4 > Discussions; Public Archive
Reasonable FE discussion with RJ? (I hope)
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 5 December 2023 12:25 ---Posted without comment.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ERJfoH2fgI
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 11:14 ---Bird traveled over 60,000 miles around Antarctica even tho the claimed size on the spherical model is roughly 14,000 miles. He also claimed there was land beyond Antarctica. So if Antarctica is just the shoreline for our world pond(oceans), what are they hiding with the Antarctic treaty. Why do you think it's a big deal that putin is threatening to break the treaty. I know you don't like to discuss the notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but, there is more and more evidence to support the idea that is not everyday.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 11:19 ---I'm fine with discussing flat/round earth. What I'm not okay with is folks who refuse to think and folks who refuse to actually look at and discuss facts. Scratch that... and discuss information and data.
If you are willing to do that, I'll start another thread here in my collection of shares.
Lemme know.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 11:24 ---That's a great answer especially compared to the normal reaction to the notion. First thing is, it is most flat-earters contention that the flat-eart society is a government disinformation co-intel-pro type organization meant to make fe looks retarded. I only make a couple positive claims, mostly just questions about major flaws in the proposed globe model, such as the one i made in my original comment. I would be down to have a discussion with the caveats considered.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 12:03 ---➽ I know you don't like to discuss the notion that the earth isn't a ball in an infinite space vaccume but, there is more and more evidence to support the idea that is not everyday.
Here's the convo starter OP.
➽ I only make a couple positive claims, mostly just questions about major flaws in the proposed globe model, such as the one i made in my original comment.
I've not really seen direct claims in your post in the other thread.
I can't even claim you've implied a PRO-FE position.
➽ Bird traveled over 60,000 miles around Antarctica even tho the claimed size on the spherical model is roughly 14,000 miles.
I'm not sure which dimension of what is meant by 14,000 miles. The GE model is a circumference is...
⚡ Measured around the Equator, it is 40,075.017 km (24,901.461 mi). Measured around the poles, the circumference is 40,007.863 km (24,859.734 mi). Measurement of Earth's circumference has been important to navigation since ancient times.
Wikipedia⚡
I used to own a truck. I did 90,000 miles per year. Average 250 miles per day. Max speed out west, 70 mph, or 3.5 hours average drive time. So, what speed did Byrd travel at?
➽ So if Antarctica is just the shoreline for our world pond(oceans), what are they hiding with the Antarctic treaty.
That "IF' is very important. FE thinks it's a shoreline. GE does not.
I am nescient of the words of this treaty. So I only have a half challenge on the assumption that the treaty is hiding something. The treaty is a null issue on the FE-GE discussion.
➽ Why do you think it's a big deal that putin is threatening to break the treaty.
Resources... And meeting Biden's warmongering threats with his own.
My questions are specific...
And in your case, rhetorical unless you feel the need to attempt to answer.
What is the sun's distance from the alleged FE?
What is the sun's angular size?
If the distance X has an angular size of Y, and you cut the distance X in half, what is the angular size of the sun?
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: September 30 12:10 ---Could i start more fundamental? I would ask how earth's proposed sizeis known. To know meaning: to know first hand. How is earths size calculated. We have to establish this before we start to comment or speculate on the lights in the sky.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 12:40 ---➽ how earth's proposed size is known
First pass without detail answer: Trigonometry.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 30 12:43 ---ok perfect. But there's a presupposition of a distant sun casting rays on the earth nearly parallel, correct? Like this....
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 12:59 ---➽ presupposition
Assumption/claim of GE.
➽ nearly parallel
Yes.
Is this connected to my image showing how diameter can be discerned from a fixed elevated object?
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 30 13:02 ---yes. Your correct about the math and everything. However we are trying to explain observable reality. The only thing any one has ever observed are cerpuscular rays coming from the sun such as...
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 13:03 ---would you agree?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 13:51 ---Took me a moment to comprehend your point's connection to my image.
I was going to delete the following 35 words. Instead, I'm going to leave them as a chastisement that you can do more clear writing.
Would I agree that "we are trying to explain observable reality"?
Yes.
Would I agree that "The only thing any one has ever observed are cerpuscular rays coming from the sun"?
I can neither answer yes or no.
While I find the images you presented very intriguing, there is too much missing information to assume what appears is correct.
End 35+ word chastisement.
Now that I know what you are angling at (pun intended), I can address the unchecked assumptions.
I have marked this image with the non-parallel rays to the best of my ability. I have marked the image with a horizontal baseline. I have marked this image with a vertical bifurcating line. With knowledge of 1/2 baseline to angled line distance, and the angle of the angled line, Trig will give the answer of the distance from the baseline to the apex where the two angled lines intersect. How close to equal is the length of the vertical line and 1/2 the baseline by what you see? The red horizontal line is not at the waterline because the to vertices would be off the image.
--- End quote ---
Dale Eastman:
--- Quote from: 30 14:08 ---that sounds about right. And simple trig would give you an answer between 3000-5000 miles away Depending on many veriables. And we can get into why its difficult to actually triangulate the sun in a bit, but I'm stickin with this point to paint the picture. The calculations for trigonometric phericty work on a flat plane with a local light source. You can have two bottles on a table with a light over one bottle and you can measure the angles of the shadows and do some great trigonometry and figure out the sphericity of your table. Leaving out any presumptions. To presume a distant sun you have to presume the atmosphere is acting like a convex lens insted of a concave one also. But what I'm saying is neither one proves anything. But one of them requires two presumptions. Does that make sense?
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 14:40 ---➽ Does that make sense?
It does in that I understand the point you are attempting to make about why divergent v. parallel rays don't prove flat or globe. Absent checks on globe - flat trig, I would agree that figuring distance to the sun is not calculable.
You are attempting to use Occam's razor to shoot for the simplest theory. You invalidate your intent because you are yourself presuming others have used the presumption you claim. What you have presented is the concept of "atmospheric lensing". I'm going to kick that can down the road for now with the admission that atmo lensing IS a measurable thing and with the caveat that to bring it up again will require delving into its science.
If you scroll back up to the image I created, you err in what you are assuming. That image does NOT have anything to do with sunlight rays. That image is solely what line of sight angles are to the top of an object affixed to the earth.
On that issue, I will re post my standard answer to FE v GE debate.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: 30 14:45 ---Tweaked my original.
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version