Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun

  • 39 Replies
  • 6078 Views
*

spherehead

  • 93
  • Student of OSU
interesting stuff, all almost only compatable with RE

wonder what FE'ers would say to it?

is it all just made up for shits and giggles?
round on the sides and "hi" in the middle

oh, and the earth is round too

Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #1 on: May 29, 2007, 06:07:15 PM »
Yes

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #2 on: May 29, 2007, 06:12:03 PM »
Quote
is it all just made up for shits and giggles?

Nope, it's not made up. If the earth were round the sun really would be triangulated to a distance of 93 million miles. The angular size in the sky would give it a large diameter for its distance as well.

Now, if we use those same exact triangulation equations under the assumption of a Flat Earth, the sun becomes much closer and much smaller. By necessity, since astronomers gauge a celestial distance by studying the angle of an object in the sky from two separate points on earth and compensating for curvature, the shape of the earth is intimately attached to the distance of the Astronomical Unit.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 06:16:57 PM by Tom Bishop »

*

spherehead

  • 93
  • Student of OSU
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #3 on: May 29, 2007, 06:22:05 PM »
I'm not talking about distance alone, but the fact that it's not a spotlight and the various details about it's composition, the way fusion works and things like sun spots, solar flares and the energy involved with each
round on the sides and "hi" in the middle

oh, and the earth is round too

Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #4 on: May 29, 2007, 06:25:56 PM »
Quote
is it all just made up for shits and giggles?

Nope, it's not made up. If the earth were round the sun really would be triangulated to a distance of 93 million miles. The angular size in the sky would give it a large diameter for its distance as well.

Now, if we use those same exact triangulation equations under the assumption of a Flat Earth, the sun becomes much closer and much smaller. By necessity, since astronomers gauge a celestial distance by studying the angle of an object in the sky from two separate points on earth and compensating for curvature, the shape of the earth is intimately attached to the distance of the Astronomical Unit.
We'd love to see a worked example with documented measurements. Oh, and be sure to explain the shape of the Sun as seen by both observers.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #5 on: May 29, 2007, 06:29:48 PM »
How do the Flat Earthers explain sunspots and solar flares if the sun is a flat disk?  Where do these come from?

?

Plankster

  • 17
  • Fighting for equal and intelligent arguments!
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #6 on: May 29, 2007, 06:43:26 PM »
Honestly, guys, do you think that the History channel would get positive ratings if it presented any idea about the shape of the earth but the FE?
When a true genius appears, you shall know him by this sign; that all the dunces of the world are in confederacy against him. -Jonathan Swift

Typical argument for FE'ers and RE'ers: "Stop being so narrow-minded and accept MY point of view!"

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #7 on: May 29, 2007, 07:19:28 PM »
Quote
We'd love to see a worked example with documented measurements. Oh, and be sure to explain the shape of the Sun as seen by both observers.

Read Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham or Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship for documented measurements of the Sun under the assumption of a Flat Earth.

Quote
How do the Flat Earthers explain sunspots and solar flares if the sun is a flat disk?  Where do these come from?

The sun is a sphere. It is not a "flat disk." Its light is simply limited to a spotlight since it is so small and near to the earth. Once past the vanishing point of the observer, the light of the sun will no longer reach that point on the earth. Otherwise, we would see the sun throughout a 24 hour period.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 08:22:26 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

Plankster

  • 17
  • Fighting for equal and intelligent arguments!
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #8 on: May 29, 2007, 07:28:38 PM »
How 'bout you actully give us an example or two, not all of us can take time out of our lives to read your holy books.
When a true genius appears, you shall know him by this sign; that all the dunces of the world are in confederacy against him. -Jonathan Swift

Typical argument for FE'ers and RE'ers: "Stop being so narrow-minded and accept MY point of view!"

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #9 on: May 29, 2007, 07:45:24 PM »
Quote
is it all just made up for shits and giggles?

Nope, it's not made up. If the earth were round the sun really would be triangulated to a distance of 93 million miles. The angular size in the sky would give it a large diameter for its distance as well.

Now, if we use those same exact triangulation equations under the assumption of a Flat Earth, the sun becomes much closer and much smaller. By necessity, since astronomers gauge a celestial distance by studying the angle of an object in the sky from two separate points on earth and compensating for curvature, the shape of the earth is intimately attached to the distance of the Astronomical Unit.
You are triangulating to measure the size to the sun but you are forgetting that the distance to the sun, in your FE model is not constant!

If you assume that the height at which the sun hovers is 1 (we will measure everything in UA's to make calculations simple), then the distance to the sun (d) with respect to the altitude (a) (altitude is the angle from the horizon to the sun, in this case)  is:

      sin(a)=1 / d

Moving terms around, the distance to the sun in UA's is:

      d = 1 / sin(a)

Assuming the apparent size of the sun is 0.5 degrees when the sun is exactly at the zenith, (an important specification if we are talking FE), and since the apparent size of the sun (s) is inversely proportional to the distance (d), we have:

      s = 0.5 * ( 1 / d ) = 0.5 * sin(a)

Therefore, if the sun is at an altitude of 30 degrees, for example, the apparent size would be 0.25 degrees. If the sun is at an altitude of 10 degrees, the size of the sun is down to just under 0.1 degrees.

But, surprise, surprise, the apparent size of the sun is always close to 0.5 degrees, or about the size of your thumb's fingernail when you extend fully your arm.

In conclusion, triangulation would positively show that FE proponents are right if only the sun was seen smaller as it approached sundown, but the opposite is true.

?

Plankster

  • 17
  • Fighting for equal and intelligent arguments!
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #10 on: May 29, 2007, 07:54:58 PM »
See, examples, that makes sense. Even if you don't agree, at least he didn't just say, go read this book, which explains it. It has now been proved that trig can think for himself, or copy and paste really well. Either way, he's actually trying to have an intelligent discussion.
When a true genius appears, you shall know him by this sign; that all the dunces of the world are in confederacy against him. -Jonathan Swift

Typical argument for FE'ers and RE'ers: "Stop being so narrow-minded and accept MY point of view!"

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #11 on: May 29, 2007, 07:57:38 PM »
We'd love to see a worked example with documented measurements. Oh, and be sure to explain the shape of the Sun as seen by both observers.
You wanted a worked example? See my last post. You are waiting for a worked example with actual numbers from FE proponents? Somebody might enjoy a whiskey on the rocks in hell while you wait.

Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #12 on: May 29, 2007, 07:58:21 PM »
Quote
We'd love to see a worked example with documented measurements. Oh, and be sure to explain the shape of the Sun as seen by both observers.

Read Earth Not a Globe by Dr. Samuel Birley Rowbotham or Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship for documented measurements of the Sun under the assumption of a Flat Earth.
Gladly. What page(s)? Do either explain the apparent shape, size, magnitude, and distance?
Quote
How do the Flat Earthers explain sunspots and solar flares if the sun is a flat disk?  Where do these come from?

The sun is a sphere. It is not a "flat disk." Its light is simply limited to a spotlight since it is so small and near to the earth. Once past the vanishing point of the observer, the light of the sun will longer reach that point on the earth. Otherwise, we would see the sun throughout a 24 hour period.
[/quote]Can you tell us then when sunrise will occur tomorrow morning for Mexico City, Mexico? It seems to me if you know the distance and your vanishing point theory works, then you should be able to. By the way, my workbook says, based on math--not tables, that it'll be at 7:04 AM local time. Weather.com says 6:58 AM local time. Let's see how close you can come.

TomB, I have to believe that you can't quantify this mystical vanishing point until you show us some real work. It's time to come to the table with documentation.

ETA: TomB, I've uploaded Version 0.2 of the workbook for you here http://rapidshare.com/files/34170877/SunSpot.xlsx complete with Mexico City's sunrise for tomorrow all worked out for you. I'm not leaving anything to doubt. Can you do the same for FE?
« Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 08:14:47 PM by Gulliver »

?

Plankster

  • 17
  • Fighting for equal and intelligent arguments!
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #13 on: May 29, 2007, 08:04:52 PM »
Note: my math can come up with any number I want if I don't show my work!

I'm glad that people are starting to push for more substantial evidence. Maybe I can actually learn the basic arguments of each side so that i can be informed enough to decide on my own!
When a true genius appears, you shall know him by this sign; that all the dunces of the world are in confederacy against him. -Jonathan Swift

Typical argument for FE'ers and RE'ers: "Stop being so narrow-minded and accept MY point of view!"

Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #14 on: May 29, 2007, 11:27:56 PM »
Now, if we use those same exact triangulation equations under the assumption of a Flat Earth, the sun becomes much closer and much smaller. By necessity, since astronomers gauge a celestial distance by studying the angle of an object in the sky from two separate points on earth and compensating for curvature, the shape of the earth is intimately attached to the distance of the Astronomical Unit.

As I have told you many times Tom, this is not how modern astronomers measure the distance from Earth to the sun.  We use much more direct methods which are independent of the shape of the Earth.

I refer you to the last time this point was raised with a very detailed explanation, and no substantial refutation was provided.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13015.60
« Last Edit: May 29, 2007, 11:38:23 PM by Max Fagin »
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #15 on: May 30, 2007, 12:44:29 PM »
Quote
But, surprise, surprise, the apparent size of the sun is always close to 0.5 degrees, or about the size of your thumb's fingernail when you extend fully your arm.

The shrinking of the sun is counteracted by the effect described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

Quote
Can you tell us then when sunrise will occur tomorrow morning for Mexico City, Mexico? It seems to me if you know the distance and your vanishing point theory works, then you should be able to. By the way, my workbook says, based on math--not tables, that it'll be at 7:04 AM local time. Weather.com says 6:58 AM local time. Let's see how close you can come.

Through a little manual tracing I am able to accurately predict the time of sunrise for the Flat Earth model. I plan to make a new thread discussing the details, but summarily this is what happens:

Since the sun is an irregular spotlight, the amount of light an observer receives during the day will decrease and increase depending on one's latitude. At the North Pole, the sun will set 6,244 miles away from the observer. At the equator the sun will set 8,734 miles away from the observer. Likewise, the sun will rise at those distances. Using these two values we can use the latitude of Mexico city (19 26' N) and a little basic math to come up with a vanishing point of 7,240 miles away from an observer along that latitude.

Tomorrow the Sun will be centered over a latitude approximately 4,600 miles southward of the North Pole. Using this figure, in conjunction with a bit of trigonometry on a Flat Earth Model broken up into 24 equal pie slices, I've estimated that tomorrow's sunrise for Mexico City should occur at 12:06 Zulu time. Likewise, the sun should set at 1:20 Zulu.

Quote
As I have told you many times Tom, this is not how modern astronomers measure the distance from Earth to the sun.  We use much more direct methods which are independent of the shape of the Earth.

Care to show me a single documented method used for finding the distance between the Sun and Earth? The only procedures I've ever seen are intimately connected with the shape of the earth. It's absolutely impossible to tell the distance from a celestial body "just by looking at it." Triangulation is necessary from two known points in space.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 01:11:27 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #16 on: May 30, 2007, 01:50:20 PM »
Quote
But, surprise, surprise, the apparent size of the sun is always close to 0.5 degrees, or about the size of your thumb's fingernail when you extend fully your arm.

The shrinking of the sun is counteracted by the effect described in Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

TomB, everyone here knows this is wrong. We told you here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13526.msg215679;topicseen#msg215679

Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #17 on: May 30, 2007, 01:57:02 PM »

Quote
Can you tell us then when sunrise will occur tomorrow morning for Mexico City, Mexico? It seems to me if you know the distance and your vanishing point theory works, then you should be able to. By the way, my workbook says, based on math--not tables, that it'll be at 7:04 AM local time. Weather.com says 6:58 AM local time. Let's see how close you can come.

Through a little manual tracing I am able to accurately predict the time of sunrise for the Flat Earth model. I plan to make a new thread discussing the details, but summarily this is what happens:

Since the sun is an irregular spotlight, the amount of light an observer receives during the day will decrease and increase depending on one's latitude. At the North Pole, the sun will set 6,244 miles away from the observer. At the equator the sun will set 8,734 miles away from the observer. Likewise, the sun will rise at those distances. Using these two values we can use the latitude of Mexico city (19 26' N) and a little basic math to come up with a vanishing point of 7,240 miles away from an observer along that latitude.

Tomorrow the Sun will be centered over a latitude approximately 4,600 miles southward of the North Pole. Using this figure, in conjunction with a bit of trigonometry on a Flat Earth Model broken up into 24 equal pie slices, I've estimated that tomorrow's sunrise for Mexico City should occur at 12:06 Zulu time. Likewise, the sun should set at 1:20 Zulu.

TomB, we can see that all you're doing is waving your hands and using facts that you steal from RE's predictions, like where the Sun will set for a given observer. You'll never be able to show the details in "a new thread". If you're so sure of yourself, meet the challenge of SunSpots.xlsx! Give us a workbook that will predict the Sun's location for every minute for every location.

I suspect this is just a case of you trying to fool a few people. Soon, with your treachery exposed, you'll leave this thread without concession--like you always do.


Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #18 on: May 30, 2007, 06:46:01 PM »
It's absolutely impossible to tell the distance from a celestial body "just by looking at it." Triangulation is necessary from two known points in space.

I'm afraid that's not true.  As I have said before, we can (and do) measure the suns distance "just by looking at it."  We look at it with radar.

Because we can't bounce radio waves directly of the sun, this process is a little complicated.  But the process is sound, as I have told you about this many times before.
 
It works like this.  We know that Mercury passes between us and the sun at given intervals.  And because we can bounce radio waves off of Mercury, we can establish its distance with a high degree of accuracy.  All that is required is the ability to emit high-energy radio waves, and measure time intervals of a few minutes with an accuracy of a few seconds.

We can find that, at its closest (When it transits the sun,) Mercury is still about 100,000,000 kilometers away.  So, at minimum, the sun must be further away than that.

Calculating the AU then follows from Kepler's laws, which I am not sure you accept as valid (Although you do need them for your idea of the stars being in orbit about the NCP.)  But I should point out that this method tells us at minimum that the AU must be greater then 100,000,000 kilometers.


Care to show me a single documented method used for finding the distance between the Sun and Earth?

Of course.  Here is a reviewed publication that made detailed measurements of Mercury's orbit with the use of radar.


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WGF-4MK0HY6-4&_user=10&_coverDate=04%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=summary&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b34e46d5d8d1af92e98434e52fdf2e7a
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #19 on: May 30, 2007, 06:59:59 PM »
Quote
Because we can't bounce radio waves directly of the sun, this process is a little complicated.  But the process is sound, as I have told you about this many times before.

And as I've told you many times before, those multi-billion dollar Radar Arrays work in association with NASA.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2007-050

If you read closely, the author of your ten page article is mentioned to be part of NASA's propaganda campaign.

Max, what you are neglecting to understand here is that building a multi-billion dollar radar array is entirely out of the question for everyone here on this forum. The findings in that scientific paper you linked would be impossible to peer review or verify. You are expecting us to take their word for it just as you expect us to take their word for it that the earth is round. Your "evidence" is simply another appeal to authority no better than posting an image of the Round Earth and insisting that it is proof. Building a large multi-billion dollar radar array is entirely out of the question for almost every single breathing person, not to mention illegal. The FCC has strict guidelines against civilian use of high powered electromagnetic broadcasting devices.

You may as well ask us to build a rocketship and a giant retractable ruler to measure the distance between the sun and the earth.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 07:12:39 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #20 on: May 30, 2007, 07:04:59 PM »
So what exactly? Do they falsify results, or do the scientists lie about them?

Radar arrays are a set of equipment, and the scientists operating them do know what they are doing....

Remember Tom: You, unlike the arguments presented here, do no provide any evidence for your theories.
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
  • 17738
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #21 on: May 30, 2007, 07:18:16 PM »
Quote
So what exactly? Do they falsify results, or do the scientists lie about them?

Either method would work just as well. Falsifying the results would be cheaper by a magnitude, however.

Quote
Remember Tom: You, unlike the arguments presented here, do no provide any evidence for your theories.

Sure I have. It's actually you Round Earthers who do not provide evidence for your theories. Here's a test I've repeated a number of times:

I live along the California Monterey Bay. It is a relatively long bay that sits next to the Pacific Ocean. The exact distance between the extremes of the Monterey Bay, Lovers Point in Pacific Grove and Lighthouse State Beach in Santa Cruz, is 33.4 statute miles. See this map.

On a very clear and chilly day it is possible to see Lighthouse Beach from Lovers Point and vice versa. With a good telescope, laying down on the stomach at the edge of the shore on the Lovers Point beach 10 inches above the sea level it is possible to see people at the waters edge on the adjacent beach 33 miles away. I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. Since the supposed curvature of the Round Earth curves at 8 inches per mile, this should not be possible. There should be a bulge of water twenty two feet tall blocking my view.

Whenever I have doubts about the shape of the earth I simply walk outside my home, down to the beach, and perform this test. The same result comes up over and over throughout the year under a plethora of different atmospheric conditions.

Therefore, the earth is flat. And since the earth is flat, by astronomer's own triangulation methods, then the sun cannot be 93 million miles away.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 07:27:38 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #22 on: May 30, 2007, 07:27:03 PM »
Copy pasting again? You have no evidence. Just a random anecdote that anyone can make up, and a load of unconvincing pictures (they aren't evidence, remember?). You have no evidence whatsoever to back up the assertion that the redshifting observations are being falsified.

Please deposit $0.25 to continue.
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
  • 17738
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #23 on: May 30, 2007, 07:28:48 PM »
Quote
You have no evidence whatsoever to back up the assertion that the redshifting observations are being falsified.

Those Radar Arrays work in collusion with NASA, as evidenced by the article I linked. That's all the evidence I need.

What evidence do you have showing the results to be true and accurate?

Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #24 on: May 30, 2007, 07:30:06 PM »
Okay, I don't know if yours and Rowbothams experiments are sound, but let us assume for the sake of argument that they are.

Someone must be falsifying their results.  The question is who.

1.  Every radio astronomer who has ever made this measurement of the AU. (At least a hundred, probably more.)

2. You and Samuel Rowbotham.

I personally belive the second choice to be the logical one.

But, as I have said before, how can you rationally implicate hundreds of radio astronomers of falsifying their results, yet be incapable of conceiving that one man (Rowbotham) made a conscious effort to lie about his own observations?
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17738
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #25 on: May 30, 2007, 07:34:16 PM »
Quote
1.  Every radio astronomer who has ever made this measurement of the AU. (At least a hundred, probably more.)

Those Radio Astronomers aren't measuring the AU. They're simply measuring the distance between Mercury and the Earth. It would first have to be proven that Mercury orbits the Sun and not the center of mass the celestial bodies of the sky revolve around. Even the geocentric Greeks believed that Mercury and Venus did not orbit the sun.

Quote
how can you rationally implicate hundreds of radio astronomers of falsifying their results

How can you blindly follow media hype like a dog to the whistle?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 07:41:36 PM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #26 on: May 30, 2007, 07:34:51 PM »
Quote
You have no evidence whatsoever to back up the assertion that the redshifting observations are being falsified.

Those Radar Arrays work in collusion with NASA, as evidenced by the article I linked. That's all the evidence I need.

What evidence do you have showing the results to be true and accurate?

The link with NASA does not demonstrate their falsification.

Reversing the burden of proof from 'they are false' to 'they are true' is not only weak and cowardly, but totally unreasonable. Perfectly reasonable evidence has been provided, and you question its accuracy without reason or justification. This is a classic example of the pseudoscience you employ.

Edit: Determining the distance to Mercury, and that Mercury passes between us and the Sun determines a minimum possible value for the AU at least. This is well in excess of 300 miles, and demonstrates the FE model is incorrect.
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
  • 17738
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2007, 07:38:47 PM »
Quote
This is a classic example of the pseudoscience you employ.

Lets revise what has been presented here, Gin. You should know by now that NASA is at the heart of the Conspiracy. Anyone could see that on his first day here on these forums. That's the entire premise of this website!

Now, as your evidence, you expect us to take the word of NASA or its collaborators? That's just bad debating.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 10:18:46 AM by Tom Bishop »

?

∂G/∂x

  • 1536
  • All Rights Reversed
Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #28 on: May 30, 2007, 07:40:33 PM »
Until the truth of Flat Earth Theory has been demonstrated, the supposition of a conspiracy is an arbitrary fabrication and a logical fallacy.
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.

Re: Right now there is a show on the History Channel about the sun
« Reply #29 on: May 30, 2007, 07:45:00 PM »
Those Radio Astronomers aren't measuring the AU. They're simply measuring the distance between Mercury and the Earth. It would first have to be proven that Mercury orbits the Sun and not the center of mass the celestial bodies of the sky revolve around. Even the geocentric Greeks believed that Mercury and Venus did not orbit the sun.


I don't care if you belive Mercury doesn't orbit the sun.  The fact is that at some times, it passes in front of the sun.  We can sit here on Earth and see it happen.  At that time, radar tells us that Mercury is 100,000,000 kilometers away.  Therefore, the sun must be at least this far away, demonstrating the error of Rowbothams claim that the sun is thousands of kilometers away.

This method works, the only way you could invalidate its results is to claim that the radio astronomers are in on the conspiracy, which you have.

How can you blindly follow media hype like a dog to the whistle?

I don't.  I follow astronomers.  Thousands of them.  You follow the writings of a single man who lived 150 years ago.  I ask again, isn't it possible that Rowbotham is the liar?
« Last Edit: May 30, 2007, 07:46:41 PM by Max Fagin »
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student