Distance to the Sun

  • 41 Replies
  • 813 Views
Distance to the Sun
« on: October 17, 2020, 03:09:15 PM »
The FW Wiki describes the distance to the Sun as follows:

Quote
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

This would hold true geometrically if the points on the Earths surface at 45 degrees north and south and the equator lay on a straight line.  But they don't.

The RE measured circumference of the Earth is 24,875 miles.  A quarter of that is 6,218 miles which is therefore the distance between the north/south pole and the equator.  The distance between the equator and 45 degrees north or south on a globe Earth is therefore 3,109 miles.

We have a choice of methods to available to us to determine the distance of the Moon and Venus for example and from those we can confirm the calculated distance of the Sun quoted by RE. 

So the Wiki entry should read ' If the Earth was flat then the distance to the Sun would only be approximately 3000 miles'. But since we know the true distance of the Sun is in the order of 31,000 times that distance that shows that the Earth is not flat.  So the Wiki explanation is based on a false base assumption (that the Earth is flat) and therefore makes something appear to be true in order to suit a particular belief.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2020, 03:04:59 AM by Solarwind »

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2020, 10:57:39 AM »
The FW Wiki describes the distance to the Sun as follows:

Quote
On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun would be an equal distance above the equator.

This would hold true geometrically if the points on the Earths surface at 45 degrees north and south and the equator lay on a straight line.  But they don't.

The RE measured circumference of the Earth is 24,875 miles.  A quarter of that is 6,218 miles which is therefore the distance between the north/south pole and the equator.  The distance between the equator and 45 degrees north or south on a globe Earth is therefore 3,109 miles.

We have a choice of methods to available to us to determine the distance of the Moon and Venus for example and from those we can confirm the calculated distance of the Sun quoted by RE. 

So the Wiki entry should read ' If the Earth was flat then the distance to the Sun would only be approximately 3000 miles'. But since we know the true distance of the Sun is in the order of 31,000 times that distance that shows that the Earth is not flat.  So the Wiki explanation is based on a false base assumption (that the Earth is flat) and therefore makes something appear to be true in order to suit a particular belief.

There is a significant problem with the described method for estimating the height of the sun, and you don't need to know the true distance to the sun to recognize it.

The wiki's method uses a right triangle with the sun at one corner, and observers on the earth's presumed flat surface at the equator and at 45 latitude. Based on properties of a right triangle with a 45 angle, it is known that the two sides are of equal length, so the length of the unknown side (height of the sun above the observer at the equator) is the same as the distance between the two observers. The distance from equator to 45 latitude is approximately 3100 statute miles, so if this analysis were correct, that's also the height of the sun.

So far, so good. If this were the correct solution, then you should get the same answer no matter the distance from the equator that you measure it.

However, if the second observer were at 30 latitude instead of 45 - a distance of about 2067 miles from the equator - he would see the sun at 60 above the horizon under the described conditions. A right triangle with 60 and 90 angles at the base has a height of √3 (the square root of 3) times the length of the base (you can see this using the Pythagorean theorem).

√3 = 1.732, so

HSun = 1.732 2067 miles = 3,580 miles.

From the pole, the apparent height of the sun on the equinox is 0, giving a height of the sun as 0 miles.

So which is the correct height of the sun? 3,580, miles, 3,100 miles, or 0 miles? All are valid results from the same assumptions. Since the model does not produce consistent results, this means that it is not correct.

On the other hand, assuming that the earth is spherical and has an atmosphere that becomes less dense with height, and that the sun is sufficiently distant that parallax is not significant, gives consistent answers for the observed height of the sun above the horizon anywhere on earth. Therefore, this model is not ruled out based on this analysis; of the two, it's the only one that survives this test.

 
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2020, 11:16:54 AM »
In other words as I said.  A classic case of using numbers to try and make something appear to stand as true and correct in order to suit a particular preferred belief which actually isn't true at all.

A bit like this...


Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #3 on: October 18, 2020, 02:39:49 PM »
I wouldn't say flat vs round.

I would say with only 2 measurements it is an unconstrained problem with the radius of Earth and the distance varying with each other.
The FE "solution" is one with a very close sun and an infinite radius of Earth.
You could also have the sun closer with a negative radius, so the sun is inside Earth.

There are 2 ways to resolve the issue.
One is by noticing the sun remains roughly the same size throughout the day, indicating its distance is basically the same regardless of what location on Earth it is over, and thus the distance to the sun is many times the size of Earth. Thus as a simple approximation, the distance to the sun can be taken as infinite.
The other is by using another, non-symmetric observation.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2020, 09:30:35 AM »
The flat Earth explanation for how the distance of the Sun is worked out suits the flat Earth belief.  Whether it works in practice and agrees with real observations is irrelevant to those who believe.  If it seems to fit then it is accepted as true without further question.

*

sokarul

  • 18148
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2020, 08:34:06 PM »
Reds Rhetoric just calculated the distance live.  It's a long video, i'm not going to claim I watched it all. It's more just how it's able to be done.

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

Macarios

  • 2076
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #6 on: October 21, 2020, 09:52:35 AM »
At the moment of Equinoctial Solar Noon, the angle between Sun and Local Vertical matches (and shows) the latitiude you are at.
Seen from the Equator (latitude 0 deg) the Sun is over head, and seen from pole (latitude 90 deg) the Sun is on the horizon.
The length of each degree is 60 nautical miles, so
- 15 degrees is 900 nautical miles,
- 30 degrees is 1800 nautical miles,
- 45 degrees is 2700 nautical miles,
- 60 degrees is 3600 nautical miles,
and so on.

It all means that from 15 degrees (north or south) you see Sun 75 degrees above your horizon.
Sun's altitude is 900 nautical miles x tan (75 deg) = 3359 nautical miles = 3865 miles = 6220 km.
From 30 degrees you see Sun 60 degrees above your horizon.
Sun's altitude is 1800 nautical miles x tan (60 deg) = 3118 nautical miles = 3588 miles = 5774 km.
From 45 degrees you see Sun 45 degrees above the horizon.
Sun's altitude is 2700 nautical miles x tan (45 deg) = 2700 nautical miles = 3107 miles = 5000 km.
From 60 degrees you see Sun 30 degrees above the horizon.
Sun's altitude is 3600 nautical miles x tan (30 deg) = 2078 nautical miles = 2391 miles = 3848 km.

Flat model can't give consistent results of Sun's altitude measurement.

That's why some Flat Earthers try to "save the day" using "curved light rays".
Doing tha they are forgetting that the light from horizon would also be curved, showing us horizon lower than "it realy is".
If we see horizon in the horizontal plane, then in "reality" it is higher than that, making the Earth's surface concave.

Or the light from the Sun can be curved and from horizon can't through the same air? :)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #7 on: October 21, 2020, 02:31:53 PM »
Quote
That's why some Flat Earthers try to "save the day" using "curved light rays".

Never ceases to amaze me what some people will come up in order to try and suit a belief rather than face the fact that they are wrong.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #8 on: October 21, 2020, 05:57:28 PM »
At the moment of Equinoctial Solar Noon, the angle between Sun and Local Vertical matches (and shows) the latitiude you are at.
Seen from the Equator (latitude 0 deg) the Sun is over head, and seen from pole (latitude 90 deg) the Sun is on the horizon.
The length of each degree is 60 nautical miles, so
- 15 degrees is 900 nautical miles,
- 30 degrees is 1800 nautical miles,
- 45 degrees is 2700 nautical miles,
- 60 degrees is 3600 nautical miles,
and so on.
Are you taking the effects of electromagnetic eddification (bendy light) into account?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Macarios

  • 2076
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #9 on: October 22, 2020, 06:32:51 AM »
At the moment of Equinoctial Solar Noon, the angle between Sun and Local Vertical matches (and shows) the latitiude you are at.
Seen from the Equator (latitude 0 deg) the Sun is over head, and seen from pole (latitude 90 deg) the Sun is on the horizon.
The length of each degree is 60 nautical miles, so
- 15 degrees is 900 nautical miles,
- 30 degrees is 1800 nautical miles,
- 45 degrees is 2700 nautical miles,
- 60 degrees is 3600 nautical miles,
and so on.
Are you taking the effects of electromagnetic eddification (bendy light) into account?

Introducing bendy light will show that horizon is not in the horizontal plane,
because the incoming angles of the light shows horizon lower than it really is.
And since it is shown in the horizontal plane, it means it is higher than that,
which reveals concave shape of the earth's surface.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #10 on: October 22, 2020, 06:54:39 AM »
At the moment of Equinoctial Solar Noon, the angle between Sun and Local Vertical matches (and shows) the latitiude you are at.
Seen from the Equator (latitude 0 deg) the Sun is over head, and seen from pole (latitude 90 deg) the Sun is on the horizon.
The length of each degree is 60 nautical miles, so
- 15 degrees is 900 nautical miles,
- 30 degrees is 1800 nautical miles,
- 45 degrees is 2700 nautical miles,
- 60 degrees is 3600 nautical miles,
and so on.
Are you taking the effects of electromagnetic eddification (bendy light) into account?

Introducing bendy light will show that horizon is not in the horizontal plane,
because the incoming angles of the light shows horizon lower than it really is.
And since it is shown in the horizontal plane, it means it is higher than that,
which reveals concave shape of the earth's surface.
Incorrect.  The earth is flat, but the bending of light just makes it appear curved under certain conditions.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #11 on: October 23, 2020, 05:38:24 AM »
Quote
Incorrect.  The earth is flat, but the bending of light just makes it appear curved under certain conditions.

Just certain conditions... I see and what certain conditions might those be then?  So you know the Earth is flat then do you?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2020, 06:32:01 AM »
Quote
Incorrect.  The earth is flat, but the bending of light just makes it appear curved under certain conditions.

Just certain conditions... I see and what certain conditions might those be then? 
Whenever the earth looks round, it's because light bent enough to cause that effect.

So you know the Earth is flat then do you?
This is the Flat Earth Society.  You've read the FAQ and Wiki, haven't you?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #13 on: October 23, 2020, 06:46:44 AM »
OK and you've got proof of all that have you.  The FES just appears to believe/claim the Earth is flat.  Doesn't mean it actually is does it.

The Wiki is hardly convincing of anything is it.  For example:

Quote
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

Is that the best FE can do?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2020, 06:49:06 AM by Solarwind »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #14 on: October 23, 2020, 09:17:07 AM »
OK and you've got proof of all that have you.  The FES just appears to believe/claim the Earth is flat.  Doesn't mean it actually is does it.

The Wiki is hardly convincing of anything is it.  For example:

Quote
Q. How big are the planets in the FE model?

A. Pretty small.

Is that the best FE can do?
Well, it's not as if they have a really tall step ladder and ruler to measure them.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2020, 09:34:45 AM »
Is that the best answer you can come up with?  RE can come up with exact figures for the sizes and distance of the planets using different methods to verify the results.  So all FE can come up with is 'pretty small'.  RE don't need step ladders or rulers either.

The section of the Wiki on the stars is actually reasonably accurate but not in the right context. The movement of the stars in clusters has absolutely nothing to do with the observed motion around the celestial poles.

What makes you so sure the Earth is actually flat anyway?  Just a defiance of accepting the RE version?
« Last Edit: October 23, 2020, 09:39:24 AM by Solarwind »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2020, 09:46:38 AM »
Is that the best answer you can come up with?  RE can come up with exact figures for the sizes and distance of the planets using different methods to verify the results.
Have you personally verified any of those "exact figures", or are you just taking their word for it?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2020, 11:33:25 AM »
I have personally watched someone in the same room as me aimed a telescope at the Moon, switched on a laser beam and watched as the reflected beam was detected by a camera attached to the very same telescope.  Computer software then calculated the exact distance of the Moon to a cm accuracy from the time delay which was just under 3 seconds in total.  You could even see a bright spot appear on the Moon the instant it hit the reflector on the Moon.  The bright spot then disappeared 1.2sec after the beam was switched off.

I was visiting the McDonald Observatory in Texas during the annual star party. They do excursions there for attendants. 

Is that 'personal' enough for you?

How have you verifies that the planets are 'pretty small'?  Whatever that means.

So I guess using your logic that I shouldnn't accept any of the measurements, descriptions or figures contained in all of my textbooks on astronomy and physics until I have 'personally verified' them.  Unfortunately I won't live that long.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2020, 11:37:45 AM by Solarwind »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2020, 12:20:03 PM »
I have personally watched someone in the same room as me aimed a telescope at the Moon, switched on a laser beam and watched as the reflected beam was detected by a camera attached to the very same telescope.  Computer software then calculated the exact distance of the Moon to a cm accuracy from the time delay which was just under 3 seconds in total.  You could even see a bright spot appear on the Moon the instant it hit the reflector on the Moon.  The bright spot then disappeared 1.2sec after the beam was switched off.
Did you get to look through the telescope to see the bright spot or was it all on a computer monitor?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2020, 12:33:29 PM »
Both.  There was a group watching on the computer monitors and there was also an eyepiece attached that I was able to look through.  That was fortunate because most new telescopes don't use direct vision anymore.

I know what the tactic is now.  You will carry on along a particular line of questioning until you reach a point where you will say 'Gotcha! - you can't say that is proof of the Moons distance!'.

Well no I didn't do the measurement entirely on my own but I was standing next to the person who was.  Next best thing.  It was daylight by the way and the Moon was in the waxing part of its cycle and so visible during the mid - late afternoon.

I have looked again at the FAQ and the Wiki.  After reading the FAQ you find you end up with more questions than answers and as for the Wiki.  That is nothing more than a series of rather wild and unsubstantiated and unexplained claims.

FE theory to me is just about a few people who refuse to accept the mainstream science view of things which has been developed over many centuries but have nothing better to offer themselves.

It is physically impossible to verify everything we learn about in life for ones self.  That's why we have books, schools, colleges, universities etc etc so we can be educated about things and learn things.  I'm not exactly going to spend 3 years doing a degree and the next 10 years personally checking everything I've covered just in case one of my lecturers was for whatever reason lying to me am I.  That's just nonsensical.  In any case if he was I would be suing him for knowingly providing mis-information.

So where you get the same figure obtained from several difference sources and several different methods then that is a good reason to 'accept' that the figure is genuine and correct.

The ways that astronomy uses to find out the distances to the planets, the stars and even other galaxies are I realise incompatible with the way FE believers think.  I get that. But so far as I can tell by reading the FAQs and the Wiki, FE cannot produce any evidence or data which indicates your beliefs are any better or more verifiable than anything I have so far learned about in my astronomical studies. Nowhere near it.

To quote from the Sun part of the Wiki:

Quote
It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the earth.

Is that right...   How do you suppose something just 32 miles across can maintain nuclear fusion for 10 billion years?  A small sunspot is typically larger than the Earth so how can the Sun as whole but just 32 miles across!?!
« Last Edit: October 23, 2020, 03:41:02 PM by Solarwind »

*

Macarios

  • 2076
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2020, 07:15:34 PM »
Have you personally verified any of those "exact figures", or are you just taking their word for it?

Personally?
Nope.
Have you? :)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #21 on: October 24, 2020, 01:13:36 PM »
Quote
Have you personally verified any of those "exact figures", or are you just taking their word for it?

Seems to me that it is the contention of every flat Earther that you shouldn't believe anything unless you can personally verify.  it.  In other words it is the belief of every flat Earther that anyone who says the Earth is not flat or presents some evidence that the Earth is not flat is lying or being deliberately deceiving. 

So basically you are completely eliminating any possibility at all that you could be wrong and that the Earth really is a sphere. Yes?
« Last Edit: October 24, 2020, 02:56:50 PM by Solarwind »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2020, 05:12:34 PM »
Quote
Have you personally verified any of those "exact figures", or are you just taking their word for it?

Seems to me that it is the contention of every flat Earther that you shouldn't believe anything unless you can personally verify.  it.  In other words it is the belief of every flat Earther that anyone who says the Earth is not flat or presents some evidence that the Earth is not flat is lying or being deliberately deceiving. 
Or, you have been lied to from all of your life and just you don't know any better.

So basically you are completely eliminating any possibility at all that you could be wrong and that the Earth really is a sphere. Yes?
No, I'm just saying that you have to do better if you want to convince FE'ers that the earth is a sphere.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

JJA

  • 2386
  • Math is math!
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2020, 06:54:35 PM »
So basically you are completely eliminating any possibility at all that you could be wrong and that the Earth really is a sphere. Yes?
No, I'm just saying that you have to do better if you want to convince FE'ers that the earth is a sphere.

You can't do that.  There is no way to convince someone who refuses to be convinced, no matter how much 'better' you get.

No matter how much evidence you provide, they can endlessly retreat by demanding that evidence be explained, and that explanation be proven, and that proof shown to them in person, and on and on and on.

Eventually they can just get to the point they demand you prove that YOU are real and they aren't just dreaming you.  Prove that!

Still, if you can back them that far into a corner, good job.  :)

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2020, 01:57:47 AM »
Quote
Or, you have been lied to from all of your life and just you don't know any better.

Isn't it the case that conspiracy theorists use the denial and lies excuse just so they don't have to admit that their 'different or alternative' theory is actually wrong.  Being in denial is all very well but you can't change what is true and real even if you don't want to believe it.  In RE we simply rely on the evidence accumulated over centuries to support our case.  You can dismiss all that evidence if you wish but you need to come up with evidence which is at least as good if not better to support FE if you want it to be taken seriously.

It also shows that you are not really interested in the science.  All the evidence accumulated by mainstream science over the years has pointed overwhelmingly to the shape of the Earth being spherical.  You can call it all lies if you wish to but why would so many people from throughout history and from so many different backgrounds reach the same conclusion? That would be one heck of a lie to keep!  And to what end?  To satisfy a minority few choose to believe something different?

We (as in the human race) deduced that the Earth is a sphere a long time ago based on nothing more than the available evidence. Nowadays we have technology as well as science to back up what we already know about the shape of the Earth. The only difference the technology makes is that we can measure it with greater precision.  What is the FE response to all that?  Of course... to insist that it is all faked, doctored or otherwise mispresented.  Or just ignore it.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2020, 10:36:25 AM by Solarwind »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 40323
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2020, 11:10:48 AM »
So basically you are completely eliminating any possibility at all that you could be wrong and that the Earth really is a sphere. Yes?
No, I'm just saying that you have to do better if you want to convince FE'ers that the earth is a sphere.

You can't do that.  There is no way to convince someone who refuses to be convinced, no matter how much 'better' you get.
Sour grapes?


Quote
Or, you have been lied to from all of your life and just you don't know any better.

Isn't it the case that conspiracy theorists use the denial and lies excuse just so they don't have to admit that their 'different or alternative' theory is actually wrong.
When you have a government that lies about so many things and keeps so many secrets that is also in charge of the education system, how can you believe anything that you've been taught?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2020, 12:03:46 PM »
So as per usual then, all this flat Earth stuff, just like all other conspiracy theories ultimately just comes down to government distrust among some people. How original. I was hoping for something a bit more inventive.

O well at least I know now.


*

JJA

  • 2386
  • Math is math!
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2020, 12:39:26 PM »
So basically you are completely eliminating any possibility at all that you could be wrong and that the Earth really is a sphere. Yes?
No, I'm just saying that you have to do better if you want to convince FE'ers that the earth is a sphere.

You can't do that.  There is no way to convince someone who refuses to be convinced, no matter how much 'better' you get.
Sour grapes?

I never expect to convince anyone on a FE board or convert them back to reality.  There is an entire world of evidence out there, and if they can disregard that what can I say to change their mind?  Not much, they have already rejected all of it.

I just like finding the holes in the arguments, and the challenge of actually explaining things.  Usually it shows me I knew a lot less about something than I thought when I have to spend an hour researching it.  Fun.  :)

Quote
Or, you have been lied to from all of your life and just you don't know any better.

Isn't it the case that conspiracy theorists use the denial and lies excuse just so they don't have to admit that their 'different or alternative' theory is actually wrong.
When you have a government that lies about so many things and keeps so many secrets that is also in charge of the education system, how can you believe anything that you've been taught?

I'll answer this too.  Yes, I'm well aware of the lies the education system taught me, mostly about political subjects like the American Indians and what was done to them.  It isn't too hard to find the truth after all, especially when you live long enough that public education is only a small part of the source of my knowledge.

But it's a stretch to say that because a few things were not true, that ALL of it is total lies. All the math I learned certainly was true.

You should read "Lies My Teacher Told Me".  It explains exactly why our educational system teaches what it does, and the people in charge aren't who you think they are.

One of those lies is not that the world is round.  ::)

Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2020, 01:08:41 PM »
So Markjo is convinced that everything I have been taught over the last 50 odd years is all part of a big lie.  Far enough.  So where has got his education from?  Flat Earth school and then flat Earth college I guess.  And obviously he doesn't read any books because they are all full of lies!

*

Stash

  • 6038
Re: Distance to the Sun
« Reply #29 on: October 25, 2020, 03:09:21 PM »
So Markjo is convinced that everything I have been taught over the last 50 odd years is all part of a big lie.  Far enough.  So where has got his education from?  Flat Earth school and then flat Earth college I guess.  And obviously he doesn't read any books because they are all full of lies!

You are familiar with Markjo's post history, right?