I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality

  • 14 Replies
  • 890 Views
I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« on: April 14, 2017, 04:44:58 AM »
Hi everyone. Please be nice on threads I make. I am a nice guy and want everyone to get along.

There was this one thing I was wondering when I read about the sun being 3,000 miles up, and 32 miles wide. I wanted to know how that was figured out. Also, when the sun is flying around the flat earth, and is 'a spotlight', I get confued. So is the sun also flat? or is it a sphere?


Thanks and more questions to come,
John

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2017, 04:53:51 AM »
Basically, from what I can gather the values were kind if guesstimates in order to push the validity of the model, you can use basic geometry to plot the sun at the round earth distance.

However I did see someone do some sun plotting which gave the flat earth distance, however I believe shortcuts were taken and geometry not quite thought out.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2017, 04:58:41 AM »
ok thanks. are you a part of the flat earth or are you here to argue? because the signature at the bottom of your forum identity looks like you are a little mad at flat earth people

thanks and more questions soon
john

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2017, 05:04:12 AM »
I an a round earther but enjoy the pursuit for great knowledge, oh and laughing at Physical Observer and his toy boats. My signature is just a quote from Flat Earthers I see often on here and I found it quite funny as it's the argument that makes the most sense out of everything they say that's all, no anger, just a laugh.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2017, 05:08:00 AM »
okay cool thanks for explaining to me. So maybe you and I will wait for a flat earth person to come by and explain diameter of the sun measurents, and distance of sun measurments beause it is important to me to know how we know thesethings


thanks and more questions soon
john

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2017, 05:10:52 AM »
Not to be mean, but I think that's unlikely, we will most likely get baseless theories thrown at us and I'll get called stupid and everyone will accuse me of being baseless, but you never know, we can hope for some coherent reasoning that makes sense.
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2017, 05:37:59 AM »
okay guy, I understand what you are saying but the problem is is that you don't know what you are talkng about and you are not letting other people come here to talk. I want to hear what peoplpe from the flat earth society think, not what you thing. so far you've been blase about all my questions which you are not even qualified to answer.

thanks for reading and more questions soon
john

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2017, 06:34:17 AM »
Literally no one is qualified to answer your question on here, I was just giving you an idea as you can see, no one else is really saying anything and I was letting you know that you are unlikely to get much coherent ideas on here. Better asking on the Q&A board
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2017, 07:07:02 AM »
 You should also do your best to verify whether the things that they tell you are consistent with other things that they tell you. I support a spherical, sun-centered model.  One strong reason for that is that this system accounts for all different kinds of observations at the same time. Flat earth supporters tend to make one explanation for one thing and an inconsistent explanation for another thing, and then they get really mad if you point out that both of the things that they are telling you can't work together.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2017, 09:03:05 AM by Jonny B Smart »
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2017, 02:14:14 PM »
And don't be surprised if they discard any and all of their resources (the Wiki, Q+A, other posters, Earth: Not a Globe or any and all of the official party lines of the FES) whenever it's not convenient to their argument.

The (general) flat theory of the sun is that it is some kind of light source -
one that we can't measure despite its ubiquity - that casts light in a shape that is anywhere from a circle to an ovoid or even a sharp-edged hemicircle, and its dimensions are yet to be settled on, like it's height and more or less anything else about it.
How the numbers of 3000 miles up and 32 across were arrived at is on the Wiki and in the sacred text of the Zetetic Society, Earth: Not a Globe available online, though these calculations are depressingly vague and leave way more questions than answers.
http://sacred-texts.com/earth/za/index.htm
But once again, this book is burned pretty quickly when it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, much like the wiki.

Alternatively you can wade through the quagmire of the Advanced FE Theory by Sandokhan in the believers' forum but I would advise against this unless you have nothing to do for the next 3 months and have a LOT of coffee on hand.

And then there's the option of asking a Flat Earth proponent, who will also tell you to go to the Wiki, Q+A or other information repository and to stop wasting their time with questions about issues they have explained hundreds of times, to varying degrees of success.

In short, you probably won't get a straight answer and even if you do, it won't be one you can trust to be true for any significant period of time before it gets chucked out.
Good luck!
Only the ignorant choose to ignore opposing views.
Fight for your belief, don't run away.
It's the only way anyone can take you seriously.

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2017, 03:32:06 PM »
You can pull your own conclusion from the fact that this post has been here for what at least 12 hours and not a single flat earther has tried to help you and made sense of it, they know they can't and they don't want to argue it with us as we have already refuted their arguments.

Hint any post with your style of definite answer already suggesting flat earth belief very rarely stays uncommented for an hour let alone 12
"Religion is the opium of the people"
Karl Marx

“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2017, 03:55:07 PM »
Hi everyone. Please be nice on threads I make. I am a nice guy and want everyone to get along.

There was this one thing I was wondering when I read about the sun being 3,000 miles up, and 32 miles wide. I wanted to know how that was figured out. Also, when the sun is flying around the flat earth, and is 'a spotlight', I get confued. So is the sun also flat? or is it a sphere?


Thanks and more questions to come,
John

Here's how it's explained in the wiki:

Distance to the Sun

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.

From a distance of 3000 miles, the sun would have to be roughly 30 miles in diameter to be the apparent size we see.

I'll leave the question whether the sun is flat or spherical to others. There doesn't seem to be a consensus, even among the folks who prefer the model described.

Note that you would get different answers for the height of the sun at a different latitudes in the same situation. Using this technique, as you approach the equator, the height of the sun approaches the radius of the spherical earth; at either pole it would be about zero.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2017, 05:34:20 PM »
Hi everyone. Please be nice on threads I make. I am a nice guy and want everyone to get along.

There was this one thing I was wondering when I read about the sun being 3,000 miles up, and 32 miles wide. I wanted to know how that was figured out. Also, when the sun is flying around the flat earth, and is 'a spotlight', I get confued. So is the sun also flat? or is it a sphere?


Thanks and more questions to come,
John

Here's how it's explained in the wiki:

Distance to the Sun

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.

From a distance of 3000 miles, the sun would have to be roughly 30 miles in diameter to be the apparent size we see.

I'll leave the question whether the sun is flat or spherical to others. There doesn't seem to be a consensus, even among the folks who prefer the model described.

Note that you would get different answers for the height of the sun at a different latitudes in the same situation. Using this technique, as you approach the equator, the height of the sun approaches the radius of the spherical earth; at either pole it would be about zero.
;D Now I'm really confused!  ;D
Flat Earthers seem to regard the writings of Samuel Birley Rowbotham as Sacred Texts and he said in
Quote from: Samuel Bierly 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 Samuel Birley Rowbotham states quite clearly that "sun is considerably less than 700 statute miles above the earth".

So, what are we to believe? Rowbotham
or
Quote
The Sun
The sun is a sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

They are both obviously quite wrong and a number of Flat Earthers had said so, but not offered an alternative.
In other words, nobody knows, as long as is is close and not 93,000,000 miles away!




Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2017, 05:34:30 PM »
The simplest way to determine that is the equinox.
On the equinox, the sun is directly over the equator.
If you take the equator, at mid day, and a point at 45 degrees north (or south) at mid day, you can form a right angle, isosceles triangle.
This is because for the equator, the angle between that point 45 degrees north and the sun is 90 degrees, as it is straight up, and at 45 degrees north, the observed angle of elevation of the sun is 45 degrees.
As it is isosceles the 2 sides which aren't the hypotenuse need to be the same length.
As the distance between 45 degrees north and the equator is ~3000 miles (closer to 5000 km), that means the sun must be ~ 3000 km high.

The same can be done for stars, like Polaris, where you use the north pole and 45 degrees north, get the same kind of triangle and get the same height.

Where it falls to pieces is when you start using other locations as well.
For example, if you use the north pole and the equator, then one remains a right angle (the one the object is above, so the equator for the sun, the north pole for polaris), while the other is roughly 0.5 degrees (which in the RE model is due to refraction).
Now you need to use some more complex math, using tan, where tan(theta)=h/d, where theta is the angle that isn't a right angle triangle, h is the height of the object (i.e. how high it is above the observer) and d is the distance along the ground. That can be rearanged to give h=d*tan(theta)
So that now gives h=6000 miles (more accurately 10008 km)*tan(0.5 degrees) which works out to be roughly 52 miles or 87 km.
So much closer, but still over the same point.

If you use 45 degrees north and the point it isn't above (so the pole for the sun and the equator for polaris), you get a non-right angle triangle, where one angle is 0.5 degrees (at the pole or equator) and one is 135 degrees (at 45 degrees north).
However, beside that there is a right angle isosceles triangle.
What this means is that it will be above a point h (miles or km) away (so in a direction opposite the point with the 0.5 degree angle) 45 degrees north.
So now tan(theta)=h/(d+h)
(d+h)tan(theta)=h
d*tan(theta)+h*tan(theta)=h
d*tan(theta)=h-h*tan(theta)
d*tan(theta)=h*(1-tan(theta))

So h=d*tan(theta)/(1-tan(theta))
d is now 3000 miles, so this gives 26 miles or 44 km, above a location quite close to 45 degrees north.

So by using the same 3 points in different ways you get 3 different heights and 2 different locations.

When you start going into 3D it gets even worse.
Still on the equinox, The sun can be at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees, due east in one location, and 90 degrees around Earth, it is at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees due west.
This matches the 3000 miles due to the geometry, but puts it in a location off the equator, even though at the same time it is observed directly above the equator.

You can get worse, the sun can be setting due west, (for all observers along a meridian, with it being roughly 0.5 degrees angle of elevation for everyone), while half way around the world, it is rising due east. This (the due east and due west part) puts it completely off Earth. If you allow an error of 0.5 degrees, and just consider the equator, you have 2 right angle triangles, both having a line from the north pole (or axis of Earth) off to the sun, then each has a line coming from the pole to the equator (with a distance of 10000 km in the FE model, 6381 km in the RE model if I recall correctly), and the angle at the equator is 89.5 degrees, allowing it to rise slightly north of due east).
This now gives tan(89.5)=d/10000km
Thus d~1.1 million km, completely off Earth.
If you lower the margin of error to 0.1 degrees, then you have tan of 89.9 degrees, putting it 5.7 million km off Earth.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: I had a question about the 3D-ness of reality
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2017, 06:49:49 PM »
I noted this article in the New Scientist of 18 March 2017, entitled "How to manipulate the mind's eye".

In this, it claims that about 2% of people suffer from aphantasia, or the inability to "see" anything in "the mind's eye".

Does this have any connection with some people's apparent inability to visualise anything in 3D?

Just wondering?