Question for flats

  • 43 Replies
  • 10031 Views
*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • +0/-0
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Question for flats
« on: October 27, 2016, 02:00:18 PM »
From our position in the solar system we can only see two other planets making a transit of the sun, Mercury and Venus. Which I suppose must prove they are nearer the sun than we are.
Transits have been used by astronomers down through the ages to work out all sorts of things, particularly using the transit of Venus, which has been used to calculate the size of the sun and the solar system as well as in refining ways of looking for exoplanets.
What do the flat earth people make of these transits and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

disputeone

  • 28122
  • +116/-118
  • Or should I?
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2016, 03:13:17 PM »
Can you please explain how this is a problem fo the FE in your opinion?





Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • +0/-0
  • DET Developer
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2016, 03:46:38 PM »
The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

disputeone

  • 28122
  • +116/-118
  • Or should I?
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2016, 04:05:17 PM »
The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...

Would that not also be an issue for DET? Forgive me I haven't done much study on it.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

?

IonSpen

  • 1209
  • +0/-0
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2016, 06:05:37 PM »
The official flat earth wiki states the sun is 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter. So in FE world Venus would have to be very tiny. That, or aether. Which requires no explanation.

*

disputeone

  • 28122
  • +116/-118
  • Or should I?
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2016, 06:24:41 PM »
The official flat earth wiki states the sun is 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter. So in FE world Venus would have to be very tiny. That, or aether. Which requires no explanation.

I've read the wiki, if the sun was actually 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter (which most flat earthers dispute), there is nothing to say that Mercury and Venus couldn't be proportionately smaller and closer to the earth hypothetically.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Crouton

  • Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
  • 17037
  • +5/-4
  • He who walks away from Omelas
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #6 on: October 27, 2016, 08:27:49 PM »
The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...

If that were true then why can't I see Uranus?

Uranus is so big that you can fit 14 Earths inside of it and it creates winds at 900 kilometers per hour.

An object like Uranus should be very visible.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

*

Sam Hill

  • 644
  • +1/-0
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #7 on: October 27, 2016, 10:17:38 PM »
...if the sun was actually 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter (which most flat earthers dispute)...
Really?  Who are these people?  How far away do they think the sun is?  Where has anybody ever disputed the near, small sun?

*

disputeone

  • 28122
  • +116/-118
  • Or should I?
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #8 on: October 27, 2016, 10:29:46 PM »
Ski doesn't think the sun is so small or close I am sure.

Also Sandokhan and Sceptimatic I think, without digging through posts.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

TotesReptilian

  • 2210
  • +0/-0
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #9 on: October 27, 2016, 11:48:30 PM »
...if the sun was actually 3000 miles high and 32 miles in diameter (which most flat earthers dispute)...
Really?  Who are these people?  How far away do they think the sun is?  Where has anybody ever disputed the near, small sun?

It's not so much that they dispute it. It's more that they avoid advocating a specific distance. Vagueness is the key to not being proven wrong. If they gave a specific distance, we would be able to test to see if the math works out, and we all know how that would end up.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • +0/-0
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #10 on: October 27, 2016, 11:49:54 PM »
The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...
Like many who visit this site gleaning what flat earthers believe or not can be rather confusing I'm just trying to clarify a few things.

Indeed the planets do pass in front of the sun, but only two do, Mercury and Venus, from our perspective, and from that we can determine relative size. The observed diameter of Venus is 115 times smaller than the Sun. I think the photograph posted by disputeone shows this quite nicely. Flat earth theory says the diameter of the sun is 32 miles. This would in turn give a diameter for Venus at around 400 meters and 180 meters for Mercury thereabouts, give or take a few meters either way.
Would these two sizes for the inner planets be in line with flat earth thought;
Venus 400 meters in diameter
Mercury 180 meters
It would be good to establish this before moving on.

« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 12:50:08 AM by Nightsky »
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

disputeone

  • 28122
  • +116/-118
  • Or should I?
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #11 on: October 27, 2016, 11:56:50 PM »
I approve of your new attitude Nightsky, a well reasoned post.

For the record the spec on the picture is Mercury.

I like that you took the time to work out the relative sizes of the planets based on the wikis sun size and distance.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • +0/-0
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #12 on: October 28, 2016, 12:07:38 AM »
I approve of your new attitude Nightsky, a well reasoned post.

For the record the spec on the picture is Mercury.

I like that you took the time to work out the relative sizes of the planets based on the wikis sun size and distance.

Well thank you. The picture showed the principle....small spec moving in front of large object, but point noted.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • +0/-0
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #13 on: October 28, 2016, 04:02:02 AM »
The... planets... pass... in... front... of... the... Sun...
Like many who visit this site gleaning what flat earthers believe or not can be rather confusing I'm just trying to clarify a few things.

Indeed the planets do pass in front of the sun, but only two do, Mercury and Venus, from our perspective, and from that we can determine relative size. The observed diameter of Venus is 115 times smaller than the Sun. I think the photograph posted by disputeone shows this quite nicely. Flat earth theory says the diameter of the sun is 32 miles. This would in turn give a diameter for Venus at around 400 meters and 180 meters for Mercury thereabouts, give or take a few meters either way.
Would these two sizes for the inner planets be in line with flat earth thought;
Venus 400 meters in diameter
Mercury 180 meters
It would be good to establish this before moving on.


Sorry I should have qualified the estimated sizes I gave for both Venus and Mercury as being, roughly the largest possible based on relative sizes during a sun transit. I assumed the maximum possible distance from the earth..... But again what would flat earthers say the sizes were ? I was not able to find this information in the flat earth wiki.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #14 on: October 28, 2016, 04:05:02 AM »
Well, the reasons for transits are obvious enough; planets passing in front of the Sun. So the key question would end up being why only Mercury and Venus pass in front of the Sun.

Under the typical model, this is obvious enough. You can place other planets to in fact be higher than the Sun, so while they might occasionally vanish behind it, they'll never be in front. The issue then, here, is the size of Mercury and Venus, as you brought up.
In that case, personally I'd take issue with the measurement you used for distance to the Sun. Yes, that figure has been used a few times over the forum, but the methodology behind it was flawed; it used Eratothenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth to calculate how far away the Sun was, which is problematic because trying the same experiment at a different time of day would give an entirely new distance to the Sun. So whatever's going on with the Sun under FET, it can't be that intuitive. As such, that figure would be unreliable.

DET's where it gets trickier, because while it has an answer to the planets, my understanding of the model is that all the planets ought to be able to pass in front of the Sun. The size and distance to the Sun are much trickier under that model, so on that part of your argument fails as it could easily be more than 32 miles across, but I can't immediately say why only Mercury and Venus pass in front of the Sun. I'll see if JRowe's said any more about it when the search function starts working again.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • +0/-0
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2016, 04:22:56 AM »
Well, the reasons for transits are obvious enough; planets passing in front of the Sun. So the key question would end up being why only Mercury and Venus pass in front of the Sun.

Under the typical model, this is obvious enough. You can place other planets to in fact be higher than the Sun, so while they might occasionally vanish behind it, they'll never be in front. The issue then, here, is the size of Mercury and Venus, as you brought up.
In that case, personally I'd take issue with the measurement you used for distance to the Sun. Yes, that figure has been used a few times over the forum, but the methodology behind it was flawed; it used Eratothenes' experiment assuming a flat Earth to calculate how far away the Sun was, which is problematic because trying the same experiment at a different time of day would give an entirely new distance to the Sun. So whatever's going on with the Sun under FET, it can't be that intuitive. As such, that figure would be unreliable.

DET's where it gets trickier, because while it has an answer to the planets, my understanding of the model is that all the planets ought to be able to pass in front of the Sun. The size and distance to the Sun are much trickier under that model, so on that part of your argument fails as it could easily be more than 32 miles across, but I can't immediately say why only Mercury and Venus pass in front of the Sun. I'll see if JRowe's said any more about it when the search function starts working again.

I made no mention of the other planets as they were not part of this discussion.
I was trying to establish some facts derived from fairly basic visual data as given by the transits of these two planets.
I was using numbers regarding the Sun's diameter and distance from the earth as given by the flat earth society and often quoted here, by Jora for example.

I was not presenting any argument so there was nothing to fall, all I was attempting to do was establish what flat earth believers, believed.

If you don't agree with 3000 miles and 32 miles could you please enlighten us.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2016, 04:31:11 AM »
I made no mention of the other planets as they were not part of this discussion.
Just extending the point. The question of why only some planets have transits was bound to come up in this thread sooner or later.

Quote
I was trying to establish some facts derived from fairly basic visual data as given by the transits of these two planets.
I was using numbers regarding the Sun's diameter and distance from the earth as given by the flat earth society and often quoted here, by Jora for example.

I was not presenting any argument so there was nothing to fall, all I was attempting to do was establish what flat earth believers, believed.

If you don't agree with 3000 miles and 32 miles could you please enlighten us.
I'm a REer, so all I can do it quote what FEers have said. Some hold to specific figures, but generally those are more hobby-FEers like jroa for whom there is a very real chance they're not exactly serious. A lot of FEers don't give such concrete figures, because there's no real way to be able to find them, especially if they believe in atypical behaviour of light. As I pointed out, the means by which the distance to the Sun is calculated doesn't really work, unless something odd is happening with light, in which case that needs to be accounted for before any distance can be calculated.

If you want to know what FEers believe, it's that a) generally there is very little consensus, most FEers have their own models, and b) it's mostly made up of rules and general descriptions, rather than intricate figures and equations, because the latter aren't really feasible to develop.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • +0/-0
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2016, 04:36:55 AM »
I made no mention of the other planets as they were not part of this discussion.
Just extending the point. The question of why only some planets have transits was bound to come up in this thread sooner or later.

Quote
I was trying to establish some facts derived from fairly basic visual data as given by the transits of these two planets.
I was using numbers regarding the Sun's diameter and distance from the earth as given by the flat earth society and often quoted here, by Jora for example.

I was not presenting any argument so there was nothing to fall, all I was attempting to do was establish what flat earth believers, believed.

If you don't agree with 3000 miles and 32 miles could you please enlighten us.
I'm a REer, so all I can do it quote what FEers have said. Some hold to specific figures, but generally those are more hobby-FEers like jroa for whom there is a very real chance they're not exactly serious. A lot of FEers don't give such concrete figures, because there's no real way to be able to find them, especially if they believe in atypical behaviour of light. As I pointed out, the means by which the distance to the Sun is calculated doesn't really work, unless something odd is happening with light, in which case that needs to be accounted for before any distance can be calculated.

If you want to know what FEers believe, it's that a) generally there is very little consensus, most FEers have their own models, and b) it's mostly made up of rules and general descriptions, rather than intricate figures and equations, because the latter aren't really feasible to develop.

So, the upshot is we are no farther on. The sun is an unknown size at an unknown distance from us in the mind of a flat earther.

Though I'm not sure I understand when you say

"most FEers have their own models, and b) it's mostly made up of rules and general descriptions, rather than intricate figures and equations, because the latter aren't really feasible to develop"

Why are they not feasible?
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
  • +1/-1
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2016, 04:41:30 AM »
So, the upshot is we are no farther on. The sun is an unknown size at an unknown distance from us in the mind of a flat earther.
You can get somewhere if you ask after mechanisms, but yeah, exact figures are hard to find.


Quote
Why are they not feasible?
How would you find them? Equations take a lot of work and a lot of expertise to develop, and with the limited networking FEers have there's not much they can do in the way of working together. Without being able to find some way to gauge the behaviour of light (how would you study the degree to which it bends etc?) there's no way to gauge a distance to the Sun...
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7273
  • +7/-41
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2016, 04:57:54 AM »
Flat earth theory says the diameter of the sun is 32 miles.

This "theory" has been debunked countless times: it is completely erroneous.

Its very derivation is fraught with numerous and catastrophic assumptions.

Do your homework on this one also: here is the Schroeter effect.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1722427#msg1722427

The Evening Star and the Morning Star are TWO different planets, and not the same.



*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • +0/-2
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #20 on: October 28, 2016, 05:04:48 AM »
So does your version of flat earth use the same size/distance of the sun as globe earth, or are you willing to throw us a different explanation?
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 7273
  • +7/-41
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #21 on: October 28, 2016, 05:11:25 AM »
Use the search function, to find out the CORRECT flat earth distance to the Sun, also the correct diameter of the Sun (within my messages, of course).


?

IonSpen

  • 1209
  • +0/-0
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #22 on: October 28, 2016, 05:42:46 AM »
Use the search function, to find out the CORRECT flat earth distance to the Sun, also the correct diameter of the Sun (within my messages, of course).
The search function does not work.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • +0/-0
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #23 on: October 28, 2016, 07:00:05 AM »
Use the search function, to find out the CORRECT flat earth distance to the Sun, also the correct diameter of the Sun (within my messages, of course).

In simple language what is a) the diameter of the sun in flat earth theory and b) what is its distance from the earth according to flat earth beliefs?

Come on you flatists.....
« Last Edit: October 28, 2016, 07:04:27 AM by Nightsky »
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

Firmament

  • 42
  • +0/-0
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #24 on: October 28, 2016, 07:27:51 AM »
Bulb is not Illuminating every inch of the Floor.



But still the light bulb is clearly visible from the floor..

why the Sun is not visible on midnight from let's say LA, as the flat earth model implies.

why not from sea level?

what is the angle of the sun relative to LA when the sun is setting?


*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30127
  • +136/-102
  • The Only Yang Scholar in Ying Universe
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #25 on: October 28, 2016, 08:04:16 AM »
Are you round?
He (somebody) is a troll homo playing role of girl.

(Look at the date)

WERERPC LEVEL2

NIGHT ENDS IN (ESTIMATED):


*

Firmament

  • 42
  • +0/-0
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #26 on: October 28, 2016, 08:19:26 AM »
Are you round?

No, global say this. I'm looking for an answer.

Re: Question for flats
« Reply #27 on: October 28, 2016, 10:46:08 AM »
What do the flat earth people make of these transits
Nothing. 

and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?
Nothing. 

What is happening UP THERE has nothing to do with the true shape of the earth DOWN HERE. 







From TheHollyWood position in the solar system, TheHollyWeirdoes can only see two (only 2???) other planets making a transit of the sun, Mercury and Venus. Which I suppose must be included in the next cartoon. 
Transits have been used by truth-tellers and liars-alike down through the ages to work out all sorts of things, particularly using the transit of Venus, which has been used to fabricate the illusion of size of the sun and the solar system as well as in refining ways of deceiving the public about fictional exoplanets.

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • +0/-0
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #28 on: October 28, 2016, 11:41:53 AM »
What do the flat earth people make of these transits
Nothing. 

and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?
Nothing. 

What is happening UP THERE has nothing to do with the true shape of the earth DOWN HERE. 







From TheHollyWood position in the solar system, TheHollyWeirdoes can only see two (only 2???) other planets making a transit of the sun, Mercury and Venus. Which I suppose must be included in the next cartoon. 
Transits have been used by truth-tellers and liars-alike down through the ages to work out all sorts of things, particularly using the transit of Venus, which has been used to fabricate the illusion of size of the sun and the solar system as well as in refining ways of deceiving the public about fictional exoplanets.


The observations of the transits was open for all to see as it was and is a natural event. The moon transits the sun as do Mercury and Venus. The transit of Mercury was witnessed this year with anyone who had a means of safely viewing the Sun, there was nothing secret about it as it was seen all over the planet.
You can call me Gwyneth
I said that
Oh for the love of- Logical formulation:
FET is wrong, unsupported by evidence, and most models are refuted on multiple fronts; those that aren't tend not to make enough predictions to be realistically falsifiable
Jane said these

*

RocksEverywhere

  • 1041
  • +0/-2
  • Literally everywhere.
Re: Question for flats
« Reply #29 on: October 28, 2016, 12:01:07 PM »
What do the flat earth people make of these transits
Nothing. 

and how do they fit with flat earth beliefs?
Nothing. 

What is happening UP THERE has nothing to do with the true shape of the earth DOWN HERE. 

<snip>
It kinda does. Generally speaking, flat earth goes along with a geocentric model whereas globe earth goes along with a heliocentric model. Trying to fit a flat earth into a heliocentric model causes big issues for the flat earth model. Even more than it already has.


PS. You're not as charming as your username suggests.
AMA: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=68045.0

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's not real.