The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[Clete]

No

--Dave

Then the Earth cannot be flat....



The last few days I've been playing around with some math and thought I'd post some of it here to see if it might move some of the flat earthers maybe an inch or two back toward reality...

Let's put some of the sunset images we've taken to good use and see if what was observed can be made to fit with the FET (Flat Earth Theory).

FET claims the Sun is approximately 3000 miles above the Earth and they do not dispute well established distances between points on the surface of the Earth. I'm going to be using these two presuppositions in my calculations and you'll want to refer to the following diagram to keep track of the variables...

View attachment 26417

Side a is the distance from the ground to the Sun (3000 mi).
Side b is the distance from an observer to a point on the Earth where it is high noon (the point at which the Sun is at it's highest point in the sky).
Side c (a.k.a. the hypotenuse) is the distance from the observer to the Sun itself.
Angle A is the height of the Sun above the horizon in degrees as seen from the observer.
Angle C is always 90°
Angle B is not relevant to this discussion.

Note from the start that if the Earth is flat and the Sun is 3000 miles up (or any number of miles up for that matter) that angle A can never ever get to 0°. The Sun would never set because no matter how long you make side b of that triangle, angle A is always a positive number. The only way for the Sun to set on a flat Earth is if the Sun dipped below the plane of the flat Earth. If that were to happen, then it would be night everywhere on Earth at once, which we know does not happen. It's always high noon somewhere on the Earth.

That, by itself, ought to be enough to convince anyone that the Earth cannot be flat but there more. Let's take a look at some of these photos we took last week...

So, since we're assuming a flat Earth, I'm going to focus on just a couple of photos that both show the position of the Sun in degrees above the horizon. I should point out that you don't have to trust the numbers generated by the app on the phones used to take these photos. The numbers can be confirmed by anyone by simply fashioning a simple sextant from a cheap plastic protractor.

I'll use these two photos...

View attachment 26418 View attachment 26419

On the left is the Sun's position as seen from my house on May 8th at 01:00 UCT (8:00:01pm central time)
On the right is the Sun's position as seen from Knight's house on the same day just 38 seconds later (7:00:39pm mountain time).

The position of the Sun at my house is just .1° above the horizon while at Knight's it was 10.2° (This information is displayed just to the right of the Sun position indicator. It shows the Sun's heading and then it's elevation in degrees. On Knight's photo it's sort of hidden a little by the NW direction indicator but it reads "Sun 284.0 W 10.2°" The 10.2 is the elevation above the horizon in degrees)

So, let's look at Knight's first...

How far West would you have to go from Knight's house (where sides b and c meet) to get to a place on a flat Earth where it was high noon (where sides a and b meet)?

It turns out that when dealing with right triangles if you have the length of any one side and either angle A or B, you can know everything about the whole triangle!
The math is boring and so I'm not going to show all that. Just go HERE and plug in the numbers for side b (3000) and angle A (10.2).
You get the following results...

Someone 16,700 miles (length of side b) to his west would see the Sun at it's highest point in the sky for that day.

There is no point on Earth 16,700 miles from Denver Colorado.


Still not convinced? Well just wait till you plug in the numbers from my house!


At my house the Sun was only .1 degrees above the horizon. So plugging in the numbers from my house (side b = 3000 and angle A = .1) we get the following results...

You have to go 1,720,000 miles to my West to find high noon beneath a Sun that was 3000 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

That's One MILLION seven hundred twenty THOUSAND miles!
(That's more that 7 times the real distance to the Moon!)

Now seriously folks! What more proof could you possibly need? How are you going to possibly refute this?

Are you going to deny that the Sun is about 10° further above the horizon in Denver than it is in Houston? Even if you did that, the distance to noon calculations aren't dependent on that!

Are you going to challenge the validity of the Pythagorean Theorem?

It seems that's your only option! It's either refute the Pythagorean Theorem or you must reject the notion that the Earth is flat based on the mere fact that the Sun gets to within .1° of the horizon at one point on the Earth while at the same time being directly over head at another.

Clete :Clete:

 

[Clete]

David,

Here's another bit of Pythagorean Theorum that disproves a flat Earth...




This time let's assume that the distances on Earth as reported by Google Earth are accurate but that the Earth is flat.

To make the numbers easy, lets assume a two locations on the equator on an equinox.

And we'll use the same diagram as before...

View attachment 26421

When it is Noon (90° over head (angle C) in one place it is Sunset or Sunrise 6225.25 miles away (side b). (again - assuming both locations are on the equator on an equinox)
For our Sunset angle (angle A) we'll stick with .1° because any angle below that produces numbers that are even more embarrassing for the FET.

So, plugging in the numbers HERE, we get the following results....

The Sun would have to be a mere 10.865122 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

If you use a smaller number for angle a, then the Sun has to be closer and closer to the surface. An angle of .01, for example, would require the Sun to be just over one mile above the surface of the Earth.

The Sun cannot be BOTH 3000 miles above the surface AND 10.86 miles (or less) above the surface at the same time. Therefore, the Earth cannot be flat.


Come on Dave! Engage the argument! Refute it, if you can, or else drop this insanity!


Clete

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, my eyes did. I am still waiting for you to explain what the table represent in the Flat Earth model.

I see your point now. Thanks, this is the kind of commentary I want to see. It means you viewed the FE video, analyzed it and saw something that was important to point out.

The two tables would, I image since there's no explanation given, represent a horizon line that we see at eye level. The table with the camera hits the other table at the the center of the lens just as we would see the horizon right between the eyes.

Flat earth accepts perspective and globe earth rejects perspective.

In other words, the sun disappears beyond the horizon not over a curved earth. The two tables set at slightly different heights "presumes" this then illustrates it.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Here is an interesting laser experiment conducted by Discovery Channel with a Flat Earth proponent on board.

I had a reply to this not to long ago. I'll look for it and repost it later.

--Dave

 

[Bright Raven]

If the earth is flat, how can you start from one point travel west and come back to the same point?

 

[DFT_Dave]

If the earth was flat, the view of a disappearing/appearing sun from above the clouds would be different than the view at the ground. This is not what the video shows.

Above the clouds the sun would dwindle in size and intensity but never completely disappear; and then increase in size to be comparatively large when it is overhead.
This is not our experience, even taking into account the lens effect. From a 45 degree declination to nearly overhead, we should notice a nearly 50% increase in diameter. We don't.

Viewed from the ground, horizon cover could theoretically hide the sun if the earth were flat but, on a moonless night, some kind of a glow should still be visible in the sun's direction. On a dark night, even a candle is visible up to 30 miles.
A candle is approx. 0.01876 Watts.
The sun emits approx. 250 watts per sq. meter onto the earth. (Tested and proven by solar panels)
That means that the sun emits 1,575,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times more light energy than a candle.

The other tip off is that the sun disappears below the horizon quickly. I saw the sun going down in a red ball the other night and ran for my camera. Before I could get down to the lake, it had set.
From earth's perspective the sun moves its own arc diameter every 2 minutes. If it is perpendicular to the horizon, this is exactly the amount of time it takes to disappear over the horizon. The further north or south you are, it will take longer because it is descending at an angle to the horizon. I am very close to the 45th parallel which means that, in a few weeks, it will be directly overhead at noon.

A sunset/sunrise takes exactly the same amount of time at the ground or above the clouds. For this reason alone, the earth cannot be flat.

Thanks for viewing and you raise some good points.

The view from above the clouds shows mountain tops so they would be low not high in the sky. But you make a good argument here and I will keep it in mind as I continue my research.

I've never seen candle light 30 miles away.

View attachment 26472

View attachment 26473

Clouds and contrails never arch in a downward direction in conformity to a globed earth. They are seen to conform to perspective of a flat plane/earth. The video's of the suns path follow the same pattern in the same way.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

It wasn't intended to be.

Would you watch a video that claims to prove the Paul was not an apostle?

If so, you'd be wasting your time just as I would be wasting my time watching a single second of another flat earth video. I haven't watched any for months nor will I. I've told you this many times already. I'm way past being done with flat earth videos. You want me to respond to an argument, you're going to have to make it yourself.

Actually it wouldn't take all day. You could start in the morning, take a single photo every hour and be done around noon. You might spend a cumulative 15 whole minutes taking the actual photos. Then it's just a matter of pulling the photos up on your computer and measuring how many pixels wide each image of the sun is. There won't be a 1% difference between any two of the photos.

You can do the exact same thing with the Moon which happens to be the same apparent size as the Sun. The Moon is a lot easier to photograph because it doesn't require any special filters or other equipment. Any camera with even a very modest zoom lens will do. In fact, you could do it on your cell phone if you have a way of holding it still.

Clete

Yes, I would absolutely study to know if the apostle Paul existed or not and gladly watch video to know why someone would think he did not.

I've studied creation along side evolution.

I've studied open view theism along side closed view theism.

I've studied Atheism, Pantheism, Panentheism--Buddhism, Hinduism etc. enough to understand what they are about and how they compare with each other on the basics.

I've been three years studying cosmology with the time I've had while still working. I want to know why flat earth is still here. One could make the case that flat earth is Biblical. That does not mean it's true, but I'm giving it a good look because I think it's possible.

In a debate I can have every aspect of FE criticized and see if holds up or not. I like comparing both views and seeing different ways of explaining things.

Your input is very good. If there are no other factors to consider like perspective then you are absolutely correct as to why we know the earth is a globe. But I will continue to see how FE arguments address evidence for a globe.

I'm a graphic artist, not a photographer, but everyone knows that art and photography can be manipulated and altered. I have to see many photos before I can make a conclusion. I'm very good at determining a good from a bad argument, one that is built on reliable/proven premise and one that is not. I know a contradiction when I see one.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

David,

Here's another bit of Pythagorean Theorum that disproves a flat Earth...




This time let's assume that the distances on Earth as reported by Google Earth are accurate but that the Earth is flat.

To make the numbers easy, lets assume a two locations on the equator on an equinox.

And we'll use the same diagram as before...

View attachment 26421

When it is Noon (90° over head (angle C) in one place it is Sunset or Sunrise 6225.25 miles away (side b). (again - assuming both locations are on the equator on an equinox)
For our Sunset angle (angle A) we'll stick with .1° because any angle below that produces numbers that are even more embarrassing for the FET.

So, plugging in the numbers HERE, we get the following results....

The Sun would have to be a mere 10.865122 miles above the surface of a flat Earth.

If you use a smaller number for angle a, then the Sun has to be closer and closer to the surface. An angle of .01, for example, would require the Sun to be just over one mile above the surface of the Earth.

The Sun cannot be BOTH 3000 miles above the surface AND 10.86 miles (or less) above the surface at the same time. Therefore, the Earth cannot be flat.


Come on Dave! Engage the argument! Refute it, if you can, or else drop this insanity!


Clete

I have to study your arguments before I can respond to them. I never had to use the Pythagorean Theorem to prove the existence of God, the historical reliability of Scripture, or creation. Now that I have more time I am happy to study this. As I have said many times there is good evidence for globe earth and these calculations are of that kind.

But I also think there's good evidence for flat earth. Personally, I want to reconcile this.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

If the earth is flat, how can you start from one point travel west and come back to the same point?

Because flat earth is a circle.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Flat earth accepts perspective and globe earth rejects perspective.

Continual lies... sickening Dave.

 

[Right Divider]

I have to study your arguments before I can respond to them.

I've made similar arguments for MONTHS.... but you have never studied this argument before?

You're probably too busy searching for more bogus flat earth videos.

I never had to use the Pythagorean Theorem to prove the existence of God, the historical reliability of Scripture, or creation.

Irrelevant to the discussion Dave. Get real and quit evading the truth.

Now that I have more time I am happy to study this. As I have said many times there is good evidence for globe earth and these calculations are of that kind.

Then why do you ignore the outcome?

But I also think there's good evidence for flat earth.

This evidence using simple triangulation disproves the flat earth.

Personally, I want to reconcile this.

Only if you stop rejecting simple proof.

View attachment 26474
If the distances are not correct, let me know and I'll adjust. But the FACT is that your model (FE) is a complete failure based on observable FACTS and you must continue to resort to your bogus flat earth videos and "theories".

 

[Right Divider]

Because flat earth is a circle.

--Dave

You missed the point again Dave.

You cannot travel in a straight line going west or you will fall off the "flat earth".

You must constantly travel a little north along with your westward travel.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Continual lies... sickening Dave.

Make an argument and explain how you see perspective in a way FE does not.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

I've made similar arguments for MONTHS.... but you have never studied this argument before?

You're probably too busy searching for more bogus flat earth videos.


Irrelevant to the discussion Dave. Get real and quit evading the truth.


Then why do you ignore the outcome?


This evidence using simple triangulation disproves the flat earth.


Only if you stop rejecting simple proof.

View attachment 26474
Is the distances are not correct, let me know and I'll adjust. But the FACT is that your model (FE) is a complete failure based on observable FACTS and your must continue to resort to your bogus flat earth videos and "theories".

I would call this evidence and a good argument for the globe, but not proof of the globe.

I will argue that there is flat earth evidence and good arguments for it, but they don't prove FE.

No single argument and no single evidence will be enough to prove either flat or globe earth, in my opinion.

I don't think it's sick to want a good debate over these two opposing cosmologies any more than a debate over any other two opposing views on any matter.

--Dave

 

[George Affleck]

THE most undeniable proof of the Flat Earth SUN!

More video evidence.

--Dave

One more thing.

The presentation of the coin on the table is completely wrong for two reasons.

1. The camera angle is slightly below the table surface level. Of course the coin will disappear. If the camera angle was exactly equal to the table surface, the coin would always be visible.

2. The coin on the surface of the table does not accurately represent the flat earth model. The sun is above the earth's surface; high in the sky and not at the surface of the earth.

If an accurate representation had been done with the camera at the correct angle and the sun at the right height, the coin would never disappear until it was so small as to not be able to be seen with the naked eye. This would likely occur if the table was about 1000 feet long due to the limitations of our vision.
But even then, a good pair of binoculars would bring it into view again.

This attempt at 'proving' a flat earth should be an embarrassment to your community. Perhaps he is actually a globe earth believer performing tongue-in-cheek experiments? I have seen better parlor tricks.

 

[Bright Raven]

Because flat earth is a circle.

--Dave

That implies there is an edge. If that is so, where is it?

 

[Right Divider]

Make an argument and explain how you see perspective in a way FE does not.

--Dave

We have shown you (repeatedly) how perspective really works, but you prefer that silly and bogus video instead.

This is how perspective works, plain and simple.

Simple and observable facts refute the FE "model".

 

[Right Divider]

I would call this evidence and a good argument for the globe, but not proof of the globe.

It may not prove the globe, but it 100% refutes a "flat earth".

I will argue that there is flat earth evidence and good arguments for it, but they don't prove FE.

I've been watching carefully and I've yet to see some "good arguments" for the flat earth.

No single argument and no single evidence will be enough to prove either flat or globe earth, in my opinion.

Once again there is SOME evidence that completely and 100% proves that the sun is NOT circling a flat earth. You are totally stubborn and blind to this fact.

I don't think it's sick to want a good debate over these two opposing cosmologies any more than a debate over any other two opposing views on any matter.

What's sick is your LYING with regards to what "globers" have said. We fully understand perspective and you do not.

 

[musterion]

That there's just more of your devilish Masonic "science" and NASA video trickery, but you can't fool ol' Dave!

Right, Dave?

 

[DFT_Dave]

That implies there is an edge. If that is so, where is it?

View attachment 26475

--Dave