trigonometry

  • 100 Replies
  • 15779 Views
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2017, 01:22:38 PM »
You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up?
No, we saw your pathetic excuse of a formula which was completely unjustified and still had significant variation.

Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?

Re: trigonometry
« Reply #61 on: December 28, 2017, 01:25:34 PM »
What issues? It's a trigonometric question. Either the data I gave is right, or wrong. Pick one. Then if you think it's wrong, provide right data so I can correct the problem. If it's right, choose whether you want to try the problem or not.

This is math, not philosophy.

"How many grains of sand are on this beach?"
"One million and seven!"
"No, I think your data is suspect. I think there are a lot more than that."
"Then give me the right number!"
"I can't."
"Then you are wrong and I am right!"
"I don't have to have the exact number to think your data is suspect. In fact, I said that very clearly a few minutes ago."
"If you think you are right and I am wrong, then give me the right number!"
"I don't think you're quite getting the point ..."

Also, if you think this question is solely mathematical, you're also missing the point regarding the whole framework of common belief. Specifying a point by longitude and lattitude, for example. Not everyone agrees on what that means.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2017, 03:57:08 PM »
You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up?
No, we saw your pathetic excuse of a formula which was completely unjustified and still had significant variation.

Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, Mr Silicon, we were very much awake when you literally fudged an equation to match the result that you wanted.
Please justify the theory behind your zero variation version. An equation with no physical justification is totally meaningless.

I can fully justify the method that I used, but I doubt that you can justify your fudge!

Re: trigonometry
« Reply #63 on: December 28, 2017, 05:24:03 PM »
You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up?
No, we saw your pathetic excuse of a formula which was completely unjustified and still had significant variation.

Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, Mr Silicon, we were very much awake when you literally fudged an equation to match the result that you wanted.
Please justify the theory behind your zero variation version. An equation with no physical justification is totally meaningless.

I can fully justify the method that I used, but I doubt that you can justify your fudge!

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section. 


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2017, 05:41:07 PM »
You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up?
No, we saw your pathetic excuse of a formula which was completely unjustified and still had significant variation.

Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, Mr Silicon, we were very much awake when you literally fudged an equation to match the result that you wanted.
Please justify the theory behind your zero variation version. An equation with no physical justification is totally meaningless.

I can fully justify the method that I used, but I doubt that you can justify your fudge!

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you admit that you cannot justify the theory behind your zero variation version, an equation with no physical justification that is totally meaningless.

But you need him to believe your zero variation version. An equation with no physical justification is totally meaningless.

Yes, you'll do well with the other "Flat Earth Believers", they do the same sort of fudges!

Re: trigonometry
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2017, 05:58:40 PM »
You have seen trigonometry that shows the sun to have zero variance in height on a flat earth. My thought: why do you keep bringing this up?
No, we saw your pathetic excuse of a formula which was completely unjustified and still had significant variation.

Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, Mr Silicon, we were very much awake when you literally fudged an equation to match the result that you wanted.
Please justify the theory behind your zero variation version. An equation with no physical justification is totally meaningless.

I can fully justify the method that I used, but I doubt that you can justify your fudge!

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you admit that you cannot justify the theory behind your zero variation version, an equation with no physical justification that is totally meaningless.


I never said that

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #66 on: December 28, 2017, 06:03:22 PM »
I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you admit that you cannot justify the theory behind your zero variation version, an equation with no physical justification that is totally meaningless.


I never said that
But you did not try to justify your pure fudge either!

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 927
  • Physical Comedian
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #67 on: December 28, 2017, 06:40:43 PM »
What issues? It's a trigonometric question. Either the data I gave is right, or wrong. Pick one. Then if you think it's wrong, provide right data so I can correct the problem. If it's right, choose whether you want to try the problem or not.

This is math, not philosophy.

"How many grains of sand are on this beach?"
"One million and seven!"
"No, I think your data is suspect. I think there are a lot more than that."
"Then give me the right number!"
"I can't."
"Then you are wrong and I am right!"
"I don't have to have the exact number to think your data is suspect. In fact, I said that very clearly a few minutes ago."
"If you think you are right and I am wrong, then give me the right number!"
"I don't think you're quite getting the point ..."

Also, if you think this question is solely mathematical, you're also missing the point regarding the whole framework of common belief. Specifying a point by longitude and lattitude, for example. Not everyone agrees on what that means.

If mankind had studied sand as long and as hard as man has studied the Sun and literally centuries of observation by tens of thousands of scientists had produced statistical findings as checked and rechecked as the movements of the Sun, then if the NOAA or whatever equivalent bureau of weights and measures told me there were one million and seven grains on a particular beach, I would either take their word for it or go about conducting my own repeatable, falsifiable and peer-reviewable experiment of my own.

Because that is science.

As far as latitude and longitude, how could that possible mean anything else?

Now, are you going to attempt the puzzle or not?
« Last Edit: December 28, 2017, 06:42:48 PM by EvolvedMantisShrimp »
Nullius in Verba

Re: trigonometry
« Reply #68 on: December 28, 2017, 07:54:30 PM »
If mankind had studied sand as long and as hard as man has studied the Sun and literally centuries of observation by tens of thousands of scientists had produced statistical findings as checked and rechecked as the movements of the Sun, then if the NOAA or whatever equivalent bureau of weights and measures told me there were one million and seven grains on a particular beach, I would either take their word for it or go about conducting my own repeatable, falsifiable and peer-reviewable experiment of my own.

Because that is science.

As far as latitude and longitude, how could that possible mean anything else?

Now, are you going to attempt the puzzle or not?
Still failing to understand the basic premise.

If you don't understand how it could possibly mean anything else, then you don't have the ability to understand the basic premise.

Rabinoz does.

No, I told you in my second post on this topic that my interest in this was the source of your data, not in doing a calculation. I know that's your interest in this, but it's not mine.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #69 on: December 28, 2017, 10:59:24 PM »
Still failing to understand the basic premise.

If you don't understand how it could possibly mean anything else, then you don't have the ability to understand the basic premise.

Rabinoz does.

No, I told you in my second post on this topic that my interest in this was the source of your data, not in doing a calculation. I know that's your interest in this, but it's not mine.

Off with their heads!
                   
See if they can debunk
that Ultimate Proof.

*

JackBlack

  • 18132
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #70 on: December 29, 2017, 01:18:41 PM »
Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, that would be you, as you were clearly dreaming.
Your claimed "zero variation" still had massive variation.

It was also completely unjustified.

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you are only willing to post your garbage in a section where only liars are allowed to post and where it can't get torn to shreds.
This shows you know it is pure bullshit; you have no justification and still have variation.

*

JackBlack

  • 18132
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #71 on: December 29, 2017, 01:21:20 PM »
If mankind had studied sand as long and as hard as man has studied the Sun and literally centuries of observation by tens of thousands of scientists had produced statistical findings as checked and rechecked as the movements of the Sun, then if the NOAA or whatever equivalent bureau of weights and measures told me there were one million and seven grains on a particular beach, I would either take their word for it or go about conducting my own repeatable, falsifiable and peer-reviewable experiment of my own.

Because that is science.
Similarly, if mankind has studied the shape of Earth for so long then people should take their word for it...

The problem is you are using calculations based upon a round Earth model. The FEers will reject that model.
What you need to do is appeal to how every check of this predictive framework matches reality which indicates it is reliable.


As far as latitude and longitude, how could that possible mean anything else?
The same way lots of FEers have words mean different things. They discard the meaning and make up some other crap.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 927
  • Physical Comedian
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #72 on: December 29, 2017, 01:40:19 PM »
If mankind had studied sand as long and as hard as man has studied the Sun and literally centuries of observation by tens of thousands of scientists had produced statistical findings as checked and rechecked as the movements of the Sun, then if the NOAA or whatever equivalent bureau of weights and measures told me there were one million and seven grains on a particular beach, I would either take their word for it or go about conducting my own repeatable, falsifiable and peer-reviewable experiment of my own.

Because that is science.
Similarly, if mankind has studied the shape of Earth for so long then people should take their word for it...

The problem is you are using calculations based upon a round Earth model. The FEers will reject that model.
What you need to do is appeal to how every check of this predictive framework matches reality which indicates it is reliable.


As far as latitude and longitude, how could that possible mean anything else?
The same way lots of FEers have words mean different things. They discard the meaning and make up some other crap.

What if I wasn't using calculations based on a round earth model? What if the round Earth model is a result of the calculations?
Nullius in Verba

*

JackBlack

  • 18132
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #73 on: December 29, 2017, 01:53:17 PM »
What if I wasn't using calculations based on a round earth model? What if the round Earth model is a result of the calculations?
That is part of what you need to emphasise.
That it is based upon models; but the other important part is that these models match observations.

Re: trigonometry
« Reply #74 on: December 29, 2017, 06:19:40 PM »
Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, that would be you, as you were clearly dreaming.
Your claimed "zero variation" still had massive variation.

It was also completely unjustified.

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you are only willing to post your garbage in a section where only liars are allowed to post and where it can't get torn to shreds.
This shows you know it is pure bullshit; you have no justification and still have variation.

Good grief. You don’t even understand what zero means? Zero as in 0.

Zero variation.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #75 on: December 29, 2017, 09:41:10 PM »
Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, that would be you, as you were clearly dreaming.
Your claimed "zero variation" still had massive variation.

It was also completely unjustified.

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you are only willing to post your garbage in a section where only liars are allowed to post and where it can't get torn to shreds.
This shows you know it is pure bullshit; you have no justification and still have variation.

Good grief. You don’t even understand what zero means? Zero as in 0.

Zero variation.
Sure, you effectively fudged the equations so that when the elevation = 90° - latitude the sun's height is exactly (flat earth circumference)/8.

Until you justify where your "magic equation" comes from, in my opinion it is still a totally useless exercise.

Just remember what John Davis wrote:
For those naysayers, Science Without Numbers does a great start of proving this:
Mathematics, ultimately, is a tool. It can be used to aid understanding, but it can also be used for people to elevate themselves. It is one of the many things used as status markers in today's society, where numerical literacy is treated as a way for some people to feel superior to others.
Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world. That comes from within. If you will only listen to numbers, ask yourself why.

"Mathematics is not necessary for a true understanding of the world."
I did use very simple maths, just height = distance/tan(elevation), but that can be explained as simply the way to calculate height from parallax.

On the other hand, unless you can explain in simple terms what you have done it's simply meaningless mathematical gobbledegook.

Still I've learned to take your claims with a grain of salt after this thread:
I'm curious where you think the sun is in this photo.  Last time I checked Stellarium puts it halfway under the horizon.  I took this picture when beginning FE research years ago, because it seemed impossible for the 'full' moon and the sun to both be so high above the horizon at the same time.

This picture was taken at 8/8/2014 8:03PM at 30.0799° N, 95.4172° W

It only took a few minutes to find that the 8/Aug/2014 was 2 days before the "the 'full' moon" that you claimed so the moon was right where it was supposed to be.
The there was no evidence of "the sun . . . . . so high above the horizon", just a bright cloud that could have been lit by the sun near the horizon.

I don't accuse you of intentional deceit, just ignorance, lack of attention to detail and plenty of confirmation bias.

So, front up quick smart with a justifiable and simple explanation of your magic formula.

*

JackBlack

  • 18132
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #76 on: December 29, 2017, 10:26:15 PM »
Good grief. You don’t even understand what zero means? Zero as in 0.

Zero variation.
Do you mean like this thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71649.0
Where you claimed your massive variation still somehow produced a consistent height of the sun?
And even then, your formula and your BS "corrections" are completely unjustified.

Or do you mean this pile of shit, that I will tear to shreds soon in that thread:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=72510.0 ?
If so, that isn't calculating the height of the sun above a flat Earth. That is making up some formulas to get a result out.
There isn't a single bit of justification in there at all.
However, there is round Earth math in there, such as the 40 000 km circumference for 360 degrees.
But as I said, I will do more tearing to shreds in that post.

*

JackBlack

  • 18132
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #77 on: December 29, 2017, 11:46:27 PM »
Happy silly con?
I have gone through your other thread and torn it to shreds.

You have not any trig which shows the sun to have a height of 5000 km with no variance.
You have provided numerous formulas which you are yet to justify.
And the calculation you have actually done, i.e. where you take input data and don't simply discard it) still ends up with lots of variation.

Re: trigonometry
« Reply #78 on: December 30, 2017, 09:15:46 AM »
Apparently you were asleep when I made the zero variation version.  What's your excuse now?
No, that would be you, as you were clearly dreaming.
Your claimed "zero variation" still had massive variation.

It was also completely unjustified.

I've sent a request to John asking to join the believers section.
So you are only willing to post your garbage in a section where only liars are allowed to post and where it can't get torn to shreds.
This shows you know it is pure bullshit; you have no justification and still have variation.

Good grief. You don’t even understand what zero means? Zero as in 0.

Zero variation.
Sure, you effectively fudged the equations so that when the elevation = 90° - latitude the sun's height is exactly (flat earth circumference)/8.

Until you justify where your "magic equation" comes from, in my opinion it is still a totally useless exercise.
On the other hand, unless you can explain in simple terms what you have done it's simply meaningless mathematical gobbledegook.

If I were to post any further information in regards to this it would have to be in the believers section. 

Still I've learned to take your claims with a grain of salt after this thread:
I'm curious where you think the sun is in this photo.  Last time I checked Stellarium puts it halfway under the horizon.  I took this picture when beginning FE research years ago, because it seemed impossible for the 'full' moon and the sun to both be so high above the horizon at the same time.

This picture was taken at 8/8/2014 8:03PM at 30.0799° N, 95.4172° W

It only took a few minutes to find that the 8/Aug/2014 was 2 days before the "the 'full' moon" that you claimed so the moon was right where it was supposed to be.
The there was no evidence of "the sun . . . . . so high above the horizon", just a bright cloud that could have been lit by the sun near the horizon.


I don't accuse you of intentional deceit, just ignorance, lack of attention to detail and plenty of confirmation bias.
Anyone that is not in denial, can see where the sun is in that photo.  It's not anywhere near it's suppose to be.


Re: trigonometry
« Reply #79 on: December 30, 2017, 09:25:24 AM »
Happy silly con?
I have gone through your other thread and torn it to shreds.

You have not any trig which shows the sun to have a height of 5000 km with no variance.
You have provided numerous formulas which you are yet to justify.
And the calculation you have actually done, i.e. where you take input data and don't simply discard it) still ends up with lots of variation.

You really didn't mount much of an argument.  It's almost not worth responding to, but I will for the reader's sake.  Again, I'll post more on this if the powers here grant access to the believers section.

*

JackBlack

  • 18132
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #80 on: December 30, 2017, 12:53:46 PM »
If I were to post any further information in regards to this it would have to be in the believers section.
There is only one possible reason for this (that I can think of anyway, if you think there is another, feel free to say why):
You know your further information is just more bullshit;
you know that it will be torn to shreds if you post it in FE Debate or FE General;
you know it needs to be protected from that so you can pretend it is correct.

That is the only reason that something can only be posted in the believers section, because you know it cannot withstand criticism.

Then if you do get it there, you will be like Inky, continually referring to this thread in the liars only section where it can't be refuted, to pretend you have made this wonderful argument that can't be refuted even though it will have been multiple times.


If you think otherwise, explain clearly why you can't provide it here.

Anyone that is not in denial, can see where the sun is in that photo.  It's not anywhere near it's suppose to be.
No they can't.
You have an illuminated cloud.
Some people will assume the bright patch in the cloud is the sun, but it is just as likely that the cloud is already over the horizon and lighting up the clouds from below.

As we aren't there, and exposure settings on the camera can have a serious effect, it can be hard to tell.
If you set the exposure low enough the former can look like the latter.

You have also shown yourself to lack any integrity so there is certainly reason to doubt your claims of the time and location the picture was taken.

You really didn't mount much of an argument.  It's almost not worth responding to, but I will for the reader's sake.  Again, I'll post more on this if the powers here grant access to the believers section.
i.e. you have no rational way to respond so you do whatever you can to dismiss it.

Again, there is no valid reason to not post it here, unless you know it is pure bullshit which will be torn to shreds.
If you wish to disagree, tell us why.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #81 on: December 30, 2017, 02:49:09 PM »
Anyone that is not in denial, can see where the sun is in that photo.  It's not anywhere near it's suppose to be.
Really, so where is the sun? Yes, there is a bright patch of cloud illuminated by the sun, but the sun could be at a lower elevation.
If the sun were that high in the sky it would be illuminating more of the foreground.

Where's the sun in this photo?
Why can't you face the fact that there is no physical mechanism by which a sun at a geometric elevation of around 15° can appear to sink below the horizon, as in:

Sun near setting at Weipa
         

Sunset at Weipa
         

Sun almost gone
Perspective cannot do it, the 15° is the result of perspective on the claimed 3000 mile height of the sun.
Refraction cannot do it, that is far too small and in the wrong direction - so what left? Nothing but Silicon's Magic Fudge.

I don't have to invent all these weird hypotheses to explain it away. The sun looks as though it sets behind the horizon and I believe that it really does.

That is why all the ancient flat earth models (except the short-lived Taoist Chinese one) had the sun rising from behind the horizon, from the earth or from the sea and setting similarly.

That Taoist Chinese model had an earthly plane and a celestial plane, much like the modern flat earth does.
But, that was why it was short-lived. The other Chinese, being much smarter than you, realised that it could not explain sunrises and sunsets, and discarded that model. You might read up on "the Chinese Eratosthenes" sometime.

The joke is that all these old flat-earthers could see that,
but you modern "Rowbothamian Flat Earthers" don't have the observational skills to realise that your model is ridiculous.
You just believe a quack doctor who got the sun height wrong anyway.

Re: trigonometry
« Reply #82 on: December 30, 2017, 07:44:51 PM »
(Sorry to repost this. My original attempt to include an image failed.)

It takes a special kind of person to believe this kinda malarkey. With any shadow in all of existence, except that one supposedly created by the sun, you would simply draw a line between the end of the shadow and the top of the object to locate the light source.

So where's the sun in this picture? DRAW A LINE FROM THE CLOUDS TO THE TOP OF THE MOUNTAIN TO FIND THE SUN!!  The Sun must be below the mountaintop to cast a shadow upwards. Must be a 6,000 km mountain to get above your 5,000 km Sun?



...To sustain the unsustainable belief in a globe they blow our universe up to ridiculous scales...

Says the guy who wants us to believe in the infinite Earth.
"Science is real."
--They Might Be Giants

Re: trigonometry
« Reply #83 on: December 30, 2017, 08:15:35 PM »
If I were to post any further information in regards to this it would have to be in the believers section.
Again, there is no valid reason to not post it here, unless you know it is pure bullshit which will be torn to shreds.
If you wish to disagree, tell us why.

I'm probably not as smart as many of you here so it takes a lot of time to go through this stuff and validate findings, respond to questions (many times things I never thought of or considered) test, re-test and test again to confirm what I've come up with before posting. With this particular line of discussion I can see its going to lead into many other things and become a lot of work and I'm already going to be extremely busy this coming year.

So bottom line is, if I'm going to invest lots of time and energy into FES this year, FES is going to invest in me.

Otherwise I'll just arrive here and chime in on things when I can.

*

JackBlack

  • 18132
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #84 on: December 30, 2017, 09:46:56 PM »
I'm probably not as smart as many of you here
You seem smart enough to come up with loads of convoluted BS. So I'm not sure how true that statement is.


so it takes a lot of time to go through this stuff and validate findings
Then why don't you be completely open with it and allow us to help you validate it.

With this particular line of discussion I can see its going to lead into many other things and become a lot of work and I'm already going to be extremely busy this coming year.
i.e. you can't justify any of it so will try to go off on numerous tangents?

So bottom line is, if I'm going to invest lots of time and energy into FES this year, FES is going to invest in me.
Again, there is still no reason to post it here.
Until you put in any serious effort, why would they invest in you?

Otherwise I'll just arrive here and chime in on things when I can.
And if all you are going to do is spout unjustified BS, do everyone a favour and just keep it to yourself.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #85 on: December 30, 2017, 09:51:31 PM »
If I were to post any further information in regards to this it would have to be in the believers section.
Again, there is no valid reason to not post it here, unless you know it is pure bullshit which will be torn to shreds.
If you wish to disagree, tell us why.

I'm probably not as smart as many of you here so it takes a lot of time to go through this stuff and validate findings, respond to questions (many times things I never thought of or considered) test, re-test and test again to confirm what I've come up with before posting. With this particular line of discussion I can see its going to lead into many other things and become a lot of work and I'm already going to be extremely busy this coming year.

So bottom line is, if I'm going to invest lots of time and energy into FES this year, FES is going to invest in me.

Otherwise I'll just arrive here and chime in on things when I can.
I realise that you put a lot of work into your set of calculations and came up with an apparently laudable result.

But, mathematics alone is meaningless. It is the meaning and physical principles behind the maths that is important. Einstein and all great scientists recognise that:
That is why we have been pushing you for the reasoning behind the maths. Anyone competent at maths can come up with an expression or a set of calculations to get any desired result, but that is just a meaningless exercise unless the physical reasoning behind that maths is understood.

So look for the mechanism to explain the observation, then use maths to quantify that.

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 927
  • Physical Comedian
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #86 on: December 31, 2017, 05:11:57 AM »
Oh my God! We're doomed! We're doomed!!!

I just saw the sunrise here in New York City and on a lark, decided to measure its azimuth and elevation to learn exactly how high the sun is. Using an angle of 4° in elevation(3.5 actually), an azimuth of 125° (SSE) and drawing a line to the point on Earth it is currently directly over(near Tristan Da Cunha) at about 6652 miles away. I discovered that the Sun is only 465 miles above the Earth!!!

Now I could be off by ten percent or so, but does it matter??? We're still doomed!!! TIME TO PANIC!!!
Nullius in Verba

*

Nightsky

  • 900
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #87 on: January 01, 2018, 04:15:07 AM »
Locating the Source of the Sun:


Locating any other light source in existence:



And again:


Oh dear, the man does not understand a single thing about lighting and the use of reflectors. If that’s describes your knowledge on the subject of lighting I think we can discount everything you have to say on it.
You must be joking John!
For this type of experiment you can’t use a torch! How about you use a laser instead!
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
  • Know the implications of what you believe.
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #88 on: January 01, 2018, 04:34:30 AM »
Locating the Source of the Sun:


Locating any other light source in existence:



And again:


This is a classic example of how John uses false science to draw a false conclusion, and hence fool the gullible. As a person who works with light and light sources on a daily basis when fit!. I can confirm all what John states about light is false. The light from stars (other than the Sun) arrives at Earth precisely collimated, because stars are so far away they present no detectable angular size.  Direct rays of light from the Sun arrive at the Earth uncollimated by one-half degree, this being the angular diameter of the Sun as seen from Earth. If you don’t believe me go measure it.  This continual feeding of false knowledge by John can easily, particularly in this case be readily disproved.

Here is an example of how this divergence needs to be replicated in solar cell research. Here is the abstract.

Experimentation and laboratory optical tests on solar components are central aspects of the research on renewable energies. The key element of the proposed testing systems is a solar divergence collimator, which exactly reproduces in laboratory the sunlight divergence, while commercial solar simulators are mainly aimed to replicate intensity and spectrum of the sun. Precise solar divergence reproduction is essential to correctly assess the optical properties and to simulate the operative conditions of a solar collecting device. Optical characterisation and experimentation can give information about production quality and homogeneity; moreover, specific tests can address the serial production of solar components detecting defects type and location. For Concentrating Photovoltaic systems, appropriate tests can analyze solar concentrators of various shapes, dimensions, and collection features. Typically, to characterise a solar component the most important and commonly examined quantities are collection efficiency, image plane analysis, and angle dependence.

John’s demonstration of his alarming ignorance on the properties of light should act as a warning before swallowing any of his other offerings.

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/ijp/2013/610173/

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

*

EvolvedMantisShrimp

  • 927
  • Physical Comedian
Re: trigonometry
« Reply #89 on: January 01, 2018, 05:30:32 AM »
It happened again today! I measured the azimuth and elevation of the Sun just after sunrise, found the distance to the Sun's zenith point on Earth and calculate the Sun's height. It's either recklessly low, or there is a significant flaw with the flat earth model.
Nullius in Verba