Size and Distance of Celestial Bodies

As this is a topic that is brought up repeatedly I thought I'd make a thread about it so we could try to iron out the kinks.

This is what the FAQ says on the subject:

Q: "What about the stars, sun and moon and other planets? Are they flat too? What are they made of?"

A1: The sun and moon, each 32 miles in diameter, rotate at a height of 3000 miles above sea level. As they are spotlights, they only illuminate certain places. This explains why there are nights and days on Earth.

A2: In James McIntyre's model, the sun and the moon are metallic discs. These discs are being held above the Earth by photoelectric effect. See: Photoelectric Suspension Theory.

The stars are at a height of 3100 miles above sea level, which is as far as from San Francisco to Boston.

Now, we can ignore A2, because it doesn't apply to what I'm concerned with here.  First, I think it's necessary to tweak this description no matter what conclusions are drawn in this thread, because it does (as has recently been pointed out) imply that the sun and moon are both the same size and the same height above the Earth.  If we accept the explanation for solar eclipses, this is not possible.  The sun must be higher and therefore larger.  Just throwing in a couple "approximately"s and stating that the sun is slightly higher and slighter larger should be sufficient to normalize things, in that respect.

My primary question now is, how were these figures derived?  I ask because I've never seen the process described on these forums.  I feel like unless we have a precise mathematical model that's used to derive the distances/sizes, it will always look like a blind guess.  Also, this is not what Rowbotham says, so we don't even have a source to refer members to when the question pops up, and in this respect, our FAQ contradicts Rowbotham's word, and for no readily apparent reason to boot.

Also, if we were to assume electromagnetic acceleration, what effect would that have on the result?  I have a feeling that with EA taken into account these figures would all grow much larger, and I believe Euclid (who has done a great deal of work toward our understanding of the phenomenon and is a wizard with maths) even stated so himself.

The distance to the stars are another particular concern to me.  I believe the Doppler Effect legitimately indicates that the stars are accelerating away from us; if you accept that, it's just a question of how quickly they are accelerating away from us, and what effect this has on their overall distance.  It would be negligible, I'm guessing, since we can't look up into the sky and see the stars receding from us, but there must be some effect, and that should be addressed in the FAQ too.  Also, is 3100 miles really a reasonable estimate for their distance?  Doesn't it make more sense that some stars would be further away from us than others?

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it should be noted that the distance and size of the planets is ignored in the answer despite being referred to in the question.  So I'd like to address that as well; do we have any methods for determining the distances to the planets?

Now, I'm not expecting a consensus, per se, among FEers about what the true distances should be.  I would at least like to see the math supporting the figures given in the FAQ, and if such math can't be provided, I feel that something should be worked out so we can give a legitimate answer to the question of the size and distance of the sun/moon/planets/stars.

Please note that this thread is not intended to be used for debate about the legitimacy of the Flat Earth model itself, and if someone feels the need to comment on such in a way that is irrelevant to the central questions in this post, they will be ignored.

There is a lot of work to be done if we're to be able to answer these questions, more than I thought. However, what we're likely to get here is noobs going "LOL SEE FE IS TEH STOOPID" as opposed to actual contributions for the most part.

There is a lot of work to be done if we're to be able to answer these questions, more than I thought. However, what we're likely to get here is noobs going "LOL SEE FE IS TEH STOOPID" as opposed to actual contributions for the most part.

Personally, I like going with a different approach.

Roundy the Truthinessist: your mother. Your mother is how we measure the distance from celestial objects and its size.

Seriously though, I'd be interested to see how you could measure this with all the assumptions that have been previously made and the math that goes along with it while maintaining the faithfulness to the stress of actual experience translating into fact that you guys oh-so-love.

I did some trig but I don't know how accurate this is. I started with the Sun/Moon:

Size: 32 miles
Distance: 3000 miles

So,

0 = 2arctan(.5*S/D)
^theta

Therefore,

0= 2arctan(.5*32/3000)

0 = 0.0106665655 radians or .611149 degrees.


A few notes:

1. I'm not saying this is right, I made it up from what I know about trigonometry, calculus, and algebra.

2. My formula was assuming a right triangle and I used the pathagreon theorem to solve backwards for theta. I used: tan(0) = S/D. However this formula is for HALF of what the actual value should be so in actuality it's .5*tan(0) = .5*S/D. I solved for theta to get my formula up top.

3. I have no idea what the answer means, I know that you can use it tell just how big something looks, but I don't know how

Diagram:


EDIT: I forgot to mention that in the case of the planets and other celestial bodies, this formula can be used(assuming I didn't screw up) by just using the perceived size of the objects converted into radians and then solving for the actual size or distance. However for that to work you would need either the size or distance to get the other:

D*tan(0)= S  OR  S/tan(0) = D

You know what, ignore what I said. Right there LaserEyes just contributed more in one post than I have in my entire time here.

You know what, ignore what I said. Right there LaserEyes just contributed more in one post than I have in my entire time here.

He found the angle you would have to look at assuming the size of the object and the distance as given in the prompt. I mean, it's not my place to say how you do things or anything, but I don't get what this proves.

He found the angle you would have to look at assuming the size of the object and the distance as given in the prompt. I mean, it's not my place to say how you do things or anything, but I don't get what this proves.

The angle I found is the arc distance of the perceived size of the moon and sun at 3000 miles away. Basically, the diameter of the moon and sun, in radian form. If someone knows the EXACT arc distance of the sun and moon, you could compare the two and revise the size or distance accordingly. I didn't prove anything, I just tried to help them out in making their theory make sense.

And (for the 3rd time so I don't get bitched at) : I don't know if I'm right.

Quote from: Anduie on August 17, 2009, 01:44:01 PM

He found the angle you would have to look at assuming the size of the object and the distance as given in the prompt. I mean, it's not my place to say how you do things or anything, but I don't get what this proves.

The angle I found is the arc distance of the perceived size of the moon and sun at 3000 miles away. Basically, the diameter of the moon and sun, in radian form. If someone knows the EXACT arc distance of the sun and moon, you could compare the two and revise the size or distance accordingly. I didn't prove anything, I just tried to help them out in making their theory make sense.

And (for the 3rd time so I don't get bitched at) : I don't know if I'm right.

My apologies, I didn't see the last bit. But didn't you still assume what you were trying to prove? Give me a second and I'll mock up a diagram to help you with the calculations.

Edit:
I might have done this wrong.





Opps, sort of botched it, oh well.

Wellllllllll I looked it up. I'm actually 100% correct. And I just made that shit up! I'm incredibly happy with myself right now.  

In addition that link gives the arc distances (angular diameter) of the different planets in degrees/minutes/seconds. You guys are pretty damn accurate for your BS numbers. The sun should appear to have an arc of 31.6-32.7 minutes, and the moon from 29.3-34.1 minutes. My result was 36.7 minutes.

I guess this sort of disproves your theory that the earth is flat, so you should revise it by adjusting the distance or the size of the sun and moon.

Quote from: Anduie on August 17, 2009, 01:44:01 PM

He found the angle you would have to look at assuming the size of the object and the distance as given in the prompt. I mean, it's not my place to say how you do things or anything, but I don't get what this proves.

If someone knows the EXACT arc distance of the sun and moon, you could compare the two and revise the size or distance accordingly.

And (for the 3rd time so I don't get bitched at) : I don't know if I'm right.

32 arcmins. (i'm too lazy to convert it to radians  ) from a fist glance your calculations look good

edit: you beat me to it

Anduie, your math is correct, but I don't think it's correctly applied. You took how far away AND how far up the girl was in your diagram. In that diagram the distance from the moon isn't 3000 miles, 3000 miles is the hypotenuse of the right triangle in your diagram. A would be X and B would be tan(01) so C would be 3000 miles. So the girl's size would be just X*tan(02). By your diagram.

Also it never tells us if you ever get to the girl...

The reality is that light must bend or be affected in some way as outlined in EAT or AET. If this is true, then the exact nature and size of celestial bodies cannot be known until these theories are fully worked out.

Anduie, your math is correct, but I don't think it's correctly applied. You took how far away AND how far up the girl was in your diagram. In that diagram the distance from the moon isn't 3000 miles, 3000 miles is the hypotenuse of the right triangle in your diagram. A would be X and B would be tan(01) so C would be 3000 miles. So the girl's size would be just X*tan(02). By your diagram.

Also it never tells us if you ever get to the girl...

Who ever said the moon was up in the sky? Why would the moon be there? The girl has a heavenly body!

Yeah, sorry, I never really cared much for Trig and I pooped out thinking about the girl.

As for getting the girl, if tonight was any indication, yes, yes I did get the girl.

The reality is that light must bend or be affected in some way as outlined in EAT or AET. If this is true, then the exact nature and size of celestial bodies cannot be known until these theories are fully worked out.

I actually found that post rather rude. I've seen you praise other posts supporting flat earth. You obviously saw my posts, as well as Anduies, so do you not agree with it?

 And lets not forget the Rowbothams law of perspective - "that the smallest angle under which an object can be seen is upon an average for different sights the 60th part of a degree, or one minute in space; so that when an object is removed from the eye 3000 times it's own diameter, it will only just be distinguishable." .

So, Roundy in one and a half months you've gone from this:

Quote from: CACTUSJACKmankin on July 03, 2009, 05:13:38 PM

Okay. What's the evidence that the universe is accelerating upwards in the first place?

That the universe is accelerating upwards with us is an obvious consequence, since we've been looking up at the same sky for a long time with no indication of it getting closer or far away.  That's not to say that the entire universe is accelerating upwards, simply the part that we are able to observe, which for all we know might just be a tiny part of the whole.

to, on behalf of the FES accepting red/blue shifting which indicates that individual stars and galaxies are moving.

So what is your current stance on the UA which as you told me some time ago is accelerating the universe 'upwards'?

You see, I can't get my head around the universe being accelerated upwards at 9.8ms^2 and some of the stars and galaxies moving away from us and others towards us. Nor can I get my head around the flat infinite earth or the flat finite earth moving upwards at 9.8ms^2 and the rest of the stars and planets being huge distances away and also moving at different speeds relative to the flat earth.

This is all pointing to a monumental FAIL for the flat earth hypothesis which has to account for all observed phenomena and as the bendy light theorist was banned and he's said he's not coming back I suspect the fails will keep mounting up.

Maybe red shifting isn't accepted by the FES. Maybe a believer should give us a definitive statement.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 17, 2009, 04:09:17 PM

The reality is that light must bend or be affected in some way as outlined in EAT or AET. If this is true, then the exact nature and size of celestial bodies cannot be known until these theories are fully worked out.

I actually found that post rather rude. I've seen you praise other posts supporting flat earth. You obviously saw my posts, as well as Anduies, so do you not agree with it?

It was a response to the OP. I'm not sure why you think it's rude. As for your posts, they in no way take into account EAT or AET, and as I believe that light must bend in some way, I don't feel any such calculations on thier own can tell us much about the heavenly bodies.

It was a response to the OP. I'm not sure why you think it's rude. As for your posts, they in no way take into account EAT or AET, and as I believe that light must bend in some way, I don't feel any such calculations on thier own can tell us much about the heavenly bodies.

It just seemed like you ignored everything discussed and dismissed it as wrong. But I guess I was mistaken. I looked up your EAT (but I don't know what AET is) but I still don't understand it. I understand it bends light, but from our perspective it seems to bend light the wrong way, it curves up instead of curving down. Additionally, if it curves light AWAY from the earth and outward, how does the sun maintain it's spotlight effect?

The reality is that light must bend or be affected in some way as outlined in EAT or AET. If this is true, then the exact nature and size of celestial bodies cannot be known until these theories are fully worked out.

so at least you agree with roundy that the current wording of the faq is not ok

I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: the FAQ is not a FET Bible. It's just there to answer questions that are frequently asked. A number of FE'ers do believe that Rowbotham was right and reject EAT. Newcomers will encounter these people and their ideas, so those ideas belong in the FAQ.

I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: the FAQ is not a FET Bible. It's just there to answer questions that are frequently asked. A number of FE'ers do believe that Rowbotham was right and reject EAT. Newcomers will encounter these people and their ideas, so those ideas belong in the FAQ.

My biggest problem is that the FAQ represents neither Rowbotham nor EAT; the figures seem to have been arbitrarily chosen.  We can do better than that, can't we?

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 18, 2009, 09:14:47 AM

I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: the FAQ is not a FET Bible. It's just there to answer questions that are frequently asked. A number of FE'ers do believe that Rowbotham was right and reject EAT. Newcomers will encounter these people and their ideas, so those ideas belong in the FAQ.

My biggest problem is that the FAQ represents neither Rowbotham nor EAT; the figures seem to have been arbitrarily chosen.  We can do better than that, can't we?

Since that's the way that most FET arguments seem to play out, I'd say no. 

I think I remember seeing the 3000 mile calculation derived from the Eratosthenes experiment, basically saying that Earth is either round with a 40000 km circumference and a far away sun or flat and with a 5000 km high sun.

Since Eratosthenes was not trying to demonstrate the shape of the Earth, the whole idea of using his results to find the height of the Sun is baseless, but not many are saying FE has a base, anyway.

Any triangulation experiment will give you a height for the Sun, so I do not doubt somebody found, for the place and time he did the experiment, a height of 5000 km, and I do not care whose experiment was it. You can find the result of your choosing from a few hundred kilometers to infinity by choosing the time of day of your experiment.

I think I remember seeing the 3000 mile calculation derived from the Eratosthenes experiment, basically saying that Earth is either round with a 40000 km circumference and a far away sun or flat and with a 5000 km high sun.

I want to think that Shenton is the one that came up with the 3000 mile figure, but I could be wrong.  Here is Tom Bishop's version of the calculation (so you know it has to be correct).

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, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

Using observable data I've demonstrated that the sun is 3,000 miles away on the Flat Earth model.

Are you able to demonstrate for us that the sun is actually 93,000,000 miles away? I'd like to see something which calculates the sun to be 93,000,000 miles away.

If you REers cannot do that then what reason is there to believe that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away?

But, of course this does not take EA or Aetherific Eddification into account.

Quote from: trig on August 19, 2009, 08:15:38 AM

I think I remember seeing the 3000 mile calculation derived from the Eratosthenes experiment, basically saying that Earth is either round with a 40000 km circumference and a far away sun or flat and with a 5000 km high sun.

I want to think that Shenton is the one that came up with the 3000 mile figure, but I could be wrong.  Here is Tom Bishop's version of the calculation (so you know it has to be correct).

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 13, 2008, 05:01:29 PM

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, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

Using observable data I've demonstrated that the sun is 3,000 miles away on the Flat Earth model.

Are you able to demonstrate for us that the sun is actually 93,000,000 miles away? I'd like to see something which calculates the sun to be 93,000,000 miles away.

If you REers cannot do that then what reason is there to believe that the sun is 93,000,000 miles away?

But, of course this does not take EA or Aetherific Eddification into account.

And it assumes the flat earth which isn't definitely proven anywhere. It uses for it's calculation a triangle with straight sides when on the round earth the one side would be curved.

Sorry, so this is not the calculation based on Eratosthenes' measurement. Of course, if you repeat Tom's measurement from the North Pole, you will find that the Sun is at the horizon, or at an altitude of 0. And if you repeat it at a latitude of 1 degree North, the altitude of the sun is 6300 km. So, you can pretty much choose the height of the sun you want to "calculate" by choosing the latitude for the experiment.

All of this is done taking into account that the Sun is exactly at the zenith on March 21 and a latitude of 0 (the Equator) and the Sun will be one degree further South for every 60 nautical miles you travel North.

I don't see how bendy light can possibly effect the DISTANCE of an object. Sure the position, but distance is not position. I think that my calculations are correct, and that the rough estimates in the FAQ have validity, but are not 100% accurate. I'm assuming that '3000' miles is a rough estimate, it's just a little further out. Big deal, there's no need for you to bring in bendy light.