Jump to content

The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)


bflat
 Share

Recommended Posts

@thread new issue please

11 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

I did a quick analysis showing that the Sun according to flat earthers is 3000 miles up and MUST be 85,000 miles away when it is 2 degrees above the horizon, 4 sun widths.

But hey, let's do 1 sun width 1/2 degree - just touching the horizon (ignoring refraction):

 

wow 4 sun widths ... nice assumption

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, zArk said:

@thread still chuckling about the 'space video' glitching images of the earth

 

https://forum.davidicke.com/index.php?/topic/5513-the-reality-of-our-physical-plane-v2/&do=findComment&comment=162827

 

Yeah, you chuckle and evade. Digital glitches - wow the power of conspiracy nonsense.

 

You are boxed in and running away from simple unavoidable mathematics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

It isn't an assumption. DUH! The sun has an angular distance of 0.5 degrees. 4 widths is simply a way of saying 2 degrees and showing visually how far that represents.

width is a horizontal measurement taken at right angles to the length

so no its not angular distance

plus you are assuming the apparent width and width is a constant

so theres still an assumption

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, zArk said:

width is a horizontal measurement taken at right angles to the length

so no its not angular distance

plus you are assuming the apparent width is a constant

so theres still an assumption

 

zArk, width CAN be an angular distance, and is a very handy way of describing how wide something is when it is too far away to use your tape measure.

Accurate tools for measuring the angle have been around for centuries.

Navigators used them for example, as did surveyors.

 

Comedy Time: please use radians when describing angles, I for one find them very pleasing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zArk said:

width is a horizontal measurement taken at right angles to the length

so no its not angular distance

plus you are assuming the apparent width and width is a constant

so theres still an assumption

 

Epic fail.  Seriously almost everything just written is useless diversion.

 

1. The Sun is The same size the entire time with imperceptible variations from orbital distances!

2. It is 0.5 degrees to the eye. ALWAYS.

3. It was used just as means to show the angle of 2 degrees is that 4 sun width distance 

 

But hey....you can totally dismiss every reference to the sun. Just answer the post because NONE of the maths rely on the width of the Sun....it was used to assist the hard of understanding.

 

Clearly you are boxed in and know it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, gregory-peccary said:

 

zArk, width CAN be an angular distance, and is a very handy way of describing how wide something is when it is too far away to use your tape measure.

Accurate tools for measuring the angle have been around for centuries.

Navigators used them for example, as did surveyors.

 

Comedy Time: please use radians when describing angles, I for one find them very pleasing!

gregory -peccary i think there is different words for specific reasons

angular distance is different to width ... thats why there is different words

and lets be honest

 

CT was deliberately using the word width interchangeably with angular distance so it would be possible to flip-flop

its just soooooooooooooooooooo boring

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Epic fail.  Seriously almost everything just written is useless diversion.

 

1. The Sun is The same size the entire time with imperceptible variations from orbital distances!

 

orbital !!! lol

imperceptible.. or observational or 'dont believe your eyes, the science i dispense will tell you what you saw' !!! lol

epic fail! << fs feel like i am talking to a teenager trying to flame me over teamspeak while playing UT GOTY :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

orbital !!! lol

imperceptible.. or observational or 'dont believe your eyes, the science i dispense will tell you what you saw' !!! lol

epic fail! << fs feel like i am talking to a teenager trying to flame me over teamspeak while playing UT GOTY :S

 

Evasion once again. What is the sun doing? Some unknown bullshit sky dance that never sees its angular momentum change, or size, it always illuminates 50% of the earth like some ridiculous comedy spotlight and magically sets and rises when it is above eyeline.  

 

Any chance you can answer this "evolving" thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, zArk said:

gregory -peccary i think there is different words for specific reasons

angular distance is different to width ... thats why there is different words

and lets be honest

 

CT was deliberately using the word width interchangeably with angular distance so it would be possible to flip-flop

its just soooooooooooooooooooo boring

 

Message to myself....don't use analogies or help tools.

 

To explain once again. The size of The Sun in the sky was used ONLY TO CONVEY THE SIZE OF THE ANGLE USED. IT WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE MATHEMATICS YOU ARE AFRAID TO ADDRESS. You clearly are using any means possible to obfuscate and evade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

 

Dude wtf are you talking about????

 

The Sun has 0.5 degrees of angular diameter to everyone on this planet! 

 

dude the query was

 

Quote

 

How does the Sun set with no size change? It's fairly straight forward.

 

I did a quick analysis

 

 

Let me explain to you your error from the getgo

 

the Suns observed time in the sky does change throughout the year .... longer days in summer and longer nights in winter

 horizon to horizon is not 360 degrees (i assume you are meaning a full circle of orthodox segments ) and therefore the 0.5 degrees is only applicable to the spherist model

the Sun is observed to move between horizon and horizon today at the UK for 12 hours

at June 21st its around 16hrs 40mins

so the sun slows down or gets smaller or moves further away or a combination of all during June and speeds up or gets bigger or moves closer  in winter

the arbitrary 0.5 degrees is therefore incompatible with observed Sun movement throughout the year

the distance between horizon and horizon is the same ?

questions upon questions

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Comedy Time said:

Pick that last @zArk post up later. Too much gibberish to respond to on a phone.

i just want to begin with a fair framework

 

mixing observations and sphere models from the start is no good for either of us

 

if we can establish a baseline then approaching the issue can be a little easier imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, zArk said:

i just want to begin with a fair framework

 

mixing observations and sphere models from the start is no good for either of us

 

if we can establish a baseline then approaching the issue can be a little easier imo

 

Ok. I am going to do that exact thing. It remains to be seen whether you respond.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

dude the query was

 

 

Exactly as quoted and avoided. How does the Sun set with no size change?

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

the Suns observed time in the sky does change throughout the year .... longer days in summer and longer nights in winter

 

 

Irrelevant to the point I made. I posited SPECIFIC Earth positions and the distances noted both on a planet and a flat Earth. The same. These are verifiable sunset times and are not subject to refutation.  And those times change by hemisphere - explains everything.

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

 horizon to horizon is not 360 degrees (i assume you are meaning a full circle of orthodox segments ) and therefore the 0.5 degrees is only applicable to the spherist model

 

 

Utter nonsense. Nowhere did I say the horizon to horizon was 360 degrees. To the actual observer it is 180 degrees. BUT irrelevant.

 

The 0.5 degrees that the Sun occupies in the sky is the exact distance it occupies when you capture an image regardless of the lens. 

 

From zenith straight up to horizon has to be 90 degrees. The sun takes 0.5 degrees of that by angular distance. FACT on either model.

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

the Sun is observed to move between horizon and horizon today at the UK for 12 hours

at June 21st its around 16hrs 40mins

 

Irelevant.

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

so the sun slows down or gets smaller or moves further away or a combination of all during June and speeds up or gets bigger or moves closer  in winter

 

 

NONSENSE!! It moves in an arc lower down from straight up. It always moves at the same verifiable speed. A lower arc occupies less distance, ergo less daylight.

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

the arbitrary 0.5 degrees is therefore incompatible with observed Sun movement throughout the year

 

 

Utter bollocks. The motion of the Sun has nothing whatsoever to do with its angular distance!

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

the distance between horizon and horizon is the same ?

 

 

Yes, but the Sun only follows this path on the plane of the ecliptic. The path it follows by latitude varies significantly, but always the same speed.

 

1 hour ago, zArk said:

questions upon questions

 

 

And you aren't answering any of them.

 

How far away is the Sun straight above closest point?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, alexa said:

 

 Thank you amy G, I've been saying this for a while now. Why is it that ppl always assume that the ancients were dumb & stupid ? They were far from it when it came down to the earth & the celestial skies.

You are very welcome, alexa.

 

I have come to believe people believe this for themselves, to prop themselves up as some evolved, thinking being. You already know how far from reality this belief is. I, certainly have come to know this as I was recently there.

 

Ancient cultures knew of and predicted many of the celestial events that we still observe today, and within moments of today's numbers. The example that @Grumpy Owl provided with Egypt's pyramids and temples is but just one example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me what these flat earthers are doing is undermining principles of decent debate. I don't necessarily agree with many conspiracy theories on this forum but I absolutely will not take anyone to task for expressing them......UNLESS.....like every single one of these flat earthers they refuse to acknowledge clear and incontrovertible counter evidence.

 

Or in this case EVERY single piece of the planet's daily reality.

 

1. How far away is the Sun?

2. How can an object above eyeline vanish below the horizon?

3. How can an object recede and disappear without shrinking to a tiny dot?

 

Why won't any single one of these flat earthers answer properly formatted observational questions? The answer has to be ego?

 

I mean why else would every one of them fail to answer the blatantly infant proof obvious?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Grumpy Owl changed the title to The Flat Earth Thread: The reality of our physical plane (v2)
  • Grumpy Owl locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...