Author Topic: FE and geometry (Read 31973 times)

Gray2023 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 16, 2024, 03:09:34 PM »

Quote from: Cera on August 16, 2024, 02:24:32 PM

Hi Gray,
FE is being heavily censored, so I had to use Firefox to go to Yandex to find this for you. Hope it helps.

https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/2018/07/11/sun-moon-yin-yang/

The distance of the sun can be measured with much precision, the same way as a tree or a house, or church steeple is measured, by plane triangulation. It is the principle on which a house is built, a table made or a man-of-war constructed … The sun is always somewhere between the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn, a distance admitted to be less than 3,000 miles; how then can the sun if it be so many thousand miles in diameter, squeeze itself into a space of about 3,000 miles only? But look at the distance, say the professors! We have already done that and not one of the wise men we have so often challenged, has ever attempted to refute the principle on which we measure the sun’s distance … If the navigator neglects to apply the sun’s semi-diameter to his observation at sea, he is 16 nautical miles out in calculating the position his ship is in. A minute of arc on the sextant represents a nautical mile, and if the semi-diameter be 16 miles, the diameter is of course 32 miles. And as measured by the sextant, the sun’s diameter is 32 minutes of arc, that is 32 nautical miles in diameter. Let him disprove this who can. If ever disproof is attempted, it will be a literary curiosity, well worth framing.” -Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (114-120)
Measuring with sextants and calculating with plane trigonometry both the Sun and Moon figure to be only about 32 miles in diameter and approximately 3,000 miles away.

“The results of recent research prove that the heavenly luminaries are not Worlds, but lights, and should cause all men who have been led to accept as proven Copernicus’ theory of the motions of the Earth, to reconsider this subject.” -E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (3)

Cera, thank you for finding, but that wasn't really helpful. How the sun looks with math gives the same result. A 3000 mile away sun that has a diameter of 32 miles across will look the same as a 93000000 miles away sun with a diameter of 864000 miles. the perspective is the same on earth which is why they made guesses to how far and what size. It doesn't mean the data was arbitary just that perspective is limited from our spot on the earth.

The rest of the video added the moon and the spin and other things, that I am not researching right now.

Are you able to find a video that shows the experiments that were done in regards to seeing things that we shouldn't have seen because they dropped below the curvature of the earth, but we can see them.

Also, please take note of what was said in the video.

Quote: "It is obvious to any child and sovereign-minded adult that the Sun, Moon, stars and planets, every light in the sky above, revolves around the motionless Earth beneath our feet. It is also plain to see that the Sun and Moon are both approximately the same size and situated relatively close to Earth, not 400 times divergent and millions upon millions of miles away. To abandon your senses and every day experience in favor of such unfounded science-fiction fantasies is a fallacy of appeal to authority so extreme that it leaves the brain-washed believer impotent to trust his own natural instincts and forever thereafter chained to the fantastical explanations of astronomical charlatans."

I don't need someone belittling me that is trying to teach me. If I spoke that way to you, would you listen?
This wasn't the only time the person talked this way.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #11 on:** August 16, 2024, 03:37:22 PM »

Quote from: Gray2023 on August 16, 2024, 01:39:00 PM

Please do not infer anything from what I write.

I had no choice because you didn't actually say anything, just threw out there this vague notion of optical "allusions" [sic].

Burden of proof is on you. If the math does not work for things that can be seen too far, you propose the explanation. We have the phenomena, which if take at face values suggests that the earth is flat rather than a globe. Consequently, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate and propose some condition that could explain this, not on us. This is highly dishonest where you're demanding that I produce an explanation for why the earth is still a globe despite the evidence of flatness, when I don't believe it to be the case.

So if you don't want ME to infer anything, then YOU propose an explanation for why things can be seen "too far".

This was an obvious dodge to refuse to answer the question, but somehow placing the onus on me to answer it.

So please answer the question, or stop posting about this subject. I asked you this question before, and you responded by saying, basically, "you tell me".

Gray2023 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 16, 2024, 04:11:19 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 16, 2024, 10:24:22 AM

But, as I said, the question you pose isn't a pure math problem.

In fact, it's precisely math that opens people up to the possibility of FE. When you can see objects from hundreds of miles away that should be hidden by miles of curvature ... according to the MATH, that's a problem for the globe. And of all the debates I've had with globe earthers here on CI, not a single one has addressed that core problem, and it is THE core problem for the globe.

Could you please address how/why is it that myriad experiments, as well as long-distance-record photographs taken by non-FEs, and certified by various photography organizations, defy the math of how far they should be visible on a globe?

I can't answer this question. You haven't given me any facts. I don't know what the experiments are. I don't know what these long-distance photos are. I don't know what photography organizations have certified said photographs. I don't even have anything to google. There are no details to work with in this question.

Please provide the details. I am not asking you to prove anything.

Gray2023 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 16, 2024, 04:14:54 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on August 16, 2024, 03:37:22 PM

I had no choice because you didn't actually say anything, just threw out there this vague notion of optical "allusions" [sic].

Burden of proof is on you. If the math does not work for things that can be seen too far, you propose the explanation. We have the phenomena, which if take at face values suggests that the earth is flat rather than a globe. Consequently, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate and propose some condition that could explain this, not on us. This is highly dishonest where you're demanding that I produce an explanation for why the earth is still a globe despite the evidence of flatness, when I don't believe it to be the case.

So if you don't want ME to infer anything, then YOU propose an explanation for why things can be seen "too far".

This was an obvious dodge to refuse to answer the question, but somehow placing the onus on me to answer it.

So please answer the question, or stop posting about this subject. I asked you this question before, and you responded by saying, basically, "you tell me".

I don't work well with hypotheticals. Please see my answer to your question.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #14 on:** August 16, 2024, 04:52:08 PM »

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: FE and geometry (Read 31973 times)

Gray2023

Re: FE and geometry

Ladislaus

Re: FE and geometry

Gray2023

Re: FE and geometry

Gray2023

Re: FE and geometry

Pax Vobis

Re: FE and geometry