Which Organisations Are Involved...?

By the way, you never did explain how the Sun is able to "move away from the Earth's view" and yet still be above it where everone would be able to see it.  Your definition of the Earth does have a viewpoint of space that is 180 degreesin all direction, so how is the Sun able to move out of that 180 degree viewpoint, leaving us in complete darkness ( except for the stars and Moon), while still being above the Earth, which would putit in full view of the Earth.

In flat Earth theory the sun is very close to the earth's surface. It's 3000 miles above the surface of the earth and 32 miles in diameter. It's path takes it around the equator. As the sun recedes from the observer it gradually descends until it approaches the horizon line. Once it meets the horizon line it intersects with the vanishing point is its light is lost to perspective.

Additional details, such as size and why the descent is constant is described in Earth Not a Globe.

If the stars are only 3100 miles overhead, the continuous nuclear fission that makes up the stars physical mass would literally burn the Earth to a crisp.

They wouldn't be powered by nuclear fusion in Flat Earth Theory.

And besides, didn't those same studies also call it impossible to calculate the distance of anything in relation to the Earth?  If that's so, then where did the 3100 miles come from?

It's calculated by Astronomical Parallax, the same method Eratosthenes and other astronomers are using to measure the distance to the sun. Except that in the Flat Earth version of the calculations it's assumed that the earth is a plane rather than a globe.

Here's an example of how the altitude of the sun was calculated:
 

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, that puts the sun an equal distance above the equator.

Quote

If the stars are only 3100 miles overhead, the continuous nuclear fission that makes up the stars physical mass would literally burn the Earth to a crisp.

They wouldn't be powered by nuclear fusion in Flat Earth Theory.

Quote

And besides, didn't those same studies also call it impossible to calculate the distance of anything in relation to the Earth?  If that's so, then where did the 3100 miles come from?

Astronomical Parallax, the same method Eratosthenes is using to measure the distance to the sun. Except that in the Flat Earth version of the calculations it's assumed that the earth is a plane rather than a globe.

Then what pwers them?  The Energizer bunny?

That still doesn't explain why you will say that it's impossible to judge the dimensions of the planet/stars/etc and then come up with all of these dementions yourself.  It's like telling someone it's impossible for them to cross the street and then walking across the street right in front of them.  All I'm saying is, what's keeping the real scientists from using this "Astronomical Parallax" tomake their own measurments?

Quote

If the stars are only 3100 miles overhead, the continuous nuclear fission that makes up the stars physical mass would literally burn the Earth to a crisp.

They wouldn't be powered by nuclear fusion in Flat Earth Theory.

Quote

And besides, didn't those same studies also call it impossible to calculate the distance of anything in relation to the Earth?  If that's so, then where did the 3100 miles come from?

It's calculated by Astronomical Parallax, the same method Eratosthenes is using to measure the distance to the sun in his experiment. Except that in the Flat Earth version of the calculations it's assumed that the earth is a plane rather than a globe.

Here's an example of how the altitude of the sun was calculated:
 

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, that puts the sun an equal distance above the equator.

1.  Then what are they powered by?  Energizer bunnies?

2.  If what you're saying about the Sun is true, then it would be THOUSANDS of times bigger than the other stars, which you just said had direct influence on the pendulum experiment, and yet not have a multiplies effect on the pendulum itself?  And I'm talking about the effect being multiplied by one THOUSAND.  It's like hitting a car with a boulder and hitting a car with a mountain, it has a MUCH greater effect than the bouler would.

Quote

And besides, didn't those same studies also call it impossible to calculate the distance of anything in relation to the Earth?  If that's so, then where did the 3100 miles come from?

It's calculated by Astronomical Parallax, the same method Eratosthenes and other astronomers are using to measure the distance to the sun. Except that in the Flat Earth version of the calculations it's assumed that the earth is a plane rather than a globe.

Here's an example of how the altitude of the sun was calculated:
 

On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, that puts the sun an equal distance above the equator.

Tom, what happens when you do the exact same calcualtion, but from different latitudes, say 30 degrees or 60 degrees?  Are the results consistent?

Then what pwers them?  The Energizer bunny?

The power source is presently unknown.

All I'm saying is, what's keeping the real scientists from using this "Astronomical Parallax" tomake their own measurments?

They do use Astronomical Parallax to make their measurements of the sun's distance. The only problem is that their Astronomical Parallax equations assume that the earth is a globe. If they instead assumed that the earth was flat they would get the Flat Earth values.

Here's a quote from the Modern Mechanics article:

"Voliva maintains that the sun is not more than 30 miles in diameter and about 3,000 miles from the earth. As proof he points to the fact that on March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles, so the sun would be an equal distance above the equator, and, from the apparent size of the sun's image, it would follow that it has a diameter of about 30 miles.

Of course, if one starts with the assumption that the world is a sphere instead of a flat surface, the same facts can be used to prove that the sun is nearly 93,000,000 miles away, and has a diameter of more than 800,000 miles."

I bolded the important part at the end.

Then what pwers them?  The Energizer bunny?

Quote

All I'm saying is, what's keeping the real scientists from using this "Astronomical Parallax" tomake their own measurments?

They do use Astronomical Parallax to make their measurements of the sun's distance. The only problem is that their astronomical parallax equations assume that the earth is a globe. If they assumed that the earth was flat they would get the Flat Earth values.

Here's a quote from the Modern Mechanics article:

Voliva maintains that the sun is not more than 30 miles in diameter and about 3,000 miles from the earth. As proof he points to the fact that on March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles, so the sun would be an equal distance above the equator, and, from the apparent size of the sun?s image, it would follow that it has a diameter of about 30 miles.

Of course, if one starts with the assumption that the world is a sphere instead of a flat surface, the same facts can be used to prove that the sun is nearly 93,000,000 miles away, and has a diameter of more than 800,000 miles.

I understand that, but your literature states that it's literally impossible for anyone to get any type of measurment by mearly looking at it, which includes yourself, and then lists a few measurements it just stated were impossible to obtain.  This tells me that not only does your literature go against itself, but you do as well.

Tom, what happens when you do the exact same calcualtion, but from different latitudes, say 30 degrees or 60 degrees?  Are the results consistent?

I haven't tried it, but I encourage you to do so rather than relying on speculation and assumption.

I understand that, but your literature states that it's literally impossible for anyone to get any type of measurment by mearly looking at it

Actually, it doesn't say that at all.

Quote

Tom, what happens when you do the exact same calcualtion, but from different latitudes, say 30 degrees or 60 degrees?  Are the results consistent?

I haven't tried it, but I encourage you to do so rather than relying on speculation and assumption.

Quote

I understand that, but your literature states that it's literally impossible for anyone to get any type of measurment by mearly looking at it

Actually, it doesn't say that at all.

There is no way to know the true distance to the planets as the atmolayer and the perspective laws skew any conclusions we could draw from earth.

This guy begs to differ, and he's supposed to have read and understood your literature inside and out.

Quote

Tom, what happens when you do the exact same calcualtion, but from different latitudes, say 30 degrees or 60 degrees?  Are the results consistent?

I haven't tried it, but I encourage you to do so rather than relying on speculation and assumption.

I have.  The results are inconsistent.  At a latitude of 30 degrees, the sun appears to be 3464 miles above the equator.  At 60 degrees latitude, the sun appears to be 2309 miles above the equator.

This guy begs to differ, and he's supposed to have read and understood your literature inside and out.

Last I checked that guy isn't the Flat Earth Literature.

I have.  The results are inconsistent.  At a latitude of 30 degrees, the sun appears to be 3464 miles above the equator.  At 60 degrees latitude, the sun appears to be 2309 miles above the equator.

Do you really expect us to believe that you traveled to 30 degrees latitude and to 60 degrees latitude on equinox days to study the altitude of the sun?

Quote

I have.  The results are inconsistent.  At a latitude of 30 degrees, the sun appears to be 3464 miles above the equator.  At 60 degrees latitude, the sun appears to be 2309 miles above the equator.

Do you really expect us to believe that you traveled to 30 degrees latitude and to 60 degrees latitude on equinox days to study the altitude of the sun?

I didn't say that I did.  I just used the same method that you just cited (twice).  It's not my fault that the distance to the FE sun is calculated with a using a flawed method.

Quote

This guy begs to differ, and he's supposed to have read and understood your literature inside and out.

Last I checked that guy isn't the Flat Earth Literature.

Quote

I have.  The results are inconsistent.  At a latitude of 30 degrees, the sun appears to be 3464 miles above the equator.  At 60 degrees latitude, the sun appears to be 2309 miles above the equator.

Do you really expect us to believe that you traveled to 30 degrees latitude and to 60 degrees latitude on equinox days to study the altitude of the sun?

Yes but aren't all of your followers supposed to read and understand ALL of what the literature states?  So either this guy is misreading the literature, which means that there's inconsistency when it comes to your "peers" or the literature really does say that, which means you're wrong...now which one do you think is more likely to be true?  The inconsistency with your followers or the inconsistency with your literature?

Quote

This guy begs to differ, and he's supposed to have read and understood your literature inside and out.

Last I checked that guy isn't the Flat Earth Literature.

Actually, Johannes Keppler is one of the FEW and is presumably working on the FET Wiki.  So, in a way, he is writing FE literature.

Quote

Oh yeah, a book written by Samuel Birley Rowbotham in 1881. May I tell you something? All your theory is based on one guy that have already claimed the Earth is flat because of his experiments (that have been debunked from then).

Actually it's based on many experiments by many sources. Check out my signiature link for a library of references.

Quote

Take a look at this website: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/gen99/gen99427.htm

You will see, flat earthers, the more you will read, the more you will say "Oh yeah, that's exactly what we say when a round earther give us that argument..."

The arguments that are given in support of an RE on that website are flawed and have been debunked many, many times.

Tom, you do realise that you just did what the author said you wold.

And all those "facts" you said about the pendulum also prove the Earth is round, you just gave them a FE twist.

I didn't say that I did.  I just used the same method that you just cited (twice).  It's not my fault that the distance to the FE sun is calculated with a using a flawed method.

Actually you didn't use the same method. Your method involved speculation and assumption. Not real world data.

Yes but aren't all of your followers supposed to read and understand ALL of what the literature states?  So either this guy is misreading the literature, which means that there's inconsistency when it comes to your "peers" or the literature really does say that, which means you're wrong...now which one do you think is more likely to be true?  The inconsistency with your followers or the inconsistency with your literature?

No FE'er is required to read all the published literature any more than an RE'er is required to read everything NASA publishes.

Actually, Johannes Keppler is one of the FEW and is presumably working on the FET Wiki.  So, in a way, he is writing FE literature.

Access to a Wiki page on the internet doesn't mean squat or put any one person's word above any other's, sorry.

And all those "facts" you said about the pendulum also prove the Earth is round, you just gave them a FE twist.

Wrong. You're the one twisting the apparent and observable. The pendulum moving only suggests that the pendulum is moving. It does not suggest that the earth is moving. The only thing observed is the movement of the pendulum. The idea that the earth is moving is pure speculation.

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2009, 09:51:47 PM

I didn't say that I did.  I just used the same method that you just cited (twice).  It's not my fault that the distance to the FE sun is calculated with a using a flawed method.

Actually you didn't use the same method. Your method involved speculation and assumption. Not real world data.

Quote

Yes but aren't all of your followers supposed to read and understand ALL of what the literature states?  So either this guy is misreading the literature, which means that there's inconsistency when it comes to your "peers" or the literature really does say that, which means you're wrong...now which one do you think is more likely to be true?  The inconsistency with your followers or the inconsistency with your literature?

No FE'er is required to read all the published literature any more than an RE'er is required to read everything NASA publishes.

Quote

Actually, Johannes Keppler is one of the FEW and is presumably working on the FET Wiki.  So, in a way, he is writing FE literature.

Access to a Wiki page doesn't mean squat or put any one person's word above any other's, sorry.

So wait, you require any RE'er to read all of your literature or be labeled as not knowing what they're saying, but any FE'er that fails to read the literature and post their biased opinion on here are automatically treated like college professors when it comes to the subject of astronomy and geology?  Do you have any idea how biased that is yourself?  And last I checked, the scientific community is one of the most objective communities out there.

Plus, who's to say that YOUR data is real world data?  There are just as many reasons to call RE measurments as "real world" data as there are reasons for you to claim your Data as the right one to follow.

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2009, 09:51:47 PM

I didn't say that I did.  I just used the same method that you just cited (twice).  It's not my fault that the distance to the FE sun is calculated with a using a flawed method.

Actually you didn't use the same method. Your method involved speculation and assumption. Not real world data.

I used just as much real world data as Voliva and Winship did.  Or are you saying that both of them went to 45 degrees north and south latitude during the day of the equinox to study the altitude of the sun?  If so, I would like to see some evidence supporting that claim.

Quote from: markjo on February 22, 2009, 09:51:47 PM

I didn't say that I did.  I just used the same method that you just cited (twice).  It's not my fault that the distance to the FE sun is calculated with a using a flawed method.

Actually you didn't use the same method. Your method involved speculation and assumption. Not real world data.

Quote from: rayo

Yes but aren't all of your followers supposed to read and understand ALL of what the literature states?  So either this guy is misreading the literature, which means that there's inconsistency when it comes to your "peers" or the literature really does say that, which means you're wrong...now which one do you think is more likely to be true?  The inconsistency with your followers or the inconsistency with your literature?

No FE'er is required to read all the published literature any more than an RE'er is required to read everything NASA publishes.

Quote from: markjo

Actually, Johannes Keppler is one of the FEW and is presumably working on the FET Wiki.  So, in a way, he is writing FE literature.

Access to a Wiki page doesn't mean squat or put any one person's word above any other's, sorry.

Quote from: hi

And all those "facts" you said about the pendulum also prove the Earth is round, you just gave them a FE twist.

Wrong. You're the one twisting the apparent and observable. The pendulum moving only suggests that the pendulum is moving. It does not suggest that the earth is moving. The only thing observed is the movement of the pendulum. The idea that the earth is moving is pure speculation.

Tom you make me laugh. You say my opinion of a moving Earth is pure speculation, when in fact your idea of a flat Earth is also pure speculation.

Predicted Response| "i have proof it isn't." Or something very simular to your usual programmed responses.

So wait, you require any RE'er to read all of your literature or be labeled as not knowing what they're saying, but any FE'er that fails to read the literature and post their biased opinion on here are automatically treated like college professors when it comes to the subject of astronomy and geology?

FE'ers are not required to read every word of the literature, or agree with it. Johannes Keppler is free to hold that the density of atmosphere may affect Astronomical Parallax or other methods of celestial triangulation.

And I tell you RE'ers to read the literature because your constant prattling questions are incessant and already answered in expert detail by the thousands of pages of research throughout the Flat Earth Literature.

Plus, who's to say that YOUR data is real world data?

Peer review demonstrates the data as real world data.

Quote

So wait, you require any RE'er to read all of your literature or be labeled as not knowing what they're saying, but any FE'er that fails to read the literature and post their biased opinion on here are automatically treated like college professors when it comes to the subject of astronomy and geology?

FE'ers are not required to read every word of the literature, or agree with it. Johannes Keppler is free to hold that the density of atmosphere may affect Astronomical Parallax or other methods of celestial triangulation.

And I tell you RE'ers to read the literature because your constant prattling questions are incessant and already answered in expert detail by the thousands of pages of research in the Flat Earth Literature.

Quote

Plus, who's to say that YOUR data is real world data?

Peer review demonstrates the data as real world data.

So you're saying that as long as we agree with what you say, we can say whatever the fuck we want about the literature and even question its authority?  And this is different from brainwashing how?

And there is just as much peer review that says the Earth is round too Tom, you can't conveniently ignore the thousands of people who don't believe in your twisted theory so you can say claim that your theory is the only theory able to produce its own findings. 

Quote

Plus, who's to say that YOUR data is real world data?

Peer review demonstrates the data as real world data.

I thought that getting data from real world observations makes it real world data (hence the term "real world").  You are also confusing data with information.  Data is just raw observations and don't necessarily mean anything.  Information is what you get when that data has been analyzed and processed (peer reviewed) into a useful form.

Geologists?  Telecommunication companies?  What are you talking about?  They're being fooled just like the rest of us.

The geologists have lots of data every day coming in that would show pretty quickly if the world was flat. All the seismograph data for example.

The telecommunications people have similar issues. If they weren't using satelites they would notice pretty quickly based on where bottlenecks were occurring and other problems.

And I tell you RE'ers to read the literature because your constant prattling questions are incessant and already answered in expert detail by the thousands of pages of research throughout the Flat Earth Literature.

I guess there is need for another script which answers every time when Flat Earth literature is mentioned. Because there isn't any answers to questions which are asked here. And ENaG is not the truth. And not one of the experiments presented in these novels/popular science books/articles are correctly documented so that others can repeat them exactly like they were done some hundred years ago.

Astronomers need to be in on it also. They claim to routinely use RE models to predict star positions and the positions of other stellar objects.

Most major navies need to be in on it especially if they ever use submarines. Even high flying balloons/stratelites sending false GPS signals won't matter for the submarines since the subs when underwater can't get GPS signals.  Of course, prior to LORAN/GPS pretty much every ship needed to be in on this conspiracy to navigate properly. (fun fact, there is no way to make the Earth flat such that the Mercator projection of the apparent sphere gives you correct navigation).

Also,  whoever is busy manufacturing and maintaining all these stratelites needs to be in on the conspiracy. That's got to be quite a lot of people. (Maybe they are part of the big NASA conspiracy that is in the know?)


Anyone we are missing?

And I tell you RE'ers to read the literature because your constant prattling questions are incessant and already answered in expert detail by the thousands of pages of research throughout the Flat Earth Literature.

Peer review demonstrates the data as real world data.

Who peer-reviewed it and deemed it "expert", and where can one find the results of these reviews?  I'm having a look through what I can of the list of references in your sig (principally the online stuff owing to a lack of free time), but a pointer would be appreciated to focus the search.

Quote

So wait, you require any RE'er to read all of your literature or be labeled as not knowing what they're saying, but any FE'er that fails to read the literature and post their biased opinion on here are automatically treated like college professors when it comes to the subject of astronomy and geology?

FE'ers are not required to read every word of the literature, or agree with it. Johannes Keppler is free to hold that the density of atmosphere may affect Astronomical Parallax or other methods of celestial triangulation.

And I tell you RE'ers to read the literature because your constant prattling questions are incessant and already answered in expert detail by the thousands of pages of research throughout the Flat Earth Literature.

Quote

Plus, who's to say that YOUR data is real world data?

Peer review demonstrates the data as real world data.

You just listen to whwat you want to hear. You know what tom? You're hopless, you really think you're convincing us RE'ers with your data?

Peer review demonstrates the data as real world data.

That's not what peer review means. Or particularly demonstrates.