FE distance to Sun (or Moon)

  • 30 Replies
  • 720 Views
FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« on: March 22, 2020, 06:14:36 AM »
FE theory asserts that the distance of the Sun is 3000 miles (above the flat Earth surface).

This it is said can be accounted for by the fact that on 21st March the Sun is directly overhead as seen from the equator and at 45 deg altitude as seen from either 45 deg N or S latitude. A point which is at 45N or S latitude is 3141 miles from the equator. I agree with this so far.

The FE assertion is that the Earths surface is flat so you have a 45/45/90 degree triangle with a 6000 mile base from 45N to 45S and a height of 3000 miles which 'proves' the Sun (and Moon) is 3000 miles above the surface.

However if we say that the Earth is not flat but spherical with a total circumference of 25,132 miles (based on 8000 miles diameter) then the 45N and 45S latitude lines are also 3141 miles away from the equator. 3141 miles represents 1/8th of the total circumference.  On 21st March with the Sun directly overhead at the equator (true), it will also have an elevation of 45 degrees as seen from 45N or 45S and be sitting on the horizon as seen from the N or S poles.

So the FE version of the Suns distance cannot be used as evidence that the Earth is flat.  It is simply a play on the figures and some use of trigonometry that is based on a wrong assumption to suit flat Earth belief.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2020, 08:00:47 AM by Solarwind »

*

FlatAssembler

  • 188
  • Not a FE-er
Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #1 on: March 22, 2020, 08:22:00 AM »
They usually respond with claiming that stars, and other stuff up in the sky, don't obey the normal laws of perspective, that the refraction makes them appear at a lower angle than they should be or appear to set below us. They have wiki-pages called, among other, "Constant speed of the Sun" where they explain those things. This is an obvious ad-hoc hypothesis, though, it's not based on evidence and it appears to contradict basic optics (that refraction works by creating real or virtual images of things, and that it doesn't make things appear to be at different locations depending on which angle you are looking from). But Flat-Earther's beliefs are not constrained by logic, yet alone by science.
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #2 on: March 22, 2020, 02:52:13 PM »
The main problem with the figures that FE produce is not just that they are a bit different the mainstream figures.  They are wildy different.  Distance to Sun for instance. FE figure: 3000 miles. RE figure: 92,960,000 miles.

Given that you could fit 1 million Earths inside the Sun, which distance value would you go for?

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #3 on: March 22, 2020, 03:36:11 PM »
The main problem with the figures that FE produce is not just that they are a bit different the mainstream figures.  They are wildy different.  Distance to Sun for instance. FE figure: 3000 miles. RE figure: 92,960,000 miles.

Given that you could fit 1 million Earths inside the Sun, which distance value would you go for?
And not only that but flat-Earthers refuse to repeat the same measurement from different locations.
Even the Eratosthenes locations give about 3936 miles not 3000 miles.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #4 on: March 22, 2020, 04:11:40 PM »
I don't think FE do scrutiny very well - if at all.  They just make claims that are based on their beliefs and that is enough to them. I have asked for explanations about how they arrive at the figures they quote several times but I never get anything back.  Their 3000 mile claim for the distance of the Sun is based on their assertion that the Earth is flat.

If that was true then the figure would be about right but we know it isn't and the real figure for the distance of the Sun shows that.  The real figure has been measured and re-measured in various ways and that is why we can be confident that it is correct. We also know how big the Sun really is and that in itself blows any notion of the FE figure into oblivion.

They are only too quick and willing to question, dismiss and demand proof of anything that RE put forward yet they cannot or will not answer questions about anything to do with their own theory.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2020, 03:30:27 PM »
Remember itís not just the distance thatís the problem itís the size and physics of how the sun actually works and thatís just for starters. Those FE believers have put themselves into a corner as they have no way of explaining how our sun works or any other star for that matter. It also makes a joke of the whole of astronomy. The implications of their small sun idea are enormous. The person that came up with it was obviously not thinking about the implications.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #6 on: March 24, 2020, 04:55:23 PM »
FE believers are not really interested in how or why anything really happens.

There is simply an acceptance on their part that the Earth is flat and they then build a universe around the Earth which fits in with that base assertion. It doesn't matter to them how the Sun produces its energy or how far away the stars really are. If having a flat Earth necessitates that the Sun is just 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter then that should be accepted as true without further question. Anything which seems to violate their beliefs is a deliberate attempt to deceive them and therefore completely false.

You could almost regard the whole of flat Earth belief as being like a cult. They don't want to believe anything that lies outside of their own narrow mindset. You either believe or you don't believe and those who fall under the latter are cast out as liars because they don't conform. Fair enough.

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #7 on: March 24, 2020, 05:16:51 PM »
FE believers are not really interested in how or why anything really happens.

There is simply an acceptance on their part that the Earth is flat and they then build a universe around the Earth which fits in with that base assertion. It doesn't matter to them how the Sun produces its energy or how far away the stars really are. If having a flat Earth necessitates that the Sun is just 3000 miles away and 32 miles in diameter then that should be accepted as true without further question. Anything which seems to violate their beliefs is a deliberate attempt to deceive them and therefore completely false.

You could almost regard the whole of flat Earth belief as being like a cult. They don't want to believe anything that lies outside of their own narrow mindset. You either believe or you don't believe and those who fall under the latter are cast out as liars because they don't conform. Fair enough.
This seems very cultist to me.
Quote from: The Flat Earth Society Wiki
Place of the Conspiracy in FET
. . . . . . . . Flat Earthers start with the knowledge that the earth is flat, as they believe that all the evidence which they are personally able to collect and verify confirms this fact. As a consequence, all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false. The existence of such a huge quantity of false information indicates the existence of the conspiracy.

Essentially the reasoning boils down to -

P1) If personally unverifiable evidence contradicts an obvious truth then the evidence is fabricated
P2) The FET (Flat Earth Theory) is an obvious truth
P3) There is personally unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET
C1) The unverifiable evidence that contradicts the FET is fabricated evidence
P4) If there is large amounts of fabricated evidence then there must be a conspiracy to fabricate it
P5) There is a large amount of fabricated evidence (see C1)
C2) There must be a conspiracy to fabricate it.

Note carefully the assumptions involved: "Flat Earthers starts with the knowledge that the earth is flat. . . . . .  As a consequence, all the evidence to the contrary, much of which they are unable to personally test/verify is viewed as being false."

Do you wonder why flat Earthers refuse to do any experiments that might prove their cult's doctrine wrong?

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #8 on: March 25, 2020, 01:17:30 AM »
Which begs the question how can you start anything with knowledge?  Knowledge is the product of learning, and hence the consequence of investigation and research.

FET seems to be based around their belief that what you see must be true.  Such as the claim that is so often made that the Earth looks flat to us as we look around us therefore it must be flat.

If only life were that simple!
« Last Edit: March 25, 2020, 01:21:58 AM by Solarwind »

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #9 on: March 25, 2020, 02:31:19 AM »
Remember itís not just the distance thatís the problem itís the size and physics of how the sun actually works and thatís just for starters. Those FE believers have put themselves into a corner as they have no way of explaining how our sun works or any other star for that matter. It also makes a joke of the whole of astronomy. The implications of their small sun idea are enormous. The person that came up with it was obviously not thinking about the implications.
From an "explain the universe" point of view, the bigger problem is size and physics of how the sun works.
But from the much simpler level of "does this model match reality" the distance is the big issue.

If the sun was far away then it would appear in the same location to everyone. That is consistent with a RE with the surface of Earth being at different angles giving a different apparent position, but for a FE that would mean only a single time zone with it being noon with the sun basically directly overhead everywhere at the same time.
So in order to explain why different places see the sun in a different apparent location and time zones they need to have a close sun.
With the sun close, it will be overhead (or due north or south) at different times for different locations, and thus it superficial appears to work.
The problem comes when you try to work out just how far away the sun is, where different locations result in a contradiction. Some pairs of locations would require the sun to be very close to Earth, basically touching it. Others require the sun to be roughly 5000 km away. If you use the azimuth as well, then some locations (assuming a 1 degree margin of error) it would need to be above a point some 100 000 km away from the north pole (or further).

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #10 on: March 25, 2020, 04:40:59 AM »
Quote
If the sun was far away then it would appear in the same location to everyone. That is consistent with a RE with the surface of Earth being at different angles giving a different apparent position, but for a FE that would mean only a single time zone with it being noon with the sun basically directly overhead everywhere at the same time.
So in order to explain why different places see the sun in a different apparent location and time zones they need to have a close sun.

So doesn't this highlight the difference between FE and RE.  With RE if an observation is not consistent with a hypothesis, we change the hypothesis. In FE, because they have already decided the Earth is flat you simply conclude that the Sun is much closer than it actually is in order to make it work.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #11 on: March 26, 2020, 06:02:30 AM »
FE claim that the Eratosthenes shadow experiment would have produced the same result if their assertion about the Sun being close (3000 miles) and the Earth being flat is true.  Ok let's investigate that claim a little further.

In chapter 5 of his book, the highly regarded (among FE theorists at least) Rowbotham carries out some measurements of the Suns elevation as seen from London and Brighton on a particular date. Just like Eratosthenes 'assumed' the Earth is a globe when he carried out his experiment, so I think it is fair to say that Rowbotham was assuming the Earth to be flat when he carried out his experiment.

From his measurements of the Suns observed elevation as seen from London and Brighton he noted a small change of a couple of degrees or so. It is not stated what method or methods he used to measure these angles but checks using modern software indicate that his readings were correct to a close approximation.

He then goes on to state that given his results that would place the point of the Earth surface, if it were flat where the Sun was observed to be directly overhead as 400 miles due south of London.

400 miles due south of London takes you to a region of SW France. In reality the most northerly place on Earth where the Sun is ever seen directly overhead is 23.5N on 21st June. i.e. the Tropic of Cancer.

The most southerly point of France (just to the east of Andorra) lies on or very near to the 42N latitude line. So there is no way the Sun will ever be seen overhead from a point 400 miles south of London.

This has nothing to do with refraction or the apparent magical powers of EA. It simply shows that Rowbothwams assertion that the Earth is flat and the FE interpretation of Eratosthenes experiment are wrong.

If Eratosthenes assumed before his experiment that the Earth is spherical (as did many scholars and philosophers before him) then his results confirmed it.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 10:02:24 AM by Solarwind »

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #12 on: March 26, 2020, 11:44:45 AM »
You have no FE takers to this thread.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #13 on: March 26, 2020, 12:16:17 PM »
Yes funny how things go quiet when evidence is presented that puts FE theory into question.  I guess silence means they can't think of anything convincing to counter with... balls in your court guys!
« Last Edit: March 26, 2020, 12:19:49 PM by Solarwind »

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #14 on: March 26, 2020, 03:54:51 PM »
You have no FE takers to this thread.
I wonder why? Could it be that they refuse to do any experimental work that might debunk their whole "World View"?
Why don't the supposed hundreds of thousands of flat-Earthers on YouTube, Facebook and other social media "crowdfund" a vist right to the South Pole to at least settle their Antarctica confusion?

They refuse because they know it would prove them wrong and that would totally devastate many flat-Earthers.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #15 on: March 27, 2020, 01:21:53 AM »
Well it just shows that FE believers carry on believing regardless of what the outcome of an investigation shows. In summary here is the flat Earth believers rule book seems to be:

Even before any investigation has been carried out start off with the conclusion that the Earth is flat. Then after the investigation has been carried out...

If the investigation shows flat Earth belief to be wrong then ignore it and remain silent.
If the investigation shows flat Earth belief to be wrong then the investigation is invalid or wrong.
If the investigation shows flat earth belief to be wrong then make something up to try and make it work.

Under no circumstances should any flat Earth believer openly admit that the Earth is not flat after all.
« Last Edit: March 27, 2020, 02:12:30 AM by Solarwind »

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2020, 03:14:37 AM »
Remember itís not just the distance thatís the problem itís the size and physics of how the sun actually works and thatís just for starters. Those FE believers have put themselves into a corner as they have no way of explaining how our sun works or any other star for that matter. It also makes a joke of the whole of astronomy. The implications of their small sun idea are enormous. The person that came up with it was obviously not thinking about the implications.
From an "explain the universe" point of view, the bigger problem is size and physics of how the sun works.
But from the much simpler level of "does this model match reality" the distance is the big issue.

If the sun was far away then it would appear in the same location to everyone. That is consistent with a RE with the surface of Earth being at different angles giving a different apparent position, but for a FE that would mean only a single time zone with it being noon with the sun basically directly overhead everywhere at the same time.
So in order to explain why different places see the sun in a different apparent location and time zones they need to have a close sun.
With the sun close, it will be overhead (or due north or south) at different times for different locations, and thus it superficial appears to work.
The problem comes when you try to work out just how far away the sun is, where different locations result in a contradiction. Some pairs of locations would require the sun to be very close to Earth, basically touching it. Others require the sun to be roughly 5000 km away. If you use the azimuth as well, then some locations (assuming a 1 degree margin of error) it would need to be above a point some 100 000 km away from the north pole (or further).

I think you may have misunderstood my point.
The sun as we know it formed just over 4.6 billions years ago in a way that has been observed by astronomers with clouds of gas and dust coming together under the influence of gravity......over time the size of the accumulated material allows the fusion process to start. E=MC^2  explains where the energy comes from and the overall life of the sun. This solar research and understanding also allows us to explain where all the elements from lithium upwards came from including all the carbon on our bodies.
Flat earth thinking ditches ALL of the above. They would have to invent a totally new physics, chemistry, astronomy along with everything else that explains their version of the sun and the rest of the Cosmos.
As I have said a number of times saying the earth is flat with a small sun and moon changes everything. By everything I mean everything, including biology. Johnís assertion that moonlight is dangerous is just another example of disconnected thinking. With life getting going about 3.8 billion years ago had there been such a thing as toxic moonlight, life would have either perished or adapted. The fact that it carried on proves that it must have come to terms with the light! and passed it on to all its descendants.......including us!
I wish people would stop using the term flat earth model, they have no model there is no model, rather a collection of ill thought out random disconnected ideas.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2020, 04:29:48 AM »
I think you may have misunderstood my point.
And you seem to have completely ignored mine.

Yes, we can delve into how the sun works and how it formed and so on and the implications of it. But that is not something accessible to laypeople to check for themselves.
The distance is a much simpler issue. It is an issue most laypeople can understand and can check by themselves if they can fly around, or if they have other people they trust, without the need for any complex equipment.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2020, 04:36:25 AM »
Quote
I wish people would stop using the term flat earth model, they have no model there is no model, rather a collection of ill thought out random disconnected ideas.

Well said.  That is exactly how it seems to me. Disconnected ideas that only exist and only work in the minds of those who have their own reasons for wanting to believe in them.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #19 on: March 29, 2020, 02:12:09 PM »
I think you may have misunderstood my point.
And you seem to have completely ignored mine.

Yes, we can delve into how the sun works and how it formed and so on and the implications of it. But that is not something accessible to laypeople to check for themselves.
The distance is a much simpler issue. It is an issue most laypeople can understand and can check by themselves if they can fly around, or if they have other people they trust, without the need for any complex equipment.


No, you cant delve into how the sun works, not unless you have a solar observatory. The only thing you and everyone else can do is read about it and then take it on trust.
I think checking things is pretty irrelevant. How many things can one check and verify, very very little if anything? The speed of sound, yes I've done that at school, speed of light no, too much-specialized equipment required. Most of it is down to rational trust unless you happen to suffer from paranoia. Its one of those red herrings flat earth believers like to thrown in now and then, checking things. The only thing most of them can check is have pulled up their zipper.
Do you imagine any flat earther has the capability to 'check' how the sun works! I think not.
If one has attended a University or worked in one and seen first hand how things are done and how they are so far removed from everyday life with each department speaking its very own scientific language. To imagine anyone walking in off the street would understand what's going on is just a joke. If you talk to the team members of multidisciplinary teams that normally work on big projects, by and large, they don't fully understand what each is doing as It's so specialised. That's why its totally impossible to check the overwhelming majority of scientific principles that govern our lives. Do you understand how any meds you are prescribed actually work? No you just take the pills. I'll bet like most people you know very little about all the tech you use. Even simple things like your washing machine. If it breaks down you call the repairman/woman. Don't kid yourself you know how everything works and have checked it out.

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #20 on: March 29, 2020, 02:46:47 PM »
Quote
I wish people would stop using the term flat earth model, they have no model there is no model, rather a collection of ill thought out random disconnected ideas.

Well said.  That is exactly how it seems to me. Disconnected ideas that only exist and only work in the minds of those who have their own reasons for wanting to believe in them.
Flat Earthers need numerous models (and maps for that matter) for the simple reason that no one flat Earth model (nor one flat Earth map) can explain so many easily observed things that fit perfectly with a spherical Earth.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #21 on: March 29, 2020, 03:05:34 PM »
Quote
No, you cant delve into how the sun works, not unless you have a solar observatory.

I have a dedicated solar telescope setup permanently in by backyard observatory through which I can observe the Sun at various specific wavelengths (e.g. Ha or CaK) so I guess that qualifies as a solar observatory. It is not a great time for observing the Sun at the moment since it is going through a prolonged period of essentially zero activity.

I guess what powers the Sun is not of great interest or concern to the average 'layman' in RE either. If I were to ask some passers at random about the PP chain I doubt many if any could explain what that means. We do have solar astrophysicists though who can outline in detail how the Sun produces thermonuclear energy in its core through a series of reactions that produce different isotopes of hydrogen and helium. These also release antimatter particles, neutrinos and photons.

How those reactions could possibly work in a Sun which is only 32 miles across and how they could sustain the Sun for the best part of 9 billion years is any ones guess. Are there any FE 'solar astrophysicists' out there?

*

rabinoz

  • 24861
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #22 on: March 29, 2020, 04:07:04 PM »
How those reactions could possibly work in a Sun which is only 32 miles across and how they could sustain the Sun for the best part of 9 billion years is any ones guess. Are there any FE 'solar astrophysicists' out there?
The current estimate of the Sun's age is about4.6 billion years not that it makes any difference here.
Though Sandokhan might notice and attack! See
Quote from: sandokhan
Flat Earth Q&A / Re: Gravity, according to an FEer ę Message by sandokhan on April 21, 2009, 10:51:08 PM Ľ
Here is a short version of the Faint Young Sun Paradox (see, guynicebutt, when you talk to me, you have a chance to learn the best arguments, to gain a much better understanding)...
Note the "when you talk to me, you have a chance to learn the best arguments, to gain a much better understanding)".

Extreme Dunning-Kruger Syndrome case suspected?

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #23 on: March 29, 2020, 04:43:40 PM »
No, you cant delve into how the sun works, not unless you have a solar observatory. The only thing you and everyone else can do is read about it and then take it on trust.
Do you imagine any flat earther has the capability to 'check' how the sun works! I think not.
And that is the point.
If you want to take it on trust, then there is no point asking about it.
If you take it on trust, you also take it on trust that the sun is roughly 700 000 km in radius, that it is roughly 150 000 000 km from Earth, that Earth is roughly a sphere with a radius of roughly 6371 km.

It makes it an entirely pointless question/statement/line of argument.
Instead of saying:
"Those FE believers have put themselves into a corner as they have no way of explaining how our sun works or any other star for that matter."
You may as well just say:
"Those FE believers have put themselves into a corner as they have no way of explaining how Earth is round."

If you don't want to just rely on trust, you want to focus on things you can verify.

It is quite easy to determine that the sun must be very far away and that the FE distance is wrong.
That is why distance is a better task.

Now do you understand the point?

Which do you think is better? Asking them about complex things they have very little chance to verify or understand themselves, or asking them a much simpler thing which they can understand and which they can actually try to verify themselves?


So if you want to base it on trust in scientists cut the crap and say Earth is round and leave it at that, as anything else is just pointless distraction. If you don't want to rely upon trust, then don't bring up complex things they have no way to check or experiment with themselves.

I'll bet like most people you know very little about all the tech you use. Even simple things like your washing machine. If it breaks down you call the repairman/woman. Don't kid yourself you know how everything works and have checked it out.
I am no where near as stupid as you seem to think everyone other than yourself is.
Are you capable of conversing without such arrogance and without throwing out so many baseless insults?

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2020, 12:23:39 AM »
Quote
The current estimate of the Sun's age is about4.6 billion years not that it makes any difference here.

Accepted. The projected main sequence (core hydrogen burning) phase for a star with the Suns physical properties is around 10 billion years which means that it lies around mid-way through that phase currently.

However that is a topic for other forums elsewhere. As JB points out FE will have very little interest in what powers the Sun.  Their beliefs are not really based on science in the same way that RE is.  There are many people who will live out their lives without knowing, or indeed caring what powers the Sun. So long as they can lie on a beach somewhere with drink in hand and soak up the rays, they are quite happy!

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2020, 07:19:14 AM »
No, you cant delve into how the sun works, not unless you have a solar observatory. The only thing you and everyone else can do is read about it and then take it on trust.
Do you imagine any flat earther has the capability to 'check' how the sun works! I think not.
And that is the point.
If you want to take it on trust, then there is no point asking about it.
If you take it on trust, you also take it on trust that the sun is roughly 700 000 km in radius, that it is roughly 150 000 000 km from Earth, that Earth is roughly a sphere with a radius of roughly 6371 km.

It makes it an entirely pointless question/statement/line of argument.
Instead of saying:
"Those FE believers have put themselves into a corner as they have no way of explaining how our sun works or any other star for that matter."
You may as well just say:
"Those FE believers have put themselves into a corner as they have no way of explaining how Earth is round."

If you don't want to just rely on trust, you want to focus on things you can verify.

It is quite easy to determine that the sun must be very far away and that the FE distance is wrong.
That is why distance is a better task.

Now do you understand the point?

Which do you think is better? Asking them about complex things they have very little chance to verify or understand themselves, or asking them a much simpler thing which they can understand and which they can actually try to verify themselves?


So if you want to base it on trust in scientists cut the crap and say Earth is round and leave it at that, as anything else is just pointless distraction. If you don't want to rely upon trust, then don't bring up complex things they have no way to check or experiment with themselves.

I'll bet like most people you know very little about all the tech you use. Even simple things like your washing machine. If it breaks down you call the repairman/woman. Don't kid yourself you know how everything works and have checked it out.
I am no where near as stupid as you seem to think everyone other than yourself is.
Are you capable of conversing without such arrogance and without throwing out so many baseless insults?

Again you miss the point. What we are told and learn about the sun is not one single fact instead it's an interrelated series of many many facts than all join together providing an ordered overall understanding of whats going on. All the evidence links together and makes coherent sense. Plus there is an army of scientists of overlapping disciplines working on small specialised parts of the picture that help to provide an even greater understanding. Look at the current papers that are being produced on the sun for example. By and large, they are very detailed and very specific. This is totally unlike flat earth believers who tend to come up with a single disconnected random idea that has no basis in science such as the sun is 32 miles across and that's it. They have no data to back it up either direct or interrelated. Again let's be clear there is no such thing as a flat earth model all they have are random stand-alone ideas that require belief.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2020, 11:24:50 AM »
Flat Earth believers have to conclude that the Sun is only very small because they assert that it is very close by.  One is a consequence of the other. It would be impossible for the Sun to be 850,000 miles across and only 3000 miles away obviously.

So that means flat Earthers have to make the Sun both small and near otherwise their 'explanation' for Eratosthenes shadow experiment would kind of be proved wrong. And that wouldn't do would it. I too would like to see a detailed explanation of how FE come up with their 3000 mile distance/32 miles across conclusion.

How you can have a Sun just 32 miles across is a question that I cannot answer.  And up to now it seems no flat Earther can either! So we must conclude that the whole flat Earth concept is just a figment of the imaginations of those few who cannot accept the mainstream line of scientific thought. Perhaps it doesn't matter to flat earthers that you couldn't physically shrink a body of the Suns mass onto a diameter of 32 miles across?

We have measured the Suns distance very accurately and since apparent size is directly related to distance, a body with a real diameter of 32 miles at a distance of 1AU would mean the naked eye could not make out a physical disk. So that rather puts the FE claims on rather shaky ground I would suggest.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2020, 11:35:32 AM by Solarwind »

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2020, 02:46:32 PM »
Again you miss the point.
No. Again, you completely ignore the point or just completely fail to grasp it.

If you want to go based upon what we are told, just say Earth is round and leave it at that, without the need to bring in anything else as anything else you bring in is just a pointless distraction.

If you don't want to rely upon trusting what we are told, then you need to bring in things which are understandable and testable.

Again, what part of this don't you understand?

Again let's be clear there is no such thing as a flat earth model all they have are random stand-alone ideas that require belief.
Then how about we be honest and clear, there are multiple different FE models, which contradict each other, none of which explain reality.
One simple way to see this is by trying to determine the distance to the sun based upon the FE model (i.e. assuming Earth is flat). Doing so will result in vastly different heights depending upon what 2 points are chosen.

I too would like to see a detailed explanation of how FE come up with their 3000 mile distance/32 miles across conclusion.
There is roughly 3000 miles between 45 degrees north and the equator.
On the equinox at solar noon, the sun is directly above the equator and appears due south at an angle of elevation of 45 degrees at 45 degrees north.
This results in an isosceles right triangle, which means the height above the equator is the same as the distance between the equator and 45 degrees north.

Also note that the sun has an angular size of roughly 0.5 degrees, its diameter will be roughly 0.00872670164 times the distance.
Now, if you average the result for the equator and 45 degrees north that gives you 31.6 miles.

If fails to take into account how it changes as you move around Earth, and the fact that the actual distance between the equator and 45 degrees north is more than 3000 miles, and how you couldn't have the same angular size for both location.

Perhaps it doesn't matter to flat earthers that you couldn't physically shrink a body of the Suns mass onto a diameter of 32 miles across?
Like the size, how do you think the mass was determined?
One of the simplest ways is by using the orbital period of a planet with a known distance to the sun.
Assuming the sun is very massive compared to the planet, then M=4*pi^2*r^3/(G*T^2).
So if you throw out the planets (like Earth) orbiting the sun and the distance to the sun (and/or gravity) you don't have the mass.

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2020, 03:00:56 PM »
Yes I get the bit about 3000 miles to 45N or S from the equator and that is about right. If the Earth was flat, that would indeed lead to a 6000 straight baseline and if that was right then the numbers would add up that the Sun being 3000 miles away.

But using other methods we know that the Sun is much further away and hence much bigger than FE insists. So that in a way proves the Earth is not flat. As you say FE simply play on the geometry to make it seem like the figures support their assertion.  You don't come to a conclusion from just one method of experimentation or investigation.  If different experiments provide the same result then that makes it more likely to be true.

For example we have calculated the true value of the Suns distance using a combination of different methods. But FE will dispute those results if only because they don't agree with their assertions.

As for the mass, FE will again find reason to dismiss the RE methods and calculations for the Suns mass. Because they will say to them the Earth is not orbiting the Sun. In other words they are constantly filtering out and ignoring the evidence that counters their beliefs and isolating anything that does.  Classic conspiracy theorist approach.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2020, 03:08:33 PM by Solarwind »

Re: FE distance to Sun (or Moon)
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2020, 03:31:43 PM »
But using other methods we know that the Sun is much further away and hence much bigger than FE insists. So that in a way proves the Earth is not flat.
Most other methods rely upon the fact that Earth isn't flat.
As such, they can't be used to show Earth isn't flat.
The main ones which can be used just shows the sun must be very far away.
That is a similar method to FE but not unconstrained, such as using 3 points to determine both the radius of Earth and the distance to the sun.
Or just by observing the sun and noting it doesn't appear to change size regardless of where you are on Earth so it must be far away.

But the distance to the sun based upon the transit of Venus is based upon a RE with a heliocentric solar system.
The distance to the sun based upon stellar aberration is based upon Earth orbiting the sun with a heliocentric solar system.

By the time these methods can determine the distance to the sun, FE is long out the picture.

But I agree with the rest.
All these methods producing quite similar numbers shows that it is likely to be correct, as opposed to the FE which has literally no idea and no explanation for so much.

But FEers will dismiss it because most rely upon Earth not being flat.
It also isn't thinking just limited to conspiracy theorists.
Lots of people do things like that with their beliefs.