So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?

  • 47 Replies
  • 11707 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« on: August 23, 2016, 08:22:33 PM »
I have posted essentially the same information in various forms, but no-one has ever given a reasonable
explanation as to why the sun's height is taken as about 5,000 km (a nice round number and a "bit" over 3,000 miles).
The earliest estimate for the flat earth sun's height that I know of is Rowbotham's measurement in
In this he claims
Quote from: Samuel Birley Rowbotham
If any allowance is to be made for refraction--which, no doubt, exists where the sun's rays have to pass through a medium, the atmosphere, which gradually increases in density as it approaches the earth's surface--it will considerably diminish the above-named distance of the sun; so that it is perfectly safe to affirm that the under edge of the sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth.
So we have 700 miles (a bit over 1,100 km).

But the around 1899 we get Thomas Winship, author of Zetetic Cosmogony. He provides a calculation demonstrating that the sun can be computed to be relatively close to the earth's surface if one assumes that the earth is flat:
Quote
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.
This is illustrated in this diagram from Modern Mechanics - Oct, 1931:

Voliva's Flat Earth Sun Distance.
This is also shown in the Wiki under Distance to the Sun under the section Sun's Distance - Modern Mechanics.
Whatever happened to Rowbotham's 700 miles?

But this calculates the height from only ONE location, Latitude 45°.

In would seem that we would get a more accurate result by taking measurements from a number of different latitudes and comparing the results.


So this time, I will present the sun elevations and azimuth from five locations all close to longitude 70°W.


These locations are shown on the Google Earth map on the right.


The sun azimuth and elevations have been found from: Sun Earth Tools.

If you have any doubts as the accuracy of this site, I suggest that a good test would be to check its accuracy where you live. I think if it is accurate at a lot of random locations is could be relied on for these locations.


   

Locations for Sun Height Calculations

The following table gives the data for each location. All sun elevation was obtained from Sun Earth Tools as close as possible to the local midday on the last equinox. The time was UTC 20/Mar/2016  16:48.


Location   

Latitude   

Longitude   

Sun Elev   
Dist from   
Vaupes   

Flat Sun Ht   
Lat Diff from   
Vaupes   
Calc
Circum
Kimmirut, Canada   
62.847°   
-69.869°   
27.36°   
7,034 km   
3,609 km   
63.58°   
39,828 km
Santo Domingo   
18.486°   
-69.931°   
71.72°   
2,107 km   
6,077 km   
19.22°   
39,465 km
Vaupes, Colombia   
-0.565°   
-69.634°   
89.06°   
0 km   
------   
   
   
Chupa District, Peru   
-15.109°   
-69.998°   
74.69°   
1,610 km   
6,256 km   
14.37°   
40,334 km
Punta Arenas, Chile   
-53.164°   
-70.917°   
36.63°   
5,830 km   
4,388 km   
52.43°   
40,031 km

These locations and the directions to the sun on a flat earth are shown in the left hand  diagram below:
Once we have the angles from two sites the height of the sun can be calculated from: h = d/(1/tan(A1) + 1/tan(A2)).


Sun Height on Flat Earth along 70°W Long
   

Sun Height on Globe Earth along 70°W Long

Using this method to find the height of the sun on the Flat earth gives measurements from 3609 km (for Kimmirut and Vaupes) to 6256 km (for Chupa District to Vaupes) depending on the spacing of the measurement sites.

In other words, claiming that the Flat Earth sun is at about 5,000 km altitude has no foundation whatever.

It is very telling when we note that when we plot these angles on a spherical earth the directions to the sun are all parallel.
Explain that!

Now, if instead of using these measurements to determine the Flat Earth sun height, we use them as Eratosthenes did, assuming a distant sun and use this data to calculate the circumference of the earth.

The circumference can be calculated from (distance from Vaupes) * 360°/(angle difference of sun from Vaupes)

This time, we get far better consistency.
              The estimated figures for the circumference of the earth range from 39,465 km to 40,334 km.

Certainly these figures would indicate that the earth is a globe with a distant sun.

So would some kind Flat Earthers explain just what I have done wrong - if anything?

« Last Edit: May 18, 2018, 10:04:13 PM by rabinoz »

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2016, 09:47:44 PM »
Can you confirm at equinox the sun rises exactly East at the same time along a line of longitude?   I had not appreciated that was the case.   Makes the flat earth model to be even more completely insane than I had realised if so.       From your colour picture I am supposing that must be the case but sometimes I can be a bit thick on these things.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2016, 10:50:24 PM »
Can you confirm at equinox the sun rises exactly East at the same time along a line of longitude?   I had not appreciated that was the case.   Makes the flat earth model to be even more completely insane than I had realised if so.       From your colour picture I am supposing that must be the case but sometimes I can be a bit thick on these things.
If we measured sunrise from the centre of the sun, and there was no air, at (exactly) the equinox the sun would rise due East and at exactly the same time at all locations on the same longitude.
But!
That is not exact, only almost due East and almost the same time at the equinox for all locations on the same latitude.

The "almost" is because of two effects. Sunrise is defined as when the first edge of the sun is seen, not its centre and a small amount of refraction (averaging about 0.6°) let's use see the sun a few minutes earlier.

The variations in the angle of the rising of the sun (from vertical at the equator to horizontal at the poles) translate slightly differing sunrise times and directions. Until you near either pole the difference in only a few minutes or degrees.

Within a degree or so of both poles the sun does not set at all within a day or so of either equinox.

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2016, 11:43:47 PM »
Can you confirm at equinox the sun rises exactly East at the same time along a line of longitude?   I had not appreciated that was the case.   Makes the flat earth model to be even more completely insane than I had realised if so.       From your colour picture I am supposing that must be the case but sometimes I can be a bit thick on these things.
If we measured sunrise from the centre of the sun, and there was no air, at (exactly) the equinox the sun would rise due East and at exactly the same time at all locations on the same longitude.
But!
That is not exact, only almost due East and almost the same time at the equinox for all locations on the same latitude.

The "almost" is because of two effects. Sunrise is defined as when the first edge of the sun is seen, not its centre and a small amount of refraction (averaging about 0.6°) let's use see the sun a few minutes earlier.

The variations in the angle of the rising of the sun (from vertical at the equator to horizontal at the poles) translate slightly differing sunrise times and directions. Until you near either pole the difference in only a few minutes or degrees.

Within a degree or so of both poles the sun does not set at all within a day or so of either equinox.

Right, so as a good approximation we can say the sun rises at equinox almost exactly East and rises everywhere on Earth on that line of longitude from pole to pole at approximately the same time in an unusual and historically important event for humans in the solar calendar, that happens twice every year and on these same days the Sun sets everywhere along another line of latitude at almost exactly West pole to pole ie this is happening across the entire width of the Earth at approximately the  same time for both Sunrise and for Sunset.   What is more on this day the Sun is seen to travel from Sunrise to Sunset, along the equator (which by definition is the path of the Sun only at Equinox) in a straight line, Sunrise to Sunset, all day long!

Equinox!   It is mind blowing.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2016, 11:53:40 PM by Aliveandkicking »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #4 on: August 24, 2016, 12:26:54 AM »
Right, so as a good approximation we can say the sun rises at equinox almost exactly East and rises everywhere on Earth on that line of longitude from pole to pole at approximately the same time in an unusual and historically important event for humans in the solar calendar, that happens twice every year and on these same days the Sun sets everywhere along another line of latitude at almost exactly West pole to pole ie this is happening across the entire width of the Earth at approximately the  same time for both Sunrise and for Sunset.   What is more on this day the Sun is seen to travel from Sunrise to Sunset, along the equator (which by definition is the path of the Sun only at Equinox) in a straight line, Sunrise to Sunset, all day long!

Equinox!   It is mind blowing.
Yes, it is! And the only response I has seen from Flat Earthers (on TFS.org, not here) is to ask

::) "Have I personally tested this out everywhere on earth?"  ::)

Albert Einstein once said, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first!"

Still, if someone is so paranoid that they think that everybody is out to fool them, what else would you expect?

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #5 on: August 24, 2016, 09:42:11 AM »
Right, so as a good approximation we can say the sun rises at equinox almost exactly East and rises everywhere on Earth on that line of longitude from pole to pole at approximately the same time in an unusual and historically important event for humans in the solar calendar, that happens twice every year and on these same days the Sun sets everywhere along another line of latitude at almost exactly West pole to pole ie this is happening across the entire width of the Earth at approximately the  same time for both Sunrise and for Sunset.   What is more on this day the Sun is seen to travel from Sunrise to Sunset, along the equator (which by definition is the path of the Sun only at Equinox) in a straight line, Sunrise to Sunset, all day long!

Equinox!   It is mind blowing.

That's a good summation of the equinox phenomenon, I may steal that.

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #6 on: November 15, 2016, 10:37:37 AM »
I had to revive this thread as no FE'er has given a reasonable response to it yet, either on the height of the sun or it's sunrise and sunset directions. I would love to know how they explain that at the two equinoxes the sun rises virtually due east and sets virtually due west for all places on earth. I know that for them, there is no proper east and west, since both of them are on a circular path so that east (or west) changes direction with every kilometer travelled, but the fact that the observed sunrise/sunset directions are due east/west is one of the top reasons why a flat earth model will never work! Come on, give us your best answers or admit defeat.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #7 on: November 15, 2016, 10:44:19 AM »
So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
No. Next.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Candlejack

  • 142
  • Econ graduate and a MAP
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #8 on: November 15, 2016, 10:59:45 AM »
So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
No. Next.
Exactly, it's 150,000,000 km away!

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #9 on: November 15, 2016, 11:00:06 AM »
This is your flaw. It is the flaw of all round earthers.
You are not analysing flat earth theory. You are analyzing round earth theory. You have taken a disc earth, moved it into the model you're most familiar with, and then complained it doesn't work.
Start from scratch. Start from the basics. Learn flat earth theory from the ground up. When, after all that, you have objections, then voice them. If you're too lazy to do that, then don't complain that your understanding is incomplete.

Your way of thinking would have us believe the universe is complete. I'll use round earth beliefs to show this to you. You believe that the universe is based on a handful of mathematical constants. There are three that govern whether stars can form, if you shift one by just 0.01 then stars don't form and life as we know it cannot exist. Surely that makes us so incredibly unlikely?
But it doesn't, because one constant being just 0.01 different is itself unlikely. If you altered the constants, what would instead happen is that all of them would vary, by different amounts. If you vary all of them, objects that can fill the role of a star exist 50% of the time.
Where a small change fails, a big change would not.

You need to stop looking at flat earth theory as just round earth theory but flat. The world is different. The model you know is wrong, in so many ways. In dual earth theory, space is not as you think, the stars are not as you think, the sun and equator are not as you think. The movement of light will be different. There are more changes than you are taking into account.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

Candlejack

  • 142
  • Econ graduate and a MAP
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2016, 11:12:22 AM »
This is your flaw. It is the flaw of all round earthers.
You are not analysing flat earth theory. You are analyzing round earth theory. You have taken a disc earth, moved it into the model you're most familiar with, and then complained it doesn't work.
Start from scratch. Start from the basics. Learn flat earth theory from the ground up. When, after all that, you have objections, then voice them. If you're too lazy to do that, then don't complain that your understanding is incomplete.

Your way of thinking would have us believe the universe is complete. I'll use round earth beliefs to show this to you. You believe that the universe is based on a handful of mathematical constants. There are three that govern whether stars can form, if you shift one by just 0.01 then stars don't form and life as we know it cannot exist. Surely that makes us so incredibly unlikely?
But it doesn't, because one constant being just 0.01 different is itself unlikely. If you altered the constants, what would instead happen is that all of them would vary, by different amounts. If you vary all of them, objects that can fill the role of a star exist 50% of the time.
Where a small change fails, a big change would not.

You need to stop looking at flat earth theory as just round earth theory but flat. The world is different. The model you know is wrong, in so many ways. In dual earth theory, space is not as you think, the stars are not as you think, the sun and equator are not as you think. The movement of light will be different. There are more changes than you are taking into account.
I'm not new to FE forums. I'm just revisiting them after a long break.
2 questions for ya:
1. Why do you think that the Earth is a disc, and not a rectangle for example? Why is it exactly this shape?
2. All planets we know are spherical. Why should Earth be a special one and be flat? A disc is impossible to form because of gravity (for gravity, read the next question).
3. Why do you think that gravity doesn't exist? I mean, it's pretty much just a vague term for a force that makes every body interact with each other. That's it. I don't see why could you deny its existence, we can observe it.

Also - if a constant was 0,01 different, or even 0,1 different, it wouldn't matter. What wouldn't work in our universe would work in others.
By the way - constants don't change. That's why they are, duh, constants.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2016, 12:03:10 PM »
The speed of light is a constant that changes. 

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2016, 12:19:25 PM »
This is your flaw. It is the flaw of all round earthers.
You are not analysing flat earth theory. You are analyzing round earth theory. You have taken a disc earth, moved it into the model you're most familiar with, and then complained it doesn't work.
Start from scratch. Start from the basics. Learn flat earth theory from the ground up. When, after all that, you have objections, then voice them. If you're too lazy to do that, then don't complain that your understanding is incomplete.

You need to stop looking at flat earth theory as just round earth theory but flat. The world is different. The model you know is wrong, in so many ways. In dual earth theory, space is not as you think, the stars are not as you think, the sun and equator are not as you think. The movement of light will be different. There are more changes than you are taking into account.

I have looked at FE theory and the models and I am not new to all this. The whole problem with FE these days is that all that seems to happen is the same old attacks on the non-observable curvature, NASA,  impossible perspectives, Antarctica, flight paths, etc. all of which have been debunked over and over again (OK, some of the NASA footage was probably from training runs in tanks and most photos are Photoshopped to make them look better, but almost all photos are enhanced by photographers these days). It is time that FE'ers that truly are believers got together and tried to put together a model that works, even though I know that that will be impossible. If you can't produce a working model then how can you expect rounders to take you seriously? Global model works for everything, down to measuring the sun, moon and planet distances at any particular time to meters, FE can't even give a map of Terra Firma! Global model predicts eclipses and planetary alignments exactly, FE'ers follow these predictions but cannot explain them at all. Satellites give the earth terabytes of data daily for weather, climate changes, communications, GPS, etc all used by FE'ers, but then they deny the existence of said satellites! Multiple daily pictures of earth from DSCOVR satellite are provided, yet FE'ers say all they have ever seen is Blue Marble one and two.
OK, enough for now, but go ahead, produce your true model, then we can talk!

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2016, 12:25:03 PM »
The speed of light is a constant that changes.

... but not in a vacuum, only when travelling through different mediums!
 
And yet it always takes over 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun, which is how high above the flat earth? Oops, that is the main question of this post that just eludes a definitive FE answer!

*

Candlejack

  • 142
  • Econ graduate and a MAP
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2016, 12:26:09 PM »
The speed of light is a constant that changes.
"a constant that changes"
Nice one, Jroa, really got me, haha!

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #15 on: November 15, 2016, 12:32:56 PM »
This is your flaw. It is the flaw of all round earthers.
You are not analysing flat earth theory. You are analyzing round earth theory. You have taken a disc earth, moved it into the model you're most familiar with, and then complained it doesn't work.

I agree with JRowe, on this part.  More specifically Rab, how did you calculate the distances used in your math for FE? Did you use distances from Google earth?  Is Google earth a globe? A globe with curvature?  Would a globe have a different distance than a flat surface?  If so how can you use the distances between these points as an accurate measure to prove the height of the sun on a flat earth without first taking out curvature?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #16 on: November 15, 2016, 05:55:32 PM »
This is your flaw. It is the flaw of all round earthers.
You are not analysing flat earth theory. You are analyzing round earth theory. You have taken a disc earth, moved it into the model you're most familiar with, and then complained it doesn't work.

I agree with JRowe, on this part.  More specifically Rab, how did you calculate the distances used in your math for FE? Did you use distances from Google earth?  Is Google earth a globe? A globe with curvature?  Would a globe have a different distance than a flat surface?  If so how can you use the distances between these points as an accurate measure to prove the height of the sun on a flat earth without first taking out curvature?
How can you "take out curvature"?
The distances are the distances on the surface of the earth and the distances for those latitudes agree with the section in "the Wiki" on "Finding your Latitude and Longitude".

So there is no flaw.

Have you so soon forgotten? In a post in answer to you, I considered that very question.
Look at this post Re: Does ANYONE have ANY evidence that we live on a spinning ball? « Reply #47 on: August 26, 2016, 05:24:04 AM » where I answer that very question.

In that, I use the sun elevation angles and distances from TheFlat Earth Society's own Wiki.

And do you know what? The results are essentially the same, just far more uniform, because it avoids any measurement errors associated with using Google Earth for distances and sun elevations from Sun Earth Tools.

The elevation angles and distances are those we observe on the real earth, whatever shape that is.
To avoid any question over distances I used towns along the same meridian of longitude, 70˚ West.

Now, if you have different figures for the distances between those locations and the equator, please let me know.
Just remember that the distances from Google Earth (which I gave in km) and those calculate from "the Wiki" (I gave these in miles, because what "the Wiki" used).
« Last Edit: March 03, 2017, 03:18:29 AM by rabinoz »

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #17 on: November 15, 2016, 10:00:00 PM »
I expect this post will fade away again now, since whenever there is no counter argument from the FE"ers they use the following tactics: Deflect the argument back at the round earth model, try to argue about the data being incorrect or not measurable, come up with fancy refraction, diffraction, reflection nonsense, and then ignore the problem and hope it will go away. The problems will never just go away, you have to produce a flat earth model that allows for observable objects like the sun and moon, otherwise you have failed. Simple as that.
So, height of sun and moon and explanation of due east to due west sun motion on the equinoxes is all this post requires. I await the silence!

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #18 on: November 15, 2016, 11:04:35 PM »
I expect this post will fade away again now, since whenever there is no counter argument from the FE"ers they use the following tactics: Deflect the argument back at the round earth model, try to argue about the data being incorrect or not measurable, come up with fancy refraction, diffraction, reflection nonsense, and then ignore the problem and hope it will go away. The problems will never just go away, you have to produce a flat earth model that allows for observable objects like the sun and moon, otherwise you have failed. Simple as that.
So, height of sun and moon and explanation of due east to due west sun motion on the equinoxes is all this post requires. I await the silence!

Why don't you take your meds first then head on over to this thread, for your answer.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67749.0

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #19 on: November 16, 2016, 12:53:02 AM »
I expect this post will fade away again now, since whenever there is no counter argument from the FE"ers they use the following tactics: Deflect the argument back at the round earth model, try to argue about the data being incorrect or not measurable, come up with fancy refraction, diffraction, reflection nonsense, and then ignore the problem and hope it will go away. The problems will never just go away, you have to produce a flat earth model that allows for observable objects like the sun and moon, otherwise you have failed. Simple as that.
So, height of sun and moon and explanation of due east to due west sun motion on the equinoxes is all this post requires. I await the silence!

Why don't you take your meds first then head on over to this thread, for your answer.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67749.0
What an inane response! You have no answer, so you try to divert attention. Just face it, the distances and sun elevations I gave were correct.
They agree with "the Flat Earth Wiki" and with the "Globe Earth apps" and even if you changed the miles to nautical miles, it would just scale the distances, but the conclusion would be the same.

So discuss the topic, or go and resurrect your old topic and see what reception it gets!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #20 on: November 16, 2016, 01:07:39 AM »
The speed of light is a constant that changes.
Really?
Quote
The meter is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.
From International System of Units (SI), Historical context of the SI

In other words, the speed of light "cannot change", is always exactly  299,792,458 m/s.

Of course all that really means that it has been decided that the speed of light and the definition of the second were more stable than the previous definition of the metre - the distance between a couple of marks on a metal bar.

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #21 on: November 16, 2016, 01:32:24 AM »

Why don't you take your meds first then head on over to this thread, for your answer.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67749.0

What a waste of time that detour was. No answers again, but just devious sidetracking. I can see why you chose the name Silly Con. Most other con artists would come up with something that does not point to their deception.

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #22 on: November 16, 2016, 02:25:18 AM »
So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
No. Next.

Hmm... then how far is it from the surface of Earth?
):

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #23 on: November 16, 2016, 06:32:18 AM »
The sun is inside the Earth. What you see is the reflection in the sky.
There's no physical distances.

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #24 on: November 16, 2016, 07:27:04 AM »
This is your flaw. It is the flaw of all round earthers.
You are not analysing flat earth theory. You are analyzing round earth theory. You have taken a disc earth, moved it into the model you're most familiar with, and then complained it doesn't work.
Start from scratch. Start from the basics. Learn flat earth theory from the ground up.

Bravo! :D

Quote
When, after all that, you have objections, then voice them. If you're too lazy to do that, then don't complain that your understanding is incomplete.

My objection is, FE theory doesn't consistently explain observable phenomena: globe Earth theory does.

Quote
Your way of thinking would have us believe the universe is complete.

The Universe IS complete. Human understanding of the Universe is incomplete.

Quote
I'll use round earth beliefs to show this to you. You believe that the universe is based on a handful of mathematical constants. There are three that govern whether stars can form, if you shift one by just 0.01 then stars don't form and life as we know it cannot exist. Surely that makes us so incredibly unlikely?
But it doesn't, because one constant being just 0.01 different is itself unlikely. If you altered the constants, what would instead happen is that all of them would vary, by different amounts. If you vary all of them, objects that can fill the role of a star exist 50% of the time.
Where a small change fails, a big change would not.

Has nothing to do with FE vs RE/GE theory!

Quote
You need to stop looking at flat earth theory as just round earth theory but flat. The world is different. The model you know is wrong, in so many ways. In dual earth theory, space is not as you think, the stars are not as you think, the sun and equator are not as you think. The movement of light will be different. There are more changes than you are taking into account.

What you're effectively saying is, observable phenomena are wrong, and must be fudged, manipulated and shovelled into the FE theory, just because. That's not the way science works. Experimental science observes, and attempts to explain the observation by theory. The theory can then be used to predict behaviour. If the predictions fail, the theory is revised. This is an ongoing process. RE/GE theory fits all the observed data, and accurately predicts behaviour. FE theory can do no such thing: it can't even produce a map that works! How does GPS work according to FE theory? It's all a massive conspiracy which works because us mere sheeplets are kept in the dark, they don't use satellites they use ground-based radio, yada-yada.

As a race, we've been through all this centuries ago. We realised that the observable phenomena were not explained by FE, but were explained by RE/GE. Of course, the ancient Greeks were in on the conspiracy too (cheeky beggars started it). RE/GE explains all observations to do with the nature of the Earth under discussion, and are internally consistent: that simply cannot be said of FE theory.
I made up some completely random sh!te on the Flat Earth Society forum and now I feel completely and utterly EPIC!!!

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #25 on: November 16, 2016, 07:42:50 AM »
There'sre no physical distances.
Of cause, as you can't explain distances in your model, distance doesn't exist.

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #26 on: November 16, 2016, 08:29:53 AM »
The sun is inside the Earth. What you see is the reflection in the sky.
There's no physical distances.
Inside the earth, huh? How exactly is the sunlight being allowed to radiate out? Some huge gap circling the equator that hasn't been discovered yet?
But then you have the difficulty of explaining the solar eclipse, you know, when the moon passes in front of the sun, and causes darkness?

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #27 on: November 16, 2016, 09:02:59 AM »

Why don't you take your meds first then head on over to this thread, for your answer.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67749.0

What a waste of time that detour was. No answers again, but just devious sidetracking. I can see why you chose the name Silly Con. Most other con artists would come up with something that does not point to their deception.


If you took a basic chemistry class you would know silicon is a chemical element. It appears thinking is difficult for you.  Perhaps you should just stick to repeating what you're told?

How do you guys like my jroa impression?

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #28 on: November 16, 2016, 05:13:44 PM »
What a waste of time that detour was. No answers again, but just devious sidetracking. I can see why you chose the name Silly Con. Most other con artists would come up with something that does not point to their deception.

If you took a basic chemistry class you would know silicon is a chemical element. It appears thinking is difficult for you.  Perhaps you should just stick to repeating what you're told?

How do you guys like my jroa impression?

Good try, nearly down to his level, jroa is always complaining that i have no "sense of humour" and your "jroa impression" is showing just that.

I do suspect that southern hemispherer has taken "basic chemistry class" and knows full well that "silicon is a chemical element" and
would also know that Silicon is very brittle, so completely incapable of taking on a "new shape" unless subject to extreme heat!

I suspect even the real Silicon (not the jroa impersonation, that AI has no humour module) knows that southern hemispherer is taking a dig a your Silly Con!

Re: So you think the sun is about 5,000 km high?
« Reply #29 on: November 16, 2016, 05:25:38 PM »
Whatever, his lame comment deserved a bashing jroa style   ;D

BTW where is Papa Legba.  I miss that guy.