Topic: Flat Earth - page 109. (Read 1095196 times)

You are ignoring the point. The point is that the sun appears smaller from further away, not larger or the same. But the amount is far less than it would be if the dome were only the approximately 18,000 miles high at the center that you seem to think.



Actually, so much for your claim. If you get atmospheric conditions just right, you can't see the sun at all... like at night.

As far as flat stars go, have you been out there to visit one of them lately? Why do you think that I have?

Star measurements are made from the center of the star, even if you can't lock in on it. If measuring off stars is assumptions, Sagnac, Michelson Morley, and Airy are assumptions, and flat earth fails because you have been placing your trust in them, even though you are backwards.

^^^ When I stated 1 mile = 1 minute and that the Sun is 32 minutes in diameter, how exactly did you get 3,000 miles?



bump+++



bump+++



You assume the stars are flat due to claiming they're gazillions of miles away (with an apparent size of less than the plank length AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!) this implies the curvature that can be derived from the measurements you're making is due to the Earth curving (re: Aristotle). I'm fairly sure I can also derive curvature (the framework for applying it at least) from whatever equations you're using and show you're making an assumption purely on a mathematical basis.

Okay. Thanks. Didn't realize you didn't want to use anything regarding sight, or photo-sensitivity for determining the shape of the earth.

How does triangulation suggest that the earth is a sphere? (Note that we are using photo-sensitivity assumptions again.) Simply using the same time of day for making geometric trig measurements doesn't need a sphere in any of it. All we are doing is determining the distance to the sun, and then the diameter of the sun off that distance.

For example - and I forget your figures, etc. - if the sun is 3000 miles in diameter, and is directly overhead for you, and is well within the 18,000 miles to the top of the dome from earth... somebody who is thousands of miles away from you should see a smaller sun. But he doesn't. The sun is always the same size to everybody no matter where he looks at it from. This suggests that the sun is much larger and more distant that you seem to think. The idea that refraction makes it look bigger than it is from further away, doesn't have its base in science or simple observation. In fact, it's the opposite.

Since we can't use photo-sensitivity - sight or telescopes, or probably radar since it has to do with the electromagnetic spectrum - why would you think that the earth is flat, and that the sun is only less than 18,000 miles away? If your error is in the range of 90 million miles factoring in refraction, why would you think it is any better at close range?

Math and many science experiments show that the refractive index is not any 90 million miles off. If it were, Sagnac, Michelson Morley, and Airy wouldn't have any bearing on anything, one way or another. Yet you quote these guys and refer to them all the time. Or is it that you think that they were wrong this way but not that?

Angular size requires the horizon and two sextant readings!
ANGULAR SIZE:

^{[source: http://www.thechironcenter.com/grade-7-perspective-drawing.html]}



Apparent size does not require the horizon and only needs a single sextant reading!
APPARENT SIZE:

^{[source: re-purposed pseudoscience image]}



With angular size the angle never changes so long as it hasn't past the vanishing point, it's a constant that correlates with physical size; 1 mile = 1 minute.








 

If it turns out that airplanes do in fact catalyze air into fuel and they're scamming everybody on fuel cost, then what was the source of the kerosene accelerated fire that melted all those steel beams on 9/11?

---

---

Your margin of error is about ~89,999,666 miles if you factor refraction (WARNING: DO NOT USE REFRACTION TABLES FROM NASA!) into the equation. You're also assuming the Earth is a sphere, the fact you made an assumption limits the validity of your evidence; petitio principii, or at least a variant thereof.

Try measuring the Sun's size directly with the sextant (32 minutes in diameter) and you'll get much more accurate results.

If you use a sextant or a transit to triangulate with the sun and several different stars at a particular time of the year, and then triangulate with the same stars and the sun 90 days later, and then triangulate the triangulations, together, the distance of the sun from the earth can be ascertained to be about 90 million miles. You can use the calc to find the rough diameter of the sun to be +/- 800,000 miles.

And if the sun was 10x further, and 10x bigger, it would appear the same size in the sky, and your saxtant would have the same measurement on it, including
the angles on the airplane.

... only because Batman understands that the earth is a globe.

1. During the day you'll observe the sky is generally blue or overcast and very much opaque, however as you can see from the above image there are some phenomenon that can still be photographed.

2. Based on my analysis of meteorite fragments the dome (firmament) is manufactured from a nickel-iron long-grain damascus type steel alloy with a gold colour optically reflective oxide layer. Measurements of the Sun and Moon's elevation with a sextant indicates they reflect off of the dome at a height of about ~3,000 miles.




[meteorite cross section]




[meteorite nickel-iron oxide]

Man, so much history in this forum.

Do you miss your counterpart notbatman? Don't bother responding, I have you on ignore.

Darkened room? What do you mean by that, just take the picture when the sun is shining, also what is the dome, transparent glass or a mirror?

^^^ Asking for a picture of a mirror in darkened room without a flash powerful enough to illuminate even a small section is a tall order. There's evidence for the dome but mostly in the form indirect observations and measurements.

Meteorites made from manufactured steel could be considered direct evidence of an engineered structure above us. Lasers can be bounced off the dome as a method of directly measuring the shape.

As far a pictures go a rainbow takes the shape of the dome.

There's lots of indirect evidence such as the holographic nature of the celestial objects and their measured (sextant) values, the electric field it produces, the requirement of pressure vessel needed to hold the atmosphere and, microwave & high energy cosmic rays. This is just to name a few.

Can the dome be tested, observed or measured? Show us then.

^^^ Not an argument, the terrain is flat and covered by an artifical structure in both cases. The hypothetical existence of other planes of existence have no bering on what can be observed, tested and measured here.

BTW the asymmetrical electric field a polarized angled triangular structure creates between it and the ground would cause falling objects to accelerate at inconsistent speeds and stationary objects to weigh differently depending on their locations, the dome minamizes this effect. The magnetic field would be inconsistent, pressure & temperature differences would also make the weather hellish. The triangular structure is also not as strong as a dome and would be subject to deformation and other catastrophic effects over time. The projection of celestial lights (sun, moon, stars...) is also an issue with the triangle roof.

What about the alien on another planet, on an alternate thread, that say his world is a flat triangle with a triangle dome on top. Why is he wrong, and you are right?

^^^ When one takes a reading with a caliper the reading is true, it is the truth. The reading is not faith based, it's not conjecture,  it's not arbitrary, it's not opinion, it's not the result of consensus, it's not the product of ideology, it's not a belief and, it's not a concept.

The same applies when one takes a reading with a sextant; it measures angles on a plane. If you disagree with direct measurement then you've got a problem with the truth.

A rope around your neck can help you overcome this problem you have with the truth.

Notbatman, why does your construct of an ideology flat earth only exist, and it's the only 100% right one? Alternate thread, different race, one similar to you would say "It's not a globe", it's this shape. Why is his wrong, and your concept is the only true and right one?

When you think about it, why does the entire model/universe/construct have to be conveniently shaped around what you believe, and think is, in fact, the truth.

^^^ I've got proof beyond a reasonable doubt the Earth is motionless and all you can do is change the subject.

The USAF replication of the M&M experiment and, Dufour & Prunier's replication of the Sagnac experiment both irrefutably falsify relativity. Without relativity there is no globe.

I've got the scientific evidence bruh, all you've got is white knighting for organized criminals that need to be stuffed into a gas chamber. BTW I learned new slang today, "gaytheist" wear your new label with pride fag.  

We have scientific evidence for the past few hundred of years showing the earth is not flat. Again, why is it so hard to photograph the dome? Perhaps because it doesn't exist?

^^^ We're not discussing the dome, stop changing the subject fucking cocksucker.

I've got actual proof to back up my claims:

"Special Relativity," Nature vol. 322 (August 1986): p. 590. <--- NOT AN OLD FAILED EXPERIMENT | Replication and results of the M&M experiment sponsored by the U.S. Air Force.

Seriously, go hang yourself faggot!

Yeah, lets not focus on the non existence of the dome, fuck that, better to link old failed experiments instead of a simple picture/video of the ''mirrored'' dome. HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.