Poll

What is the correct distance from the earth to the moon  and the size of the moon ?

Flat Earth Measurements Of (Exact ?) 15 KM Distance /  600 M Diameter of the moon
Round Earth Measurements By  Ham Radio (approximately ? ) 237, 150 Miles Distance / 2,150 Mile Diameter of the moon
Some Other Measurements Such As The FE 3000 Mile  Distance / 30 Mile Diameter of the moon

Distance from the Earth to the Moon ? Ham Radio vs. Flat Earth Measurements.

  • 549 Replies
  • 99549 Views
Where does the light from the moon come from ?
The Earth.

And where does the light from the Earth come from ? From the sun ?  And if the light from the moon comes from the Earth doesn't that mean both the Earth and the moon reflect sunlight ?
The Sun is a focusing reflector of the infrared radiation coming from the Earth as a result of the UA reacting with the bottom of it.

So not visible light then?  Light in the infrared?
The video demonstrates that we can not fully trust our senses.

?

Shmeggley

  • 1909
  • Eppur si muove!
Where does the light from the moon come from ?
The Earth.

And where does the light from the Earth come from ? From the sun ?  And if the light from the moon comes from the Earth doesn't that mean both the Earth and the moon reflect sunlight ?
The Sun is a focusing reflector of the infrared radiation coming from the Earth as a result of the UA reacting with the bottom of it.

Care to explain how a "reflector" about 30 miles across, manages to take the tiny percentage of infrared coming from the Earth's surface, and converts it into a full spectrum of light that illuminates half the Earth's surface at once?

Not to mention the fact that we have, you know, actually studied the sun, can see that it's a mass of hydrogen and helium which has a measurable rotation. Not sure how that constitutes a "focusing reflector".
Giess what? I am a tin foil hat conspiracy lunatic who knows nothing... See what I'm getting at here?

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Oh I agree.  I was just explaining how the FE hypothesists measured the distance. 
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
And just like I'm waiting to see any kind of answer on this thread. :)
I think we'll all be waiting a while!
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
The trigonometric method only agrees when viewing the sun directly overhead and at 45 degrees.  At every other angle the distance does not agree.  Do the math, its all there.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.

The trigonometric method only agrees when viewing the sun directly overhead and at 45 degrees.  At every other angle the distance does not agree.  Do the math, its all there.
I have no clue what measurements you are referring to. Eratosthenes did this measurements all the way back in 240BCE.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
The trigonometric method only agrees when viewing the sun directly overhead and at 45 degrees.  At every other angle the distance does not agree.  Do the math, its all there.
I have no clue what measurements you are referring to. Eratosthenes did this measurements all the way back in 240BCE.

Exactly, and how many calculations did Eratosthenes do? One. For that one calculation that he did 920km apart, if you assume the Earth is flat, then yes, the height of the sun will be what FE'ers claim it to be, but try this same experiment from any other distance apart and then suddenly you'll get different values for the height of the FE sun.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

Exactly, and how many calculations did Eratosthenes do? One. For that one calculation that he did 920km apart, if you assume the Earth is flat, then yes, the height of the sun will be what FE'ers claim it to be, but try this same experiment from any other distance apart and then suddenly you'll get different values for the height of the FE sun.
Claiming to be more intelligent than one of the wisest men in history? Frankly, you disgust me.

I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
I love how every single time I ask this question, the FEer's completely ignore me. It's getting really funny, the more I ask it, and the more they pretend not to see it.

?

Puttah

  • 1860
Exactly, and how many calculations did Eratosthenes do? One. For that one calculation that he did 920km apart, if you assume the Earth is flat, then yes, the height of the sun will be what FE'ers claim it to be, but try this same experiment from any other distance apart and then suddenly you'll get different values for the height of the FE sun.
Claiming to be more intelligent than one of the wisest men in history? Frankly, you disgust me.

Don't put words in my mouth.

He was indeed a wise man, and he believed the Earth to be round.
Scepti, this idiocy needs to stop and it needs to stop right now. You are making a mockery of this fine forum with your poor trolling. You are a complete disgrace.

I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
I love how every single time I ask this question, the FEer's completely ignore me. It's getting really funny, the more I ask it, and the more they pretend not to see it.
You keep up bringing bendy light and people ignore you because it's ludicrous.

I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
I love how every single time I ask this question, the FEer's completely ignore me. It's getting really funny, the more I ask it, and the more they pretend not to see it.
You keep up bringing bendy light and people ignore you because it's ludicrous.
No.

I don't. I keep asking how you can explain the difference between where the sun appears in the sky, and where it should be according to your own theory. Bendy light is ridiculous, yes. So please provide me an explanation for the position of the sun that does not use bendy light.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 07:02:16 AM by Ironscotsman »

I can help you out on how the distance to the moon was taken.  They used flawed trigonometric reasoning to show that the Sun was 3000 miles from the Earth, and deduced that since the angular diameter of the sun and the moon are very close to one another, they must be the same distance away.
Please demonstrate the flawed reasoning. FE has demonstrated quite clearly using terrestrial parallax that the heavenly bodies exist exactly where they are stated to.
As shown in this thread: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.20.html#.UWQA8RyceaE flat earth theory does not at all correctly predict the angle of the sun to the horizon, nor the position of the sun relative to north and south. If flat earth theory cannot account for these differences, it is clearly incorrect. Please explain how FET accounts for this.
I love how every single time I ask this question, the FEer's completely ignore me. It's getting really funny, the more I ask it, and the more they pretend not to see it.
You keep up bringing bendy light and people ignore you because it's ludicrous.
No.

I don't. I keep asking how you can explain the difference between where the sun appears in the sky, and where it should be according to your own theory. Bendy light is ridiculous, yes. So please provide me an explanation for the position of the sun that does not use bendy light.
I know of no discrepancy. Please explain.


I know of no discrepancy. Please explain.
As I said before, it's all in this thead: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.0.html#.UWQuxRyceaE

But I'll explain my part again.

We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north. As shown:



As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 08:40:53 AM by Ironscotsman »

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Would there not be a point you could observe the sun rising that would be approximately east? I am not following you.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

Would there not be a point you could observe the sun rising that would be approximately east? I am not following you.
At the equinox, the sun lights half the earth at a time. If you map that on a flat earth map, it means the sun lights one complete semicircle at a time, half the map. That means, for someone standing at the boundary between day and night, the sun is 1 quarter of the way around the earth. As shown in my diagram above. So someone standing on the equator looking east, would actually see the sun about 45 degrees to the north.

We know that doesn't happen. At the equinox, on the equator, the sun rises directly to the east.

It is currently only a couple weeks after the spring equinox. And I am located fairly close to the equator. So I should see the sun rise about 40 degrees to the north. I don't, so FET is wrong.

Scintific Method has done the math on this in the thread I linked, and can probably explain it better than me.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 08:51:33 AM by Ironscotsman »

We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north.

As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.
It was too far away to see when it was that far north.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Muggsy-Can you provide a calculation of the sun's angular diameter at that point?
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north.

As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.
It was too far away to see when it was that far north.

No. No it wasn't. That was when it was rising. That's the whole point.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 08:54:15 AM by Ironscotsman »

We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north.

As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.
It was too far away to see when it was that far north.

No. No it wasn't. That was when it was rising. That's the whole point.
You seem to know very well that flat-earthers do not observe that the Sun rises at all.

Yes,  that is obvious. When I say rising,  I mean "becoming visible over the horizon"

When the sun does this,  it should appear far to the north of where it actually appears.

Yes,  that is obvious. When I say rising,  I mean "becoming visible over the horizon"

When the sun does this,  it should appear far to the north of where it actually appears.
That's not correct. When the Sun is directly over the Prime Meridian, it is just coming up here. At that point, it is very much east. Using your same logic, the eternal polar day would be impossible using only Round Earth Doctrine.

Yes,  that is obvious. When I say rising,  I mean "becoming visible over the horizon"

When the sun does this,  it should appear far to the north of where it actually appears.
That's not correct. When the Sun is directly over the Prime Meridian, it is just coming up here. At that point, it is very much east. Using your same logic, the eternal polar day would be impossible using only Round Earth Doctrine.
Where, for you, is "here"

If you mean the united states, then yes, the sun is in the east. But that's my point. Because east is a circle, when we look east, we don't see east. So if the sun is in the east, we should see it not in the east.

You know what, nevermind. I was enjoying this. But I'm realizing how stupid having to explain this is. I'm done.

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.

I know of no discrepancy. Please explain.
As I said before, it's all in this thead: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,58042.0.html#.UWQuxRyceaE

But I'll explain my part again.

We know that in FET, the sun circles above the earth.

We also know that the lines of latitude are circle around the north pole.

What this means is that when we look east, we're actually looking in a direction tangent to east, not actual east. What we see as east is actually south east of us. The further away what we see is, the further south it is.

So, because the sun circles above the earth, when it rises in the east it should appear to be far to the north. As shown:



As it travels west across the sky, it should appear to also travel further south until midday. After that, as it travels further west, it should appear to go north again.

But I went outside this morning with my compass and saw the sun rising approximately in the east. That alone disproves FET.

This is really, really simple: we see the sun rising in the East every day (not exactly East every day, that only happens on the equinox, but generally in the East), and towards Decemeber, we see it rising more South of East, wherever you are on earth. The big problem with FET is that, without bendy light (which has been pretty thoroughly debunked), the sun should be seen to rise consistently North of East, all through the year, and by quite a long way I might add! At the equator, it should rise 45 degrees North of East on the equinox, but it doesn't, it rises due East.

It is becoming very clear that some FE'ers belief of FET stems from a total lack of understanding of basic geometry.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."

?

Scintific Method

  • 1448
  • Trust, but verify.
My apologies for my latest contribution to the derailment Googleotomy.

As far as I can see, the only way for a moon bounce to give an incorrect result would be for the speed of light (and thus the speed of radio waves) to be a great deal lower than the well-tested and established value of 3x108ms-1. One hundred times lower, in fact. I don't really see how that could happen, given that all that lies between us and the moon is a little bit of air, and then a whole lot of nothing.
Quote from: jtelroy
...the FE'ers still found a way to deny it. Not with counter arguments. Not with proof of any kind. By simply denying it.

"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt."


My apologies for my latest contribution to the derailment Googleotomy.

As far as I can see, the only way for a moon bounce to give an incorrect result would be for the speed of light (and thus the speed of radio waves) to be a great deal lower than the well-tested and established value of 3x108ms-1. One hundred times lower, in fact. I don't really see how that could happen
, given that all that lies between us and the moon is a little bit of air, and then a whole lot of nothing.
This assumption could very well be the reason for the discrepancy.

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
The failure of the Michaelson-Morley experiment to demonstrate the inconstancy of the speed of light your vague objection devoid of value.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.