come out flat if... (not a hate topic)

How did the planet come out flat IF it was all created from condensed matter at a very early stage of the universe?

If you don't belive in the 'big bang,' then what do you explain for the existence of all the other planets?

Futhermore, what are the other planets orbiting if the sun orbids the earth?

lol why do you still preach that?  You cannot disprove all of Astronomy with your opinion.  The size of the sun, moon, and all other planets are known. 

The size of the sun, moon, and all other planets are known.

Yes, they are known. sadly, no one listens when people 'in the know' like Tom tell them.

No they don’t.  They depend on the earths orbit.  The take a measurement and then 6 months later they take another one.

Go over to physicsforums.com which is full of real doctors and tell them the earth is flat because a old ass book said so and see what they say.

Tom, you have no credibility left about this matter. You and your mathematics were completely owned in this thread:

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=11607.0

When your mathematics were challenged, you failed completely to respond. You no longer can speak believably about anything to do with astronomy.

The only discrepancy I've seen was in a recent thread where a poster calculates the sun's distance from the Earth to 4,000 miles by using the measurements conducted by Eratosthenes in 200 B.C under the presumption of a Flat Earth.

Eratosthenes calculated the distance from the earth to the sun using measurements of shadows and the distance between Syene and Alexandria. Unfortunately, using old greek measurements are flawed for the following reasons:

* The accuracy of Eratosthenes' measurement would have been reduced by the fact that Syene is not precisely on the Tropic of Cancer, is not directly south of Alexandria

* Eratosthenes' unit of measurement called the stadia has gotten lost in translation over the years. Depending on the source you look at, a stadion is defined as either 148.5, 185, or 200 meters.

So thus, if you would like to demonstrate that the sun's distance from the earth varies from the FE standard of 3,000 miles you will need to preform the experiments yourself from scratch with defined units of measurement. Rowbotham and his modern followers have. The results have been published in the Flat Earth Literature, repeated many times over. One cannot rely on ancient measurements conducted in 200 B.C.

Light takes 8 minutes to get from the Sun to Earth. Do you have a different speed of light for this 3000 mile crap, or is it simply shorter. So if the Sun burnt out, we would know after 8 minutes, disproving FE theory.

Quote from: sokarul on April 05, 2007, 02:52:09 PM

No they don’t.  They depend on the earths orbit.  The take a measurement and then 6 months later they take another one.

Do you even think before you type? What you wrote makes absolutely no sense.

To judge the size of an object through triangulation we need at least two known points in space. Just like how GPS does not wok with only one broadcasting beacon. GPS needs multiple beacons with known locations to triangulate its position.

Astronomers can't simply measure the angle of a sun on January 1st and then measure it again on July 1st to get a distance. Before starting the experiment the distance from the sun should be considered unknown to begin with. An astronomer can't rely on a second angular position of the sun if they don't know how far away it even is. For all they know the sun is millions of miles in diameter, a parsec away, and moves at fractions of the speed of light.

Quote

Go over to physicsforums.com which is full of real doctors and tell them the earth is flat because a old ass book said so and see what they say.

Maybe you should go over to that forum and ask them to explain basic physics to you. It's apparent that you know very little.

Don't even bring up that elementary school notion about being able to 'bounce lasers off the sun'. Unless you have a laser can can output more power per square inch than the sun it's completely impossible.

I did go over there and you are trying to contradict them.  I wounder who is right, people with doctorates or Tom.

Quote

I did go over there and you are trying to contradict them.  I wounder who is right, people with doctorates or Tom.

Sokarul, learn to spell.

1.) The Solar Parallax does not apply to the sun. It applies to the Stars.

2.) And I've already explained it to you. A solar parallax is meaningless unless we have an accurate measurement for the Astronomical Unit. Just because a star moves a couple degrees in the sky over a number of months we can't make presumptions about its distance or how much it moved without knowing the length of an AU.

In fact, the solar parallax relies on the same sort of triangulation methods we've been talking about. In Round Earth parallax calculations the two known locations are: The Earth and the Sun. The third location is the Star in question, which is unknown. If the distance from the Sun to the Earth is unknown we have two unknown locations and the Solar Parallax becomes meaningless. 

Solar Parallax makes a lot of assumptions that only hold true if the Sun is actually eight light minutes away and the Earth revolves around it.

I do believe that this is going to be another of those threads where Tom is getting beaten.

So far: Tom, you've brought up some good points, but if you're going to prove something with math, do the math.

Show me your degree in physics, then I will listen to you over the people that have a degree in physics.

- Does finding the distance between the Earth and Sun require at least two known points on Earth?

- Is it possible to triangulate the distance from a distant celestial body with only one known point in space?

- Does the Solar Parallax rely on the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and two known points in space?

- Would the original Earth-Sun triangulation equations conducted by Eratosthenes in 200 B.C be affected if the Earth were flat?

So far: Tom, you've brought up some good points, but if you're going to prove something with math, do the math.

Can't we drop the ad hominems and have a genuine and open minded debate (this includes you as well, Tom)?

Obviously not everyone on that forum are experts in physics, seeing as you're a member.

I will suggest that you go back and ask the following questions:

- Does finding the distance between the Earth and Sun require at least two known points on Earth?

- Is it possible to triangulate the distance from a distant celestial body with only one known point in space?

- Does the Solar Parallax rely on the rotation of the Earth around the Sun and two known points in space?

- Would the original Earth-Sun triangulation equations conducted by Eratosthenes in 200 B.C be affected if the Earth were flat?

Quote from: sokarul on April 05, 2007, 02:52:09 PM

No they don’t.  They depend on the earths orbit.  The take a measurement and then 6 months later they take another one.

Do you even think before you type? What you wrote makes absolutely no sense.

To judge the distance from an object through triangulation we need at least two known points in space. Just like how GPS does not wok with only one broadcasting beacon. GPS needs multiple beacons with known locations to triangulate its position.


Don't even bring up that elementary school notion about being able to 'bounce lasers off the sun' either. Unless you have a laser can can output more power per square inch than the sun it's completely impossible.