The apprent size of The Sun (Perihelion and Aphelion)

Does FET have an explanation why the apparent size of The Sun changes throughout the year?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090703.html

(I did a search for "Perihelion" but I couldn't find an answer.)

Did I put this question in "Flat Earth Questions & Clarification" by mistake or was it moved?

Does FET have an explanation why the apparent size of The Sun changes throughout the year?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090703.html

(I did a search for "Perihelion" but I couldn't find an answer.)

I'm guessing your answer will be some combonation of bendy light/refraction and perspective.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 03, 2009, 07:24:53 AM

Does FET have an explanation why the apparent size of The Sun changes throughout the year?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap090703.html

(I did a search for "Perihelion" but I couldn't find an answer.)

I'm guessing your answer will be some combonation of bendy light/refraction and perspective.

Either that or the Sun-Earth distance changes during the year ...

Such that as The Sun's "orbit" around The Celestial Pole chages in diameter it also moves up and down in the sky.

I undestand that The Sun appears larger in the Northern Hemi-disc winter so it must drop in altitude when it is "orbitting" in the wider circle (further out than above The Equator).

I would love to know what the mechanism is behind this complex behaviour.

Did this thread move again ...

Or am I just going mad?

Either that or the Sun-Earth distance changes during the year ...

Why do you assume this is not possible under a flat earth?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 03, 2009, 08:34:46 AM

Either that or the Sun-Earth distance changes during the year ...

Why do you assume this is not possible under a flat earth?

First of all the Flat-Earth Sun has to move around The North Celestial Pole in an "orbit" which has no apparent mechanism behind it ...

And now the Flat-Earth Sun also has to change altitude through the year too, again without an apparent causative mechanism.

I am just pointing out that an improbable situation is now even less probable ...

RET, of course, invokes gravitation - a force which has been demonstrated in the laboratory - as the causative factor in the relative motion of the Earth and Sun. RET also explains the change in size of The Sun by having The Earth in an elliptical, not spherical orbit with a distinct apogee and perigee.

Edit:

RET can also explain the phenomenon of 24 hour sunlight in the Arctic and Antarctic.

RET can also accurately explain the bearings of sunset and sunrise, and sunsrise/sunset being on The Horizon without the need for "bendy light".

In short, RET is far simpler and is, therefore, to be preferred.

In short, RET is far simpler and is, therefore, to be preferred.[/color]

What's not simple about the sun moving a bit higher and lower? This happens all the time in nature.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 08:44:36 AM

In short, RET is far simpler and is, therefore, to be preferred.[/color]

What's not simple about the sun moving a bit higher and lower? This happens all the time in nature.

Such as...

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:02:21 AM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 08:44:36 AM

In short, RET is far simpler and is, therefore, to be preferred.[/color]

What's not simple about the sun moving a bit higher and lower? This happens all the time in nature.

Such as...

You mean you want a list of things that go a bit higher and lower in nature?

How about a monkey up a tree. Or a dolphin chasing a school of fish. This happens all the time I don't see what the problem is.

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 09:20:31 AM

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:02:21 AM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 08:44:36 AM

In short, RET is far simpler and is, therefore, to be preferred.[/color]

What's not simple about the sun moving a bit higher and lower? This happens all the time in nature.

Such as...

You mean you want a list of things that go a bit higher and lower in nature?

How about a monkey up a tree. Or a dolphin chasing a school of fish. This happens all the time I don't see what the problem is.

I think I see a problem...

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 09:20:31 AM

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:02:21 AM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 08:44:36 AM

In short, RET is far simpler and is, therefore, to be preferred.[/color]

What's not simple about the sun moving a bit higher and lower? This happens all the time in nature.

Such as...

You mean you want a list of things that go a bit higher and lower in nature?

How about a monkey up a tree. Or a dolphin chasing a school of fish. This happens all the time I don't see what the problem is.

A monkey climbs up and down a tree because of the power of its muscles.

The Flat-Earth Sun moves up and down in the sky because of ... what?

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:26:27 AM

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 09:20:31 AM

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:02:21 AM

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 08:44:36 AM

In short, RET is far simpler and is, therefore, to be preferred.[/color]

What's not simple about the sun moving a bit higher and lower? This happens all the time in nature.

Such as...

You mean you want a list of things that go a bit higher and lower in nature?

How about a monkey up a tree. Or a dolphin chasing a school of fish. This happens all the time I don't see what the problem is.

A monkey climbs up and down a tree because of the power of its muscles.

The Flat-Earth Sun moves up and down in the sky because of ... what?

It is probably small variances in the replusion effect of the EA which cause the sun to wobble. Who knows. The observations confirm what we already know thanks to Rowbotham. The earth is flat.

The observations confirm what we already know thanks to Rowbotham. The earth is flat.

Observing The Sun does not prove that The Earth is flat - quite the opposite, in fact!

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:38:50 AM

The observations confirm what we already know thanks to Rowbotham. The earth is flat.

Observing The Sun does not prove that The Earth is flat - quite the opposite, in fact!

We can confirm that the sun wobbles a bit thanks to the EA. Proving the earth is flat once again!

It is probably small variances in the replusion effect of the EA which cause the sun to wobble.

EA or UA?

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:38:50 AM

It is probably small variances in the replusion effect of the EA which cause the sun to wobble.

EA or UA?

Both are applicable.

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 09:43:08 AM

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:38:50 AM

The observations confirm what we already know thanks to Rowbotham. The earth is flat.

Observing The Sun does not prove that The Earth is flat - quite the opposite, in fact!

We can confirm that the sun wobbles a bit thanks to the EA. Proving the earth is flat once again!

"Thanks to the EA"?

That is way too vague - is the EA (UA?) stronger or weaker within The Equator (where The Sun "orbits" during the Northern Hemi-Disc Summer)?

That is way too vague - is the EA (UA?) stronger or weaker within The Equator (where The Sun "orbits" during the Northern Hemi-Disc Summer)?

I'm not sure we can ever know the answer to that. How do you propose measuring the strength of the EA?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 09:48:49 AM

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 09:38:50 AM

It is probably small variances in the replusion effect of the EA which cause the sun to wobble.

EA or UA?

Both are applicable.

Terse, inscrutible and uninformative - are you trolling me?

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 09:54:11 AM

That is way too vague - is the EA (UA?) stronger or weaker within The Equator (where The Sun "orbits" during the Northern Hemi-Disc Summer)?

I'm not sure we can ever know the answer to that. How do you propose measuring the strength of the EA?

That would be your problem.

As a Round Earther I can point you to experiments which quantify Newton's Universal Gravitation Constant:

Just look up "Cavendish Experiment" on Wikipedia.

Gravity exists, The Earth is in an elliptical orbit around The Sun, etc.

Perihelion and aphelion are not explained in the FAQ, by the way ...

It has something to do with monkees in trees, but it's somewhat difficult to piece together.

It has something to do with monkees in trees, but it's somewhat difficult to piece together.

Monkees?

As in Micky Dolenz, Davy Jones, Peter Tork, and Michael Nesmith?

I used to love that show when I was a kid!

"I thought love was only true in fairy-tales ..."

Does seem somehow approriate around here, with all the "I'm a believer..." posts!

That would be your problem.

As a Round Earther I can point you to experiments which quantify Newton's Universal Gravitation Constant:

Why should I have to do your work for you? Post back here when you have conducted an experiment to calculate the strength of the EA. Then I will consider your "evidence".

Quote from: 3 Tesla on July 06, 2009, 10:01:09 AM

That would be your problem.

As a Round Earther I can point you to experiments which quantify Newton's Universal Gravitation Constant:

Why should I have to do your work for you? Post back here when you have conducted an experiment to calculate the strength of the EA. Then I will consider your "evidence".

  Why do you think that 3 Tesla believes in the UA?  He doesn't.

  Why do you think that 3 Tesla believes in the UA?  He doesn't.

He made reference to the EA. If he thinks it's strength varies somehow then he should go out and measure it. Personally, I suspect it does vary, and I would be intersested to read his results.

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 03:12:47 PM

  Why do you think that 3 Tesla believes in the UA?  He doesn't.

He made reference to the EA. If he thinks it's strength varies somehow then he should go out and measure it. Personally, I suspect it does vary, and I would be intersested to read his results.

RE'ers often refer to and ask for clarification of various FE theories.  That doesn't mean that we believe in them or care to develop them.  That's the job of FE researchers.

Quote from: trident2000 on July 06, 2009, 03:22:36 PM

Quote from: markjo on July 06, 2009, 03:12:47 PM

  Why do you think that 3 Tesla believes in the UA?  He doesn't.

He made reference to the EA. If he thinks it's strength varies somehow then he should go out and measure it. Personally, I suspect it does vary, and I would be intersested to read his results.

RE'ers often refer to and ask for clarification of various FE theories.  That doesn't mean that we believe in them or care to develop them.  That's the job of FE researchers.

Well put.

Trident2000 is a troll - someone who only posts in order to wind people up or waste their time, with no interest in engaging in proper debate - who lacks the wit to be interesting.