FE Wiki Critique: The Cosmos/The Sun/Distance to the Sun

How does this disprove FET? The only thing you have proven is that the lines of latitude are utter nonsense, and the conspiracy hasn't released accurate measurements of the earth to use yet.

If lines of latitude are "utter nonsense", then why are they still one of the primary tools used for navigation?  And why haven't FE "scientists" made any accurate measurements of the earth either?  It's really not that difficult or expensive.

Quote from: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:35:07 AM

Where is your trigonometry now?

So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.

What are you talking about?

Quote from: parsec on July 31, 2010, 08:51:01 PM

It''s funny how the op edited his opening post two hours after his last post in the thread and all the non-persons tried to explain to everyone what the op tried to say. Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.

And your point is? You just failed to explain your point again and seems that you are not capable of understanding what OP said and just talk about grammar and make baseless hints about wrongness of the OP. But in same time you are unable to explain what is wrong with it. It kind of displays you as.... dumb? Or you just got cold feet when you realized that you just busted Tom's hard work he did proving the flat earth.

My point is that there are a lot of alts on these fora and that making an alt is a bannable offense.

Quote from: parsec on July 31, 2010, 08:51:01 PM

Also, it's funny how 'zork' used 'critique' instead of 'criticize', just like 'Clocktower did'.

OMG Someone used the same word in the reply as found in the question?

The paranoia is strong in this one. I suggest you raise this in "Suggestions and Concerns".

Yes, you are a true master in the art of alt making. You should know.

Yes, you are a true master in the art of alt making. You should know.

Saddam? Is that you?

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:26:12 AM

Yes, you are a true master in the art of alt making. You should know.

Saddam? Is that you?

All you need to do is lurk moar and not post unrelated comments in the serious fora.

Quote from: trig on August 01, 2010, 12:10:02 AM

Quote from: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:35:07 AM

Where is your trigonometry now?

So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.

What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:26:12 AM

Quote from: trig on August 01, 2010, 12:10:02 AM

Quote from: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:35:07 AM

Where is your trigonometry now?

So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.

What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?

I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.

All you need to do is lurk moar and not post unrelated comments in the serious fora.

Such as paranoid accusations based on the flimsy evidence that two people used the same word?

OK.

I believe you were about to expand your explanation of why the trigonometry used by Rowbotham in ENaG is incorrect, and provide your own calculations.

Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 07:32:08 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:26:12 AM

Quote from: trig on August 01, 2010, 12:10:02 AM

Quote from: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:35:07 AM

Where is your trigonometry now?

So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.

What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?

I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.

Please correct the Wiki entry that relies on the same premises then. Until then, we feel free to hold you to the same standard that the Wiki uses.

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:34:03 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 07:32:08 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:26:12 AM

Quote from: trig on August 01, 2010, 12:10:02 AM

Quote from: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:35:07 AM

Where is your trigonometry now?

So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.

What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?

I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.

Please correct the Wiki entry that relies on the same premises then. Until then, we feel free to hold you to the same standard that the Wiki uses.

Do you see a 'FEW Editor' label under my profile?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 07:36:51 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:34:03 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 07:32:08 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:26:12 AM

Quote from: trig on August 01, 2010, 12:10:02 AM

Quote from: parsec on July 31, 2010, 07:35:07 AM

Where is your trigonometry now?

So, this is the way "bendy light" is introduced now that the whole concept has been discredited by the FES. You make a diagram with very soft bends, and hope nobody notices.

If you want to get bendy light back into the wiki, just say so and deal with the well-deserved lambasting that the "theory" has gotten.

And my trigonometry is just where it always has been. In it, triangles have straight lines, still.

What are you talking about?

He's talking about plane trigonometry.  What are you talking about?

I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.

Please correct the Wiki entry that relies on the same premises then. Until then, we feel free to hold you to the same standard that the Wiki uses.

Do you see a 'FEW Editor' label under my profile?

I assume that means you're not qualified to edit the FEW. I guess you'll have to tackle that problem first. Good luck convincing your fellow FEers that you're worthy.

I assume that means you're not qualified to edit the FEW.

Lol. Assumptions.That's what led you in the position you are in now in the first place.

Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 07:44:28 AM

I assume that means you're not qualified to edit the FEW.

Lol. Assumptions.That's what led you in the position you are in now in the first place.

Yes, I have the superior RET and "first place". Thanks for the credit.

I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.

I've been saying that for over 2 years, but Tom Bishop and other prestigious FE researchers still insist that this is the correct method to calculate the distance to the sun.

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:34:03 AM

I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.

I've been saying that for over 2 years, but Tom Bishop and other prestigious FE researchers still insist that this is the correct method to calculate the distance to the sun.

Well, I speak for myself and don't necessarily subscribe to what Tom Bishop, James or John Davis claim.

Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 08:11:41 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:34:03 AM

I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.

I've been saying that for over 2 years, but Tom Bishop and other prestigious FE researchers still insist that this is the correct method to calculate the distance to the sun.

Well, I speak for myself and don't necessarily subscribe to what Tom Bishop, James or John Davis claim.

Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 08:14:14 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 08:11:41 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 07:34:03 AM

I'm saying rules of trigonometry would give wrong conclusions because the premises for their application are not vindicated.

I've been saying that for over 2 years, but Tom Bishop and other prestigious FE researchers still insist that this is the correct method to calculate the distance to the sun.

Well, I speak for myself and don't necessarily subscribe to what Tom Bishop, James or John Davis claim.

Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?

At this point, I don't know. But, I think this quantity is quite irrelevant.

Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 08:26:31 AM

Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?

At this point, I don't know. But, I think this quantity is quite irrelevant.

I'd say it's quite relevant to a thread debating the calculation of the distance to the sun.

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 08:27:40 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 08:26:31 AM

Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?

At this point, I don't know. But, I think this quantity is quite irrelevant.

I'd say it's quite relevant to a thread debating the calculation of the distance to the sun.

No, it is not. You are not making a distinction between an algorithm for calculating a quantity (namely the height of the Sun above the Earth's surface) and the calculated value by using that algorithm and the observational data used as input in the calculation.

I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.

Nevertheless, this in no way discredits the FE model and that is why I said the value of the quantity mentioned in the op is irrelevant.

Quote from: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 08:52:24 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 08:27:40 AM

Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 08:26:31 AM

Then what do you consider to be the correct method for calculating the distance to the sun?

At this point, I don't know. But, I think this quantity is quite irrelevant.

I'd say it's quite relevant to a thread debating the calculation of the distance to the sun.

No, it is not. You are not making a distinction between an algorithm for calculating a quantity (namely the height of the Sun above the Earth's surface) and the calculated value by using that algorithm and the observational data used as input in the calculation.

I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.

Nevertheless, this in no way discredits the FE model and that is why I said the value of the quantity mentioned in the op is irrelevant.

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW either say or permitted to be said that this is the correct method and then if applying the approved method results in the disproof of FET then FET has failed miserably, yet again.

If you'd like to start your own theory about the Earth, you need to start your own website. Either that or earn enough respect here to post your theory to the FAQ and FEW. Unlike then, you're just a "wannabe". Good luck promoting your theory.

You forget that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

You forget that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Therefore, your argument is invalid.

I made no argument based on an appeal to authority. Do pay attention.

A challenge to your claim:

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW either say or permitted to be said that this is the correct method and then if applying the approved method results in the disproof of FET then FET has failed miserably, yet again.

Red - Appeal to authority. If someone is considered 'an authority' and claims something, that is not necessarily true.

Green - Please provide experimental results where the above mentioned method leads to disproof of FET

Blue - Does not follow. You try to use 'modus tollens', but fail miserably in the process of doing so:

If P, then Q. (You use the fallacious appeal to authority to prove this claim as truthful.)

Not Q. (You have not provided any evidence.)
-------------------------------------------
Not P. (Try again.).

A challenge to your claim:

Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 09:36:00 AM

If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW either say or permitted to be said that this is the correct method and then if applying the approved method results in the disproof of FET then FET has failed miserably, yet again.

Red - Appeal to authority. If someone is considered 'an authority' and claims something, that is not necessarily true.

Green - Please provide experimental results where the above mentioned method leads to disproof of FET

Blue - Does not follow. You try to use 'modus tollens', but fail miserably in the process of doing so:

If P, then Q. (You use the fallacious appeal to authority to prove this claim as truthful.)

Not Q. (You have not provided any evidence.)
-------------------------------------------
Not P. (Try again.).

But the red text is not an appeal to authority...

You are not making a distinction between an algorithm for calculating a quantity (namely the height of the Sun above the Earth's surface) and the calculated value by using that algorithm and the observational data used as input in the calculation.

If you discredit an algorithm, then you discredit the results produced by that algorithm. Unless you can produce the same results by other means. Which you seem unable to do.

I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.

If you know nothing and make no claims then why are you posting?

Nevertheless, this in no way discredits the FE model and that is why I said the value of the quantity mentioned in the op is irrelevant.

But it's the quantity that is being discussed. Pay attention 007.

It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45^o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AM

You are not making a distinction between an algorithm for calculating a quantity (namely the height of the Sun above the Earth's surface) and the calculated value by using that algorithm and the observational data used as input in the calculation.

If you discredit an algorithm, then you discredit the results produced by that algorithm. Unless you can produce the same results by other means. Which you seem unable to do.

True, but irrelevant.

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AM

I simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. I did not claim I know what the distance between two concentric circles of different latitude is, nor did I proposed a more sophisticated method for calculating the Sun's height.

If you know nothing and make no claims then why are you posting?

I did not say I know nothing. I said I don't know what the height of the FE Sun is.

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AM

Nevertheless, this in no way discredits the FE model and that is why I said the value of the quantity mentioned in the op is irrelevant.

But it's the quantity that is being discussed. Pay attention 007.

No, it's the (failed) attempt to discredit the FE model.

It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45^o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.

But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AM

It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45^o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.

But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.

Ok, then. What did you say exactly?

Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AM

It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45^o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.

But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.

Ok, then. What did you say exactly?

I point you to the Search function, again.

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AM

Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AM

Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AM

It is. You wanted to prove the truthfulness of this statement:

"If FET is correct, then the height of the Sun is the same as the distance from the Equator to the lines of 45^o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."

by using:

"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"

as proof.

But, of course, I didn't say that, did I? Referencing the FEW is not appealing to authority, BTW.

Ok, then. What did you say exactly?

I point you to the Search function, again.

Cool. My point stays unshaken. Nice to see you crawl in from the hole you came out from.