Measurement of the Astronomical Unit

Observations of the transit of Venus have allowed us to measure the distance between earth and sun as many millions of miles. This does not fit with FET. How are these observations explained?

Observations of the transit of Venus have allowed us to measure the distance between earth and sun as many millions of miles. This does not fit with FET. How are these observations explained?

There are several websites with information about this for RE but I don't think this been addressed to FET  before. For asking this.....From viewers like us. Thank You.

I have a related question for the FET.:
According to one FET source the distance from the earth to the sun is 30 miles ? If Venus makes a transit of the sun, then Venus would have to be closer to the earth than the sun ? If this is so, what is the distance from the earth to Venus according to FET ?

If I remember correctly, one AU in FE is equivalent to 3000 miles.

Little known fact the transit of Venus had a lot to do with Australian history.

 Lieutenant James Cook was the first European known to have explored the more habitable east coast. Cook had been sent to chart the transit of Venus from Tahiti, but he also charted much of the Australian and New Zealand coastlines. He reached New Zealand in October 1769, and mapped its coast. On 19 April 1770, the crew of the Endeavour sighted the east coast of Australia and ten days later landed in a bay now located in Sydney's southern suburbs.

So how far away is the sun.

If I remember correctly, one AU in FE is equivalent to 3000 miles.

Maybe so, but that doesn't fit with the geometry observed in a Venus transit.

No flat earthers yet, that's odd.  Oh wait, they do this every time a good question is posted, that's one of their trademark moves.

No flat earthers yet, that's odd.  Oh wait, they do this every time a good question is posted, that's one of their trademark moves.

Bummer you worked that out so quick. I was trying to be the least answered user here as a matter of pride.

So... after four days and 126 views, are we expected to believe that not one flat earther has read this thread?

Q1.  Assuming several have, why have they not addressed a perfectly legitimate question?

Q2.  Why do flat earth moderators demand repeatedly we're to post questions in this Q&A forum, but then resolutely ignore them?

   

So... after four days and 126 views, are we expected to believe that not one flat earther has read this thread?

Q1.  Assuming several have, why have they not addressed a perfectly legitimate question?

Q2.  Why do flat earth moderators demand repeatedly we're to post questions in this Q&A forum, but then resolutely ignore them?

   

It's obvious. They don't answer because they can't. If they could, they would. An unanswered question is the marker of a disproof of part of FET, you should rejoice.

There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

To be as unhelpful as Tom in this QA thread, get used to things like this as the two sites combine. The believers that moved there all resort to "I can't be assed to explain this to you because we already did years ago or its in the faqs"

There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

I did. This is what I found: You, Mr Bishop, failing to mount any objection to the argument other than to claim the measurements never took place. Jroa and Pongo stating "there are complex maths which explain that it works on a flat earth" but when asked, refusing to clue us in to what those maths are.
And several other threads where Guv and others attempt to get FE'ers to address this and nobody responds.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:45:06 AM

There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

I did. This is what I found: You, Mr Bishop, failing to mount any objection to the argument other than to claim the measurements never took place. Jroa and Pongo stating "there are complex maths which explain that it works on a flat earth" but when asked, refusing to clue us in to what those maths are.
And several other threads where Guv and others attempt to get FE'ers to address this and nobody responds.

It sounds like you found your answer then. There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2015, 12:59:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:45:06 AM

There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

I did. This is what I found: You, Mr Bishop, failing to mount any objection to the argument other than to claim the measurements never took place. Jroa and Pongo stating "there are complex maths which explain that it works on a flat earth" but when asked, refusing to clue us in to what those maths are.
And several other threads where Guv and others attempt to get FE'ers to address this and nobody responds.

It sounds like you found your answer then. There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Thats a bit presumptive of you isn't it?

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2015, 12:59:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:45:06 AM

There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

I did. This is what I found: You, Mr Bishop, failing to mount any objection to the argument other than to claim the measurements never took place. Jroa and Pongo stating "there are complex maths which explain that it works on a flat earth" but when asked, refusing to clue us in to what those maths are.
And several other threads where Guv and others attempt to get FE'ers to address this and nobody responds.

It sounds like you found your answer then. There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

If they actually understood it themselves, they should go ahead and explain it. Even if person who asked the question doesn't understand it, others might. It also gets you on record as having something to back up your position. The downside, of course, is if your solution is wrong, it is now subject to analysis and its flaws publicly exposed.

"I know the answer, but I can't be bothered to show it to the likes of you" is the very lame refuge of someone who either doesn't really have the answer, or thinks he does, but has no confidence it can withstand scrutiny.

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2015, 12:59:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:45:06 AM

There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

I did. This is what I found: You, Mr Bishop, failing to mount any objection to the argument other than to claim the measurements never took place. Jroa and Pongo stating "there are complex maths which explain that it works on a flat earth" but when asked, refusing to clue us in to what those maths are.
And several other threads where Guv and others attempt to get FE'ers to address this and nobody responds.

It sounds like you found your answer then. There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

If you say this is the answer, why did you previously try to claim the measurements never took place?
Who worked out the maths? Where are they?

There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Is there any particular reason you so often respond to RE's questions in such a patronising and insulting way Tom?  It seems that rather than make any attempt to address the questions, or even provide appropriate links, your preference is invariably one-line putdowns.

Am I correct in assuming that you're a moderator on these forums?  And if so, why is it that your responses usually contain no meaningful input?  Shouldn't you—of all people—be setting an example of acceptable forum netiquette, rather than simply bad-mouthing the REs?  Or are you not a true believer in the flat earth model yourself?

     

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2015, 12:59:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:45:06 AM

There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

I did. This is what I found: You, Mr Bishop, failing to mount any objection to the argument other than to claim the measurements never took place. Jroa and Pongo stating "there are complex maths which explain that it works on a flat earth" but when asked, refusing to clue us in to what those maths are.
And several other threads where Guv and others attempt to get FE'ers to address this and nobody responds.

It sounds like you found your answer then. There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

The previously undetermined Bishop Constant has now been verified to be 455.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 05:01:53 PM

Quote from: Dinosaur Neil on January 11, 2015, 12:59:47 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on January 11, 2015, 07:45:06 AM

There are almost a million and a half posts on this forum. We've discussed this in the past many times. Why don't you do a search?

I did. This is what I found: You, Mr Bishop, failing to mount any objection to the argument other than to claim the measurements never took place. Jroa and Pongo stating "there are complex maths which explain that it works on a flat earth" but when asked, refusing to clue us in to what those maths are.
And several other threads where Guv and others attempt to get FE'ers to address this and nobody responds.

It sounds like you found your answer then. There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

The previously undetermined Bishop Constant has now been verified to be 455.

Citation needed. It's supposed to be 42.

Please be mindful of low-content posts in the upper forums.

Please be mindful of low-content posts in the upper forums.

That was to Toms post here right?

It sounds like you found your answer then. There are complex maths involved, but it is above your head, and so it would be a waste of time to try and explain it to you.

Please be mindful of low-content posts in the upper forums.

Saying "citation needed" is considered a low content post?  Seriously?