Somethings that have been bothering me.

I read quite a few things on this website now, and a couple of questions come to mind.

1) If there is no gravity (which I have read a flat earth theorist claim) how do you explain gravitational time dilation?
2) If space travel is an impossibility then what happens to a space-shuttle once it leaves our atmosphere?
3) While I'm on that if space travel is impossible where did the lunar and mars rovers travel to?
4) I read the earth could be an infinite plain spanning in all directions, if this is so why has it never been observed to be   so, yet we have explored and documented every part of the earth?
5) I heard one FEist claim that ancient civilizations had nuclear weaponry, do all FEists believe this load of crap?

I will say my thanks now for all intelligent and honest responses, I haven't seen any trolls on this website yet but, this is still the internet after all.

1) If there is no gravity (which I have read a flat earth theorist claim) how do you explain gravitational time dilation?

Time Dilation is a Special Relativity effect as a consequence of accelerating frames of references. We don't doubt that in different frames of references time dilation occurs. I don't deny the experiment where a clock on the ground becomes out of sync with a clock on a jet.

In a "gravity field" the observers closer or further than the source are being accelerated at different rates in relation to other users, and thus Time Dilation will occur. Time Dilation will occur in a jet, a rocket ship, a "gravity field," and even a FE scenerio where traditional gravity does not exist and the observer is being slightly accelerated toward the stars the higher he goes. Time dilation occurs when observers are in different accelerating frames of references.

What causes the acceleration is the question here. Gravity's mechanism as a bending of space as proposed in General Relativity has never been demonstrated true. There are contradicting theories for gravity, such as Quantum Mechanic's "Graviton" theory. Neither General Relativity (bending space) or Quantum Mechanic's Graviton puller particles really have any evidence behind it. The mechanism for gravity is not set in stone and, indeed, up in the air.

Observing starlight bend around the sun is as much a proof for GR Bendy Space as it is for QM Pully Particles. Nothing in the observation tells us what causes light to bend around the sun.

Hence, the mechanism for gravity is utterly unknown and undemonstrated.

2) If space travel is an impossibility then what happens to a space-shuttle once it leaves our atmosphere?

Since earth orbit is an impossibility it doesn't leave our atmosphere.

3) While I'm on that if space travel is impossible where did the lunar and mars rovers travel to?

They traveled to a movie studio.

4) I read the earth could be an infinite plain spanning in all directions, if this is so why has it never been observed to be   so, yet we have explored and documented every part of the earth?

We have not explored and documented every part of the earth.

5) I heard one FEist claim that ancient civilizations had nuclear weaponry, do all FEists believe this load of crap?

I've never heard that argument.

Never heard of #5, but there was a thread arguing that nuclear weaponry never existed in the first place. Also, not all FE'ers believe space travel is impossible like Tom. Some think satellites can still "orbit" the earth using universal acceleration or celestial gravitation.

Most people here don't really believe most of what Tom says. FET has tried mulitple times to distance itself from a conspiracy but Tom keeps it hanging there like an old dead cat.

Also, not all FE'ers believe space travel is impossible like Tom. Some think satellites can still "orbit" the earth using universal acceleration or celestial gravitation.

I've proposed such things in the past.  I suppose it is possible that there is a buoyant Lagrange Point somewhere between the earth and the 3100-mile distant stars where the acceleration of the earth and the acceleration of the stars cancel out. Otherwise, it may be possible to get into the celestial system itself.

Most people here don't really believe most of what Tom says. FET has tried mulitple times to distance itself from a conspiracy but Tom keeps it hanging there like an old dead cat.

Even if we consider the possibility that space travel is possible in FET and the earth's horizon naturally looks curved from high up due to looking down at a circle, NASA is still running a fake space program.

The probe missions which explore the reaches solar system can't possibly occur in FET as NASA claimed, since the celestial bodies are all a few thousand miles from the earth.

The probe missions which explore the reaches solar system can't possibly occur in FET as NASA claimed, since the celestial bodies are all a few thousand miles from the earth.

Why do the planets have to be so close? They can be far away and spherical in FET as easily as they can in RET using celestial gears.

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 13, 2011, 08:40:23 AM

Also, not all FE'ers believe space travel is impossible like Tom. Some think satellites can still "orbit" the earth using universal acceleration or celestial gravitation.

I've proposed such things in the past.  I suppose it is possible that there is a buoyant Lagrange Point somewhere between the earth and the 3100-mile distant stars where the acceleration of the earth and the acceleration of the stars cancel out. Otherwise, it may be possible to get into the celestial system itself.

Quote

Most people here don't really believe most of what Tom says. FET has tried mulitple times to distance itself from a conspiracy but Tom keeps it hanging there like an old dead cat.

Even if we consider the possibility that space travel is possible in FET and the earth's horizon naturally looks curved from high up due to looking down at a circle, NASA is still running a fake space program.

The probe missions which explore the reaches solar system can't possibly occur in FET as NASA claimed, since the celestial bodies are all a few thousand miles from the earth.

Tom, how can you claim that probes can't possibly reach the celestial bodies when you just explained how it could be possible?

the space travel is impossbile idea came about by faqqers who at the time could not explain slight curvature in space photos.
little did they realize all these phots show a giant disc.
it is good to see Tom (who is not a faqqer) try to explain this.
but would be nice to also see that NASA is real.
Very soon, A Zetetic will travel in to space, see that is is really a giant disc and a new age will finally be here.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2011, 08:47:23 AM

The probe missions which explore the reaches solar system can't possibly occur in FET as NASA claimed, since the celestial bodies are all a few thousand miles from the earth.

Why do the planets have to be so close? They can be far away and spherical in FET as easily as they can in RET using celestial gears.

They have to be so close because if the shape of the earth changes, the distance to the celestial bodies must change as well. Astronomers use two different observations on far off points on earth to triangulate the distance of celestial bodies. When the shape of the earth changes, those calculations change as well.

If the earth is round, the celestial bodies are computed to be millions of miles distant.

If the earth is flat, the celestial bodies are triangulated to be relatively close to the earth's surface.

Here's a link which explains the idea. The first part goes over the Round Earth explanation for how the sun can be computed millions of miles distant. At the bottom there is a Flat Earth explanation for how the sun can be computed as being very close to the earth's surface. Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "alternative model" section. You will find that we can use Eratosthenes' data, in conjunction with the assumption of a Flat Earth, to confirm that in FET the sun is very near to the earth's surface.

Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth.

There is no other way to get a distance for the sun. Just looking at it from a single point on earth will not tell you its distance, you must look at it from several points and account for the curvature or non-curvature of the distance between those points.

Note about the Millersville University link in my previous post: The writer of that article makes a unrelated side comment about the Flat Earth model --

"That is, as we move from Florida to Pennsylvania, our distance from the sun increases by about 30%. As a consequence the apparant size of the sun should decrease by 30%. We see no noticeable change in the apparent size of the sun as we make the trip. We conclude that the flat earth/near sun model does not work."

This has nothing to do with Erasthone's calculations for the sun's distance and the writer apparently did not read Chapter 10 of Earth Not a Globe.

Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth.

There is no other way to get a distance for the sun. Just looking at it from a single point on earth will not tell you its distance, you must look at it from several points and account for the curvature or non-curvature of the distance between those points.

Then would you please explain why you keep ignoring the fact that when you use trigonometry to calculate the height of the sun, you keep getting different answers when you make the same observation from different latitudes?  If triangulation from different latitudes can't provide consistent results, then it's the not the right method to use.  It's just that simple.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2011, 09:48:14 AM

Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth.

There is no other way to get a distance for the sun. Just looking at it from a single point on earth will not tell you its distance, you must look at it from several points and account for the curvature or non-curvature of the distance between those points.

Then would you please explain why you keep ignoring the fact that when you use trigonometry to calculate the height of the sun, you keep getting different answers when you make the same observation from different latitudes?  If triangulation from different latitudes can't provide consistent results, then it's the not the right method to use.  It's just that simple.

What is the position of the sun in the sky at different latitudes? You'll have to go out and collect the data yourself, not use a sun calculator which assumes that the earth is a globe.

RE'ers keep saying that people are traveling all over the world recording the position of the sun, but I have never seen any concerted effort to record raw data like that.

You guys have posted many links to sun calculators to this site. But none of the sun calculator links claim to be basing their data on actual observations, only calculation of an RE.

What is the position of the sun in the sky at different latitudes? You'll have to go out and collect the data yourself, not use a sun calculator which assumes that the earth is a globe.

*sigh* 
1) Navigators on ships measure the elevation of the sun at different latitudes all the time.  Their measurements are consistent with the assumption of a distant sun and a round earth.
2) You yourself have conceded that on the days of the equinox, one can determine their latitude by measuring the elevation of the sun at local noon which, again, is consistent with the assumption of a distant sun and a round earth.

Now, would you care to explain why these facts are not consistent with a near sun and flat earth?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2011, 10:02:43 AM

What is the position of the sun in the sky at different latitudes? You'll have to go out and collect the data yourself, not use a sun calculator which assumes that the earth is a globe.

*sigh* 
1) Navigators on ships measure the elevation of the sun at different latitudes all the time.  Their measurements are consistent with the assumption of a distant sun and a round earth.
2) You yourself have conceded that on the days of the equinox, one can determine their latitude by measuring the elevation of the sun at local noon which, again, is consistent with the assumption of a distant sun and a round earth.

Now, would you care to explain why these facts are not consistent with a near sun and flat earth?

1.) How do you know that the recordings are consistent with a round earth? Do you have any navigator logs to show us?

2.) You're referencing a very old post I made, which is really just a quote from a book called Zetetic Cosmogony. I didn't collect that data.

Indeed, I don't believe any such data has ever been collected for the sun on a wide scale.

Since the sun is constantly moving North-South over the course of the year, any recordings of how the sun would appear in the sky at multiple places would have to all take place on all the latitude lines on a single day of the year, at the same moment in time.

You would have to have observers set up at every latitude to observe the position of the sun -- a considerable effort which I contend has never happened.

This is why the sun calculators must be based on calculations and not logs -- it would take far too much manpower to prove something which "everyone knows."

Quote from: markjo on December 13, 2011, 09:57:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2011, 09:48:14 AM

Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth.

There is no other way to get a distance for the sun. Just looking at it from a single point on earth will not tell you its distance, you must look at it from several points and account for the curvature or non-curvature of the distance between those points.

Then would you please explain why you keep ignoring the fact that when you use trigonometry to calculate the height of the sun, you keep getting different answers when you make the same observation from different latitudes?  If triangulation from different latitudes can't provide consistent results, then it's the not the right method to use.  It's just that simple.

What is the position of the sun in the sky at different latitudes? You'll have to go out and collect the data yourself, not use a sun calculator which assumes that the earth is a globe.

RE'ers keep saying that people are traveling all over the world recording the position of the sun, but I have never seen any concerted effort to record raw data like that.

You guys have posted many links to sun calculators to this site. But none of the sun calculator links claim to be basing their data on actual observations, only calculation of an RE.

Search is your friend. Reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41355.0.

No it's not necessary to travel anywhere, let alone 'all over the world', to disprove you. Taking one measurement from any latitude (except the 45s and the Equator) and finding that it matches the RET prediction is all one needs to disprove your contention.

I've travelled myself as far north as Stockholm and as far south as Hawaii's big island. I've personally observe the angle of the Sun at local astronomical noon. I've used telescopes in five different states, from the UP of Michigan to the Sedona, AZ. I've aligned the scopes with various stars north and south of the Celestial Equator, confirming the angle. I can state that RET's prediction is accurate. The Sun's distance cannot be measured by the technique you claim.

No it's not necessary to travel anywhere, let alone 'all over the world', to disprove you. Taking one measurement from any latitude (except the 45s and the Equator) and finding that it matches the RET prediction is all one needs to disprove your contention.

Who made those measurements?

Quote

No it's not necessary to travel anywhere, let alone 'all over the world', to disprove you. Taking one measurement from any latitude (except the 45s and the Equator) and finding that it matches the RET prediction is all one needs to disprove your contention.

Who made those measurements?

As I told you in that post, I did myself many times. And so can any honest inquiring mind reach the same conclusion. You cannot measure the distance to the Sun as Robotham and you claim.

As I told you in that post, I did myself many times. And so can any honest inquiring mind reach the same conclusion. You cannot measure the distance to the Sun as Robotham and you claim.

RE'rs regularly claim that they've observed communication satellites with the naked eye, that they are NASA astronauts, or otherwise a pilot or a surveyor for the purpose of the discussion. We have multiple Neil Armstrongs, several administrator's of NASA, rocket scientists, dozens of professional astronomers, and a large number of pilots/navigators.

RE'ers who reply and claim "I did that" are not trustworthy sources. Referencing a third party study would be far more credible.

Please submit your study for peer review.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 10:28:53 AM

As I told you in that post, I did myself many times. And so can any honest inquiring mind reach the same conclusion. You cannot measure the distance to the Sun as Robotham and you claim.

RE'rs regularly claim that they've observed communication satellites with the naked eye, are NASA astronauts, or otherwise a pilot or a surveyor for the purpose of the discussion. More NASA astronauts have probably posted to this forum than NASA claims exist.

RE noobs are not trustworthy sources.

Please submit your study for peer review.

So... you require us to measure it ourselves, then say you won't accept the results. How quaint.

I did submit that study to peer review on: July 31, 2010, 05:46:27 AM. (See the link above to the FE Wiki Review.) I've claimed the various angles involved. You've had more than a year to dispute the claim.

1.) How do you know that the recordings are consistent with a round earth? Do you have any navigator logs to show us?

It's really quite simple.  Celestial navigation is based on distant celestial objects and a round earth.  Navigators measure the elevation of the sun and plug that measurement into the appropriate equations to determine their location.  Since navigators have successfully used celestial navigation for hundreds (if not thousands) of years, the measurements must be consistent.

2.) I may have been incorrect in that example.

Since the sun is constantly moving North-South over the course of the year, any recordings of how the sun would appear in the sky at multiple places would have to all take place on all the latitude lines on a single day of the year, at the same moment in time.

You would have to have observers set up at every latitude to observe the position of the sun -- a considerable effort which I contend has never happened.

Seriously, Tom?  You have an international, on line community available at your fingertips.  It's called The Flat Earth Society.  You may have heard of it.  It's a web site where people from all over the world discuss ways of showing that the earth is flat.  How hard would it be to get members of that esteemed society measure the elevation of the sun at their local solar noon on the day of the next equinox?  I'm sure that the members of this esteemed society are so dedicated to the truth that you would be overwhelmed with support for such a simple, yet vital experiment.

This is why the sun calculators must be based on calculations and not logs -- it would take far too much manpower to prove something which "everyone knows."

No Tom, the logs are why sun calculators can be based on calculations.  Anyone can refer to one of these sun calculators and confirm its accuracy any time they chose.  In fact, many photographers that specialize in sunrise/sunset photography use (and validate) these calculators all the time.

Quote

No it's not necessary to travel anywhere, let alone 'all over the world', to disprove you. Taking one measurement from any latitude (except the 45s and the Equator) and finding that it matches the RET prediction is all one needs to disprove your contention.

Who made those measurements?

Who made your 45 degree measurement.  Who measured the 3000 mile distance to the equator that you used in your calculation?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2011, 10:25:40 AM

Quote

No it's not necessary to travel anywhere, let alone 'all over the world', to disprove you. Taking one measurement from any latitude (except the 45s and the Equator) and finding that it matches the RET prediction is all one needs to disprove your contention.

Who made those measurements?

Who made your 45 degree measurement.  Who measured the 3000 mile distance to the equator that you used in your calculation?

Excellent challenge, markjo.

Tom, will we hear crickets only now?

I didn't discuss anything about 45 degree measurements in this thread. You are referencing an example I posted years ago in a dead thread.

The example comes from a book called Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship. You will have to ask him about the source of the measurements

I used the example to demonstrate that triangles could calculate the sun to be relatively close to the surface of the earth. If one observer sees the sun at 45 degrees in the sky, and another sees the sun at 0 degrees in the sky (directly overhead) then that forms a right angle triangle with legs of equal lengths and the sun must be as far above the earth as between the two observers.

It doesn't matter if the 3000 mile distance between the observers wasn't accurately recorded, the example still demonstrates that on an FE the sun would need to be pretty close to the earth.

I didn't discuss anything about 45 degree measurements in this thread. You are referencing an example I posted years ago in a dead thread.

The example comes from a book called Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship. You will have to ask him about the source of the measurements

I used the example to demonstrate that triangles could calculate the sun to be relatively close to the surface of the earth. If one observer sees the sun at 45 degrees in the sky, and another sees the sun at 0 degrees in the sky (directly overhead) then that forms a right angle triangle with legs of equal lengths and the sun must be as far above the earth as between the two observers.

Yes you did here:

Quote from: Irushwithscvs on December 13, 2011, 09:32:51 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2011, 08:47:23 AM

The probe missions which explore the reaches solar system can't possibly occur in FET as NASA claimed, since the celestial bodies are all a few thousand miles from the earth.

Why do the planets have to be so close? They can be far away and spherical in FET as easily as they can in RET using celestial gears.

They have to be so close because if the shape of the earth changes, the distance to the celestial bodies must change as well. Astronomers use two different observations on far off points on earth to triangulate the distance of celestial bodies. When the shape of the earth changes, those calculations change as well.

If the earth is round, the celestial bodies are computed to be millions of miles distant.

If the earth is flat, the celestial bodies are triangulated to be relatively close to the earth's surface.

Here's a link which explains the idea. The first part goes over the Round Earth explanation for how the sun can be computed millions of miles distant. At the bottom there is a Flat Earth explanation for how the sun can be computed as being very close to the earth's surface. Scroll all the way to the bottom to the "alternative model" section. You will find that we can use Eratosthenes' data, in conjunction with the assumption of a Flat Earth, to confirm that in FET the sun is very near to the earth's surface.

Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth.

There is no other way to get a distance for the sun. Just looking at it from a single point on earth will not tell you its distance, you must look at it from several points and account for the curvature or non-curvature of the distance between those points.

I guess we're left with... FET can't show support their Wiki, either physically (It's offline again.) or logically (It's observably wrong.)

Oh, and Tom, YOU made the entry in the Wiki. Now you say you can't provide data to support your alleged observations? This is what you say in the Wiki:

"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."

You said the Sun appears 45 degrees. You said the distance in approximately 3,000 miles. Where's your data and its peer review? You did measure these yourself before you published it in the Wiki, right?

You said the Sun appears 45 degrees. You said the distance in approximately 3,000 miles. Where's your data and its peer review?

I thought you would be familiar with the work of Wilbur Voliva by now? How are you still a noob?

http://www.forensicgenealogy.info/images/voliva_flat_earth_article_4.jpg

I didn't discuss anything about 45 degree measurements in this thread. You are referencing an example I posted years ago in a dead thread.

No, I'm referencing an example that you put in a FE wiki article.

The example comes from a book called Zetetic Cosmogony by Thomas Winship. You will have to ask him about the source of the measurements

I used the example to demonstrate that triangles could calculate the sun to be relatively close to the surface of the earth. If one observer sees the sun at 45 degrees in the sky, and another sees the sun at 0 degrees in the sky (directly overhead) then that forms a right angle triangle with legs of equal lengths and the sun must be as far above the earth as between the two observers.

It doesn't matter if the 3000 mile distance between the observers wasn't accurately recorded, the example still demonstrates that on an FE the sun would need to be pretty close to the earth.

So why is it OK for you to take Winship's word for it about the sun's elevation and the distance to the equator when you want to demonstrate that the method works but I need to go out and make observations when I want to show that Winship's method is inherently flawed? 

Quote from: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 11:03:34 AM

You said the Sun appears 45 degrees. You said the distance in approximately 3,000 miles. Where's your data and its peer review?

I thought you would be familiar with the work of Wilbur Voliva by now? How are you still a noob?

http://www.forensicgenealogy.info/images/voliva_flat_earth_article_4.jpg

So where's Tom's data in that article? Remember Tom requires that the data be personally collected and then submitted to peer review.

And... if you wish to insult me by calling me names, like noob, please do so in RM where I can respond.

And... if you wish to insult me by calling me names, like noob, please do so in RM where I can respond.

You can respond here. Who is going to chastise you? Markjo? I don't think I can rely on much protection there. It may be 2 or 3 days before an FE mod looks at this, so fill your boots.

And Tom has described the angles he measured. That's the data. It matches previous attempts to ascertain the distance of the sun. Have you made measurements that contradict the overwhelming mountain of evidence against RET or are you just assuming again?

So why is it OK for you to take Winship's word for it about the sun's elevation and the distance to the equator when you want to demonstrate that the method works but I need to go out and make observations when I want to show that Winship's method is inherently flawed? 

You came in here and made a claim. It's your responsibility to demonstrate that claim with 3rd party logs or studies, not just say "because RET is true it must be true" or "I'm sure it's been studied before."

Picking out posts I made from years ago does nothing to demonstrate your claims, except to try and divert the topic from you being unable to demonstrate that sun calculators are based on anything except a hypothetisis.

Quote from: ClockTower on December 13, 2011, 11:30:12 AM

And... if you wish to insult me by calling me names, like noob, please do so in RM where I can respond.

You can respond here. Who is going to chastise you? Markjo? I don't think I can rely on much protection there. It may be 2 or 3 days before an FE mod looks at this, so fill your boots.

And Tom has described the angles he measured. That's the data. It matches previous attempts to ascertain the distance of the sun. Have you made measurements that contradict the overwhelming mountain of evidence against RET or are you just assuming again?

Do show me where Tom has described the angle he measured.

I already addressed your other question in this very thread:
 

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2011, 10:02:43 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 13, 2011, 09:57:55 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 13, 2011, 09:48:14 AM

Hence, if we assume that the earth is flat, triangles and trigonometry can demonstrate that the celestial bodies are fairly close to the earth.

There is no other way to get a distance for the sun. Just looking at it from a single point on earth will not tell you its distance, you must look at it from several points and account for the curvature or non-curvature of the distance between those points.

Then would you please explain why you keep ignoring the fact that when you use trigonometry to calculate the height of the sun, you keep getting different answers when you make the same observation from different latitudes?  If triangulation from different latitudes can't provide consistent results, then it's the not the right method to use.  It's just that simple.

What is the position of the sun in the sky at different latitudes? You'll have to go out and collect the data yourself, not use a sun calculator which assumes that the earth is a globe.

RE'ers keep saying that people are traveling all over the world recording the position of the sun, but I have never seen any concerted effort to record raw data like that.

You guys have posted many links to sun calculators to this site. But none of the sun calculator links claim to be basing their data on actual observations, only calculation of an RE.

Search is your friend. Reference: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=41355.0.

No it's not necessary to travel anywhere, let alone 'all over the world', to disprove you. Taking one measurement from any latitude (except the 45s and the Equator) and finding that it matches the RET prediction is all one needs to disprove your contention.

I've travelled myself as far north as Stockholm and as far south as Hawaii's big island. I've personally observe the angle of the Sun at local astronomical noon. I've used telescopes in five different states, from the UP of Michigan to the Sedona, AZ. I've aligned the scopes with various stars north and south of the Celestial Equator, confirming the angle. I can state that RET's prediction is accurate. The Sun's distance cannot be measured by the technique you claim.

I already addressed your other question in this very thread:

No you didn't. What you did was make a bunch of stuff up without any proof.

 

I've travelled myself as far north as Stockholm and as far south as Hawaii's big island. I've personally observe the angle of the Sun at local astronomical noon. I've used telescopes in five different states, from the UP of Michigan to the Sedona, AZ. I've aligned the scopes with various stars north and south of the Celestial Equator, confirming the angle. I can state that RET's prediction is accurate. The Sun's distance cannot be measured by the technique you claim.

I'm 7 feet tall, I have a Supermodel for a girlfriend, I ate a Japanese toddler for breakfast and I have $2 billion worth of gold bricks in my garage. - It is a valid as your statement. You are not a trustworthy source. You have been caught lying on numerous occasions on this forum to gain an argumentative advantage.

I am not asking for lip service. I am asking for you to present proof of your claims. Something you have historically been shy to do. Please link me to your results.