6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)

  • 58 Replies
  • 14407 Views
?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2007, 05:09:15 PM »
Am I the only one here that sees that Tom's logic was flawed from the start? Let me explain...

The flock of birds doesn't seem to disappear 2.7 miles from you; it has to be farther away to reach the vanishing point.

The 10 foot tree doesn't seem to disappear 286 feet from you; it has to be farther away to reach the vanishing point.

So, by Tom's logic, the sun is even farther away than Gin's 86,000 mile measurement...which doesn't improve his position at all.

If I still had my sig count I would have bumped it as soon as Tom entered the arena. You guys handle the math, and I'll stick to tearing his logic to pieces.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #31 on: May 08, 2007, 05:50:48 PM »
Quote
Applying my formula here using the approximate height of the couple (1.7m) puts them at about 187m away. Not too unreasonable now is it...

Gin,

Now that you put it that way, it does not seem so unreasonable. I still have my doubts about the hypotenuse of any triangle giving an accurate measurement, however.

But if you insist on using this mathematical hypotenuse formula, I have a solution which may be satisfying. If we look at Chapter 5 of Earth Not a Globe, the original Flat Earth work, we will find that Samuel Birley Rowbotham did not come to the figure of 3,000 miles in his conclusion; but 700 miles in his triangulation equations of the sun. This figure may have gotten lost over the 150 years of Flat Earth history. The Sun is, in Rowbotham's model, 700 vertical miles above the surface of the earth.

The confusion might have come when in a lecture when Rowbotham famously said "right now the sun is 3,000 miles away from London." Of course he meant 3,000 angular miles - he was misinterpreted to mean vertical miles.

Anyway; 700 divided by 0.0349207695 is 20,000 miles. This is well within the diameter of the earth. This figure may be more reasonable, and in retrospect fits perfectly considering that the sun is only seen for half of its circuit.

One detail we must consider is the following:

- The hypotenuse triangle assumes a side view where the ground is perfectly flat to the observer. In reality the edge of the horizon will ascend in altitude until the vanishing point is at eye level with the observer. This would shorten the hypotenuse by a margin.

Illustration: http://i16.tinypic.com/6gejj2t.jpg
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 06:20:07 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2007, 05:56:30 PM »
Quote
I've done this already, but just for you I'll be happy to do it again.

Gin, the fallacy in your math is assuming that finding the vanishing point is as easy as finding the hypotenuse of a triangle. Not so.

Using geometrical tan equations is entirely irrelevant when considering perspective. The sun does not physically decline and touch the horizon. It is just a perspective effect which gives the illusion of the sun touching the horizon. There is no physical triangle to measure.

If we use your exact equation and consider a flock of birds 500 feet overhead descending into the horizon we find that 500/0.0349207695 equates to a hypotenuse of about 14,318 feet or 2.7 miles. Therefore, according to you the flock of birds should disappear into the horizon at 2.7 miles away. This is highly odd considering that I can, at the time of this writing, clearly see a city on the other side of my bay which is 30 miles away. If I take out a telescope I can even  see flocks of birds over the adjacent city. According to your equation the receding birds should disappear into the sea 2.7 miles out.

Something is clearly wrong with your hypotenuse assumption, obviously. The bird example clearly shows that the vanishing point does not work according to hypothetical side views and imaginary triangles.

You are using the wrong equation.

Quote
So by freak coincidence, the rate of the sun's movement directly corrolates to the amount of air its light has to pass through? Give me a break.

It's not a coincidence. If you observe the sun at setting near the horizon you will notice that it actually appears much larger than it does at zenith. This is due to Rowbotham's magnification effect.


*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2007, 06:04:17 PM »
I think this may be the point where I say:
YOU LOSE

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2007, 06:09:33 PM »
With a telescope I can see birds just fine 30 miles away. I can also see the beach, the buildings, people at the water's edge and everything else just fine.

This is my view: http://i12.tinypic.com/6ag6dub.jpg
« Last Edit: May 08, 2007, 06:11:25 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Jesus Reborn

  • 239
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2007, 06:18:10 PM »
With a telescope I can see birds just fine 30 miles away. I can also see the beach, the buildings, people at the water's edge and everything else just fine.

This is my view: http://i12.tinypic.com/6ag6dub.jpg

You need to first understand what people are typing to you, before you can make a counter argument. That picture does nothing but show a point of view from up high.

Best SNL skit ever: " class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">

I predict Michale Crichton's next book will be based on the Flat Earth Society.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #36 on: May 08, 2007, 06:36:59 PM »
A view from up high, and circle the birds next time.  I don't see any on the opposite shore.  Plus, in my previous post, did I not say ground level That looks a lost higher than ground level Tom.  The ground of the opposite shore and your ground must be of equal heights.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2007, 07:47:11 PM »
Tom, if you will not put up a decent argument and understand the concepts put before you, please, don't bother posting at all.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2007, 08:03:07 PM »
Tom, our figures are correct.  Answer the question of how the Earth can be this huge, more than 100x the surface area of a round Earth.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2007, 12:41:00 AM »
So now the sun is 700 miles up instead of 3000. That's a pretty big change....

So now it's 10km wide...not 32.

You FEers love your changing theories, but this is the biggest change for a while...
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2007, 09:21:28 AM »
Quote
So now the sun is 700 miles up instead of 3000. That's a pretty big change....

So now it's 10km wide...not 32.

Rowbotham still gives the figure of 32 miles for the diameter at a vertical distance of 700 miles.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2007, 09:26:02 AM »
That would be wrong, by your own calculation. The angular size of the sun is 0.52 degrees and at a distance of 700 miles this puts its diamter at around 10 km. Do the math yourself...
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2007, 09:37:49 AM »
That would be wrong, by your own calculation. The angular size of the sun is 0.52 degrees and at a distance of 700 miles this puts its diamter at around 10 km. Do the math yourself...

The diameter of the sun isn't attained through vertical distance. It is attained through the following:

    If the navigator neglects to apply the sun's radius to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the radius of the sun is 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2007, 09:52:37 AM »
If you know the distance and angular size, you know the diameter. Simple as that. IF the sun is 700 miles away, it is 10km in size. This is not questionable.

If I know that a ball is 10m away and it has an angular size of 1 degree, I know how big it is. It's not hard.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2007, 09:55:24 AM »
The sun is not any regular ball.

The sun is constantly changing size in the sky as it recedes due to the effect described in Chapter 10. Considering this, it would be difficult to gauge an accurate angular size for the sun.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2007, 10:00:38 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2007, 12:17:41 PM »
'Glare' does not describe the apparent SOLID EDGE the sun always has. Rowbotham's argument is insufficient, especially as he has NO experimental evidence. Besides, if the entire difference in the sun's apparent size is due to it shining through a 'dense medium' then the density of this medium (surely affected by weather, season, geographical location) would cause the sun to vary wildly. It would not explain the CONSISTENT behaviour of the sun for HUNDREDS OF YEARS.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2007, 12:33:24 PM »
Another problem:

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2007, 01:44:03 PM »
How do you explain this?

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2007, 01:59:00 PM »
(And as usual, Flat Earthers totally ignore my point.)

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 65234
  • +17/-49
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #49 on: May 09, 2007, 02:00:01 PM »
 ::) give them time
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • +1/-1
  • Extra Racist
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #50 on: May 09, 2007, 02:06:08 PM »
I enter this post into evidence.
Quote
Polaris CAN NOT BE SEEN from points SOUTH of the EQUATOR!!!

Do you have proof for this presumption? Can you back up your claim with observations?

In his excursions, Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham reports that on the 23rd of January 1862 the Pole Star was seen from a part of the earth 23 1/2 degrees beyond the equator.

Unless you have anything more than a frivolous Round Earth model, I'm more inclined to believe personal observation and statements from a man who has spent his life studying the shape of the earth.
You know this statement disporves the fe right?
Ok here is the math on how this disporves the fe.

To say he could see the north star means he could see for 90+23 degress so 113 degrees.  That means I better be able to see the sky up to 113 degrees too.  So that means that I can see to about 63 degrees past the north pole. so to 27 degrees north on the other side.  Just shy of The tropic of cancer.  So if I can see a star that far away I better be able to see the sun as in millions of times brighter.  So therefore I would be able to see the sun for 24 hours at the June solstice.  Which I cant.  And I'm down here at around 40 degrees so people further north would be able to see the sun even longer. 

Since I cant see the sun I know Rowbotham is lying.  If he lied about  this he probably lied about much more.  Thats why no one can do his experiments. So this in turn disproves the Fe.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #51 on: May 09, 2007, 03:14:55 PM »
You can't deny the logic of math.  Think about it.  If the Earth were a compact disk, the sun would be less than 1/30 of the radius off the disc.  This can't be possible.  It's too close and the viewer would be able to tell.

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • +0/-0
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #52 on: May 09, 2007, 03:17:17 PM »
It's not just 'the viewer would be able to tell', it's a case of 'we can show mathematically that these observations prove your model wrong'.
Quote from: Tom Bishop
The universe has already expanded forever

Quote from: Proverbs 24:17
Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth.

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #53 on: May 09, 2007, 03:19:45 PM »
And a case of "your counter-arguments only prove your model wronger".
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #54 on: May 09, 2007, 03:24:40 PM »
*Applauds*
I think Tom was a high school drop out.  If he can't understand basic SOH-CAH-TOA, then he must be stupid or so ignorant he tries to change the laws of math.

?

Agent_0042

  • 1419
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #55 on: May 09, 2007, 07:15:34 PM »
His Phony-hD is in geology, not math.
Quote
Can the FAQ...
Yes, it can.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #56 on: May 10, 2007, 09:54:20 AM »
TOM, reply to my proof!  My sun, right now, is almost 90o above my head.  This shouldn't be.  Why?

?

Vittunaama

  • 38
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #57 on: May 10, 2007, 12:13:35 PM »
That would be wrong, by your own calculation. The angular size of the sun is 0.52 degrees and at a distance of 700 miles this puts its diamter at around 10 km. Do the math yourself...

The diameter of the sun isn't attained through vertical distance. It is attained through the following:

    If the navigator neglects to apply the sun's radius to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the radius of the sun is 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter.

Hi! I'm a madman too!

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10045
  • +0/-0
Re: 6 Months Of Night - FET Sunsets Disproved (FE left in the dark)
« Reply #58 on: May 10, 2007, 12:26:41 PM »
That would be wrong, by your own calculation. The angular size of the sun is 0.52 degrees and at a distance of 700 miles this puts its diamter at around 10 km. Do the math yourself...

The diameter of the sun isn't attained through vertical distance. It is attained through the following:

    If the navigator neglects to apply the sun's radius to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles (nearly) out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the radius of the sun is 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun's diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter.

Hi! I'm a madman too!

Talk to Tom Bishop.  He doesn't follow the laws of physics, you might fit in.