I said I don't know what the height of the FE Sun is.
Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:20:16 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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 crawled out from the hole you came out from.
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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.
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 45o latitude (North and South) along any meridian."by using:"because the FEW and 'esteemed FE members' say so"as proof.
Keep it serious, Thork. You can troll, but don't be so open. We have standards
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:08:48 AMI said I don't know what the height of the FE Sun is.You mean you don't believe the Tikifaq that says it's at 3000 miles?
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:20:59 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:20:16 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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 crawled out from the hole you came out from.I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?
If those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW
Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:23:45 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:20:59 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:20:16 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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 crawled out from the hole you came out from.I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 09:36:00 AMIf those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEW
How were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:26:47 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:23:45 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:20:59 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:20:16 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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 crawled out from the hole you came out from.I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 09:36:00 AMIf those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEWSo again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:24:29 AMHow were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.So you do believe the tikifaq?Please indicate the evidence used to reach this belief.
Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:28:53 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:26:47 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:23:45 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:20:59 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:20:16 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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 crawled out from the hole you came out from.I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 09:36:00 AMIf those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEWSo again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esteemedQuote from: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 10:29:06 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:24:29 AMHow were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.So you do believe the tikifaq?Please indicate the evidence used to reach this belief.Please tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?
Please tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:32:32 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:28:53 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:26:47 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:23:45 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:20:59 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:20:16 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:19:12 AMQuote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 10:14:27 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:05:57 AMIt 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 45o 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 crawled out from the hole you came out from.I see. You can then point to where I used the phase 'esteemed FE members' that you claim I did, right?Quote from: ClockTower on August 01, 2010, 09:36:00 AMIf those with enough respect to be allowed to edit the FEWSo again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?http://www.thefreedictionary.com/esteemedQuote from: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 10:29:06 AMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:24:29 AMHow were you able to conclude that from my statement? Please elaborate.So you do believe the tikifaq?Please indicate the evidence used to reach this belief.Please tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?So again, where did I use the phrase 'esteemed FE members' as you claimed?
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 10:32:32 AMPlease tell me how believing or not believing something is a proof of anything?It would be a proof that you believe or don't believe something.Do you believe the Tikifaq's claim that the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth?
Quote from: Crustinator on August 01, 2010, 11:16:33 AMIt would be a proof that you believe or don't believe something.Do you believe the Tikifaq's claim that the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth?Irrelevant.
It would be a proof that you believe or don't believe something.Do you believe the Tikifaq's claim that the sun is 3,000 miles above the earth?
lrn2synonims.
My point is that there are a lot of alts on these fora and that making an alt is a bannable offense.
The argument stands: FEW destroys FET.
Where did you educate the biology, in toulet?
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.
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AMI simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. Why do you believe that using an isosceles right triangle is the wrong method for calculating the distance to the sun? Simply saying it's wrong is not helpful in the least. It help move the discussion forward if you would please explain why it's wrong.
Quote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AMI 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. The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.
Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?
You don't want to make an enemy of me. I'm very powerful.
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 04:45:37 PMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AMI simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. Why do you believe that using an isosceles right triangle is the wrong method for calculating the distance to the sun? Simply saying it's wrong is not helpful in the least. It help move the discussion forward if you would please explain why it's wrong.See the simple diagram that I had posted.
Quote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 04:45:37 PMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AMI 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. The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?
Quote from: parsec on August 03, 2010, 08:13:19 AMQuote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 04:45:37 PMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AMI simply said the method the op was discussing (using isosceles right triangles) is not valid. Why do you believe that using an isosceles right triangle is the wrong method for calculating the distance to the sun? Simply saying it's wrong is not helpful in the least. It help move the discussion forward if you would please explain why it's wrong.See the simple diagram that I had posted.I did. Perhaps you should have a caption for those of us who are a bit dense.
Quote from: parsec on August 03, 2010, 08:13:19 AMQuote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 04:45:37 PMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AMI 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. The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?Sure. Grab a sextant, a tape measure and then take a course in celestial navigation.
Hint: In Euclidean geometry, triangles have straight lines as sides. The diagram I had drawn shows that this assumption might not be consistent with reality. Also, it shows the apparent position of the Sun in the continuation of the light ray trajectory's tangent at the point of observation.
Quote from: markjo on August 03, 2010, 02:57:11 PMQuote from: parsec on August 03, 2010, 08:13:19 AMQuote from: markjo on August 01, 2010, 04:45:37 PMQuote from: parsec on August 01, 2010, 09:02:16 AMI 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. The distance between lines of latitude is well established (60 nautical miles per degree) so I'm not sure why you would dispute that.Do you have any proof for your outlandish claims?Sure. Grab a sextant, a tape measure and then take a course in celestial navigation.I can't and I don't have time nor means to perform such an experiment. I believe Rowbotham had somewhere referred to the dubiousness of measuring the Earth's meridian.
I can't and I don't have time nor means to perform such an experiment.
I believe Rowbotham had somewhere referred to the dubiousness of measuring the Earth's meridian.
Good point. FE'ers don't believe in experiments or tests made by other people, but they also don't do any, so they can never be disproven. If the rest of the people were like them, we'd still live in caves, with no progress at all.
We just prefer easily repeatable evidence so that a common man can know the true nature of this infinite plane.
Quote from: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 03:06:13 PMWe just prefer easily repeatable evidence so that a common man can know the true nature of this infinite plane.Please give us these repeatable evidence tests that show the earth is an infinite plane.Also, not all FEers believe the earth is an infinite plane.
Of course they don't, because they will.
In Brief, the easiest test anyone can do to verify the infinite nature of the earth is to measure gravitational pull from high altitudes and again at lower altitudes fairly.
Quote from: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 03:21:41 PMOf course they don't, because they will.People don't believe something because they will believe it. Does not compute. Stack overflow.Quote from: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 03:21:41 PMIn Brief, the easiest test anyone can do to verify the infinite nature of the earth is to measure gravitational pull from high altitudes and again at lower altitudes fairly.Wow that sounds really easy. Please tell us where you have performed this experiment, and what equipment you used, and then I'll try to reproduce it.
Use an accelerometer and travel to Rock City, Lookout Mountain, TN, USA.
Quote from: John Davis on August 09, 2010, 03:42:15 PMUse an accelerometer and travel to Rock City, Lookout Mountain, TN, USA.This experiment is incomplete.Please post the equipment you used and the data and results you recorded. Then I'll repeat and see if I produce the same results.