Author Topic: Test GE and FE (Read 26495 times)

Donachie · « **Reply #75 on:** February 28, 2023, 05:11:24 PM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on February 28, 2023, 04:04:27 PM

That's impossible if the sun is 93 million miles away.

Round Earther here, and you're correct the Sun isn't 93 million miles away. They've exaggerated the distance of the Sun from the Earth and the size of the rest of the cosmos by perhaps as much as 85%. I think Pliny the Elder estimated the Sun to be about 19 times as far away from Earth as the Moon. I'm not sure how he came up with that number. If that's anywhere near the round figure for space, it's about 4,517,820 miles.

The reason the Sun appears so big is because the Earth's atmosphere captures and magnifies its light and heat. If it were not for the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun would be smaller and less intense and we could see stars all day long. As it is now, the Sun's real angular diameter in the sky, not it's mysterious glow or corona affect, is the same as the Moon's, which is uncanny and the reason eclipses work out so well like they do. Lunar eclipses by the way occur in 3-D space, of course, and add to the simple proof that the Earth is a sphere.

Meg · « **Reply #76 on:** February 28, 2023, 07:44:04 PM »

Quote from: Donachie on February 28, 2023, 05:11:24 PM

Round Earther here, and you're correct the Sun isn't 93 million miles away. They've exaggerated the distance of the Sun from the Earth and the size of the rest of the cosmos by perhaps as much as 85%. I think Pliny the Elder estimated the Sun to be about 19 times as far away from Earth as the Moon. I'm not sure how he came up with that number. If that's anywhere near the round figure for space, it's about 4,517,820 miles.

The reason the Sun appears so big is because the Earth's atmosphere captures and magnifies its light and heat. If it were not for the Earth's atmosphere, the Sun would be smaller and less intense and we could see stars all day long. As it is now, the Sun's real angular diameter in the sky, not it's mysterious glow or corona affect, is the same as the Moon's, which is uncanny and the reason eclipses work out so well like they do. Lunar eclipses by the way occur in 3-D space, of course, and add to the simple proof that the Earth is a sphere.

Even if the sun were 4,517,820 miles away from the earth, wouldn't it appear to always be the same size, given that it's supposedly so far away? But the sun, in reality, gets smaller in appearance as it goes away from us, and this indicates to me that the sun is not far away at all, but quite close and above the earth. It's not absolute proof, but just evidence to me.

Donachie · « **Reply #77 on:** February 28, 2023, 07:55:44 PM »

The perception of the Sun that we experience from the surface of the Earth is greatly affected by the Earth's atmosphere that captures and magnifies the sunlight. I think Aristotle wrote the earliest recorded work that we still have today on meteorology. How the Sun appears in the sky is also a question of atmospherics.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed the Earth to be a sphere that was at rest, perfectly balanced in the middle of the ends of the Heavens, and not moving. It was considered to have its equipoise because it's perfectly sphercial in the middle of the spherical ends of space, which balances it out against all the distance in sides in a mysterious mathematical way. They sort of left it at that.

Meg · « **Reply #78 on:** February 28, 2023, 07:58:28 PM »

Quote from: Donachie on February 28, 2023, 07:55:44 PM

The perception of the Sun that we experience from the surface of the Earth is greatly affected by the Earth's atmosphere that captures and magnifies the sunlight. I think Aristotle wrote the earliest recorded work that we still have today on meteorology. How the Sun appears in the sky is also a question of atmospherics.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed the Earth to be a sphere that was at rest, perfectly balanced in the middle of the ends of the Heavens, and not moving. It was considered to have its equipoise because it's perfectly sphercial in the middle of the spherical ends of space, which balances it out against all the distance in sides in a mysterious mathematical way. They sort of left it at that.

Well, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle could have been wrong. They were only human, after all, and not infallible.

St Giles · « **Reply #79 on:** February 28, 2023, 08:02:09 PM »

Not long ago I noticed the sun looked huge at sunrise, and I don't think it was just because it was close to the trees as a size reference.

Meg · « **Reply #80 on:** February 28, 2023, 08:13:00 PM »

Quote from: Dankward on December 28, 2021, 05:46:09 PM

Reality:

There is no effect that would make objects, or light/light rays/photons, obstruct your view if it was on a flat surface. Only a curved surface explains this observations.

I don't believe that the photo on the right is 130 miles away. It looks photoshopped anyway. Here are quite a few photos taken of Mt. Rainier from Seattle, which is 100 miles away.

How is it possible that your above photo can be 130 miles away, when most of the mountain is still showing from 100 miles away in Seattle?

1,184 Seattle Mount Rainier Photos and Premium High Res Pictures - Getty Images

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #81 on:** February 28, 2023, 09:08:01 PM »

Quote

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle all believed the Earth to be a sphere that was at rest, perfectly balanced in the middle of the ends of the Heavens, and not moving. It was considered to have its equipoise because it's perfectly sphercial in the middle of the spherical ends of space, which balances it out against all the distance in sides in a mysterious mathematical way. They sort of left it at that.

Is there a picture/model which illustrates their view?

Donachie · « **Reply #82 on:** February 28, 2023, 09:12:11 PM »

Quote from: Meg on February 28, 2023, 07:58:28 PM

Well, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle could have been wrong. They were only human, after all, and not infallible.

At least they weren't engaged in heresy, the egregious one in which Copernicus, Gilbert, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were involved.

Donachie · « **Reply #83 on:** February 28, 2023, 09:41:21 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on February 28, 2023, 09:08:01 PM

Is there a picture/model which illustrates their view?

I think Ptolemy illustrated it. Pierre d'Ailly for one wrote "Ymago Mundi" that was a guide for Columbus and showed the Earth as a sphere. Just consider that any point in space, as small as it can be, is spherical for a perfect relation of depth to all the sides of space, that are all around everywhere as far as things can go, and for all the points alike.

Start with one side of Pi, then another that is its opposite and build it all up from there. Space buils up from Pi, and so it goes ad infinitum, imho. So the analysis of the sides of Pi should solve it.

At midday the Sun is opposite another point in space that is midnight since all the hours of the day are around the Earth equally all the time. Midnight and midday are at opposite sides of the hours and the exprience of time is also the experience of space. It's like the dance of the hours and the dance of the circle.

The Sun also has three characteristics in altitude, azimuth, and ascension as it goes by the surface of the Earth. This means there is another perpendicular plane in the east and the west, also throughout the middle, and where it ascends and descends, as it lights up half of the Earth at a time in the progress of its orbit.

Where does the Sun go at midnight in relation to a flat Earth? It seems there's a problem in the development and relation of the full extent of sides in a flat Earth scenario, since the Sun lights up half of it all the time. If nobody can find the end of the West why does the Sun descend over the bar of the horizon at sunset? The Sun doesn't make an infinite journey in a day, and the relationship between midnight and midday is not infinite either. So these limits have to start working out some way somewhere.

In a round Earth, one can say the surface of the Earth is "uniform", but in a flat Earth it seems the surface is not uniform since they say everbody's on one side. In that case, one may wonder what is the surface of the Earth like where the Sun never shines?

Donachie · « **Reply #84 on:** March 01, 2023, 01:05:33 AM »

The Bible has a number of geocentric verses but these from Wisdom are maybe overlooked. They both support the geocentric view since heliocentrism makes disorder out of motion and the proportion of space.

11:21 but thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight. sed omnia mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti.

11:23 For the whole world before thee is as the least grain of the balance, and as a drop of the morning dew, that falleth down upon tho earth. quoniam tamquam momentum staterae sic ante te est orbis terrarum et tamquam gutta roris antelucani quae descendit in terram

All the oceans are like a drop of water and all the surface has the same equal relation to the center which is spherical. In a flat Earth all the surface doesn't have the same measured relation to the center.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #85 on:** March 01, 2023, 06:57:42 AM »

Quote from: St Giles on February 28, 2023, 08:02:09 PM

Not long ago I noticed the sun looked huge at sunrise, and I don't think it was just because it was close to the trees as a size reference.

Not sure if this is a sarcastic comment, but thngs can get magnified when they're low on the horizon depending on the atmosphere you have to look through to view it.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #86 on:** March 01, 2023, 07:02:29 AM »

Quote from: Meg on February 28, 2023, 07:44:04 PM

Even if the sun were 4,517,820 miles away from the earth, wouldn't it appear to always be the same size, given that it's supposedly so far away? But the sun, in reality, gets smaller in appearance as it goes away from us, and this indicates to me that the sun is not far away at all, but quite close and above the earth. It's not absolute proof, but just evidence to me.

Thanks. This video debunks the notion that the sun never gets smaller when it's setting. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't ... although I've seen a guy who made a video showing that it gets a little bit smaller no matter what, even if it's not "smaller enough" to make it obvious, where he took still shots and measured the size of the sun.

So, it's clearly demonstrated that things can get magnified when viewed through the atmosphere. As objects get lower on the horizon, you have to look through MORE atmosphere to see it. But what kind of atmospheric distortion would cause the sun to APPEAR to get smaller? Only thing you can say is that when it was higher in the sky, it was being magnified, but then when it got closer to the horizon it was magnified less and less ... but that's the opposite of what we normally see, such as with the moon being larger near the horizon.

David Weiss has taken some video from a drone where the sun never sets but merely fades away.

I've seen video from the weather balloons (those at about 120,00 feet), and when it's in the right position, the sun does clearly appears to be headed TOWARD the balloon and getting larger. You'd expect a lot less atmospheric distortion at 120,000 feet.

And, then, it's been pointed out with those weather balloons at 120,000 feet that from one end of Kansas to another you would expect 120,000 feet of curvature, the same amount as the altitude of the weather balloons. That's an enormous amount of curvature that is not evident anywhere. You would clearly see the horizon line dip below eye level.

About 16 seconds into this simulator video is what it would look like at 120,000 feet, but the horizon line remains at eye level.

That's why Nei deGrasse Tyson had to do damage control with his "that stuff is flat" video, where he had to claim that you couldn't see any curvature at 120,000 feet (where it used to be claimed that it could be seen from commercial airplanes at 30,000 feet). Now that amateur balloons have gotten up to the 120,000 feet level, they couldn't hide behind doctored NASA images anymore with the wide angle lense. So he had no choice but to claim that curvature would not be visible at all at 120,000 feet (as per the Red Bull jump).

Meg · « **Reply #87 on:** March 01, 2023, 09:40:50 AM »

Quote from: Ladislaus on March 01, 2023, 07:02:29 AM

Thanks. This video debunks the notion that the sun never gets smaller when it's setting. Sometimes it does. Sometimes it doesn't ... although I've seen a guy who made a video showing that it gets a little bit smaller no matter what, even if it's not "smaller enough" to make it obvious, where he took still shots and measured the size of the sun.

So, it's clearly demonstrated that things can get magnified when viewed through the atmosphere. As objects get lower on the horizon, you have to look through MORE atmosphere to see it. But what kind of atmospheric distortion would cause the sun to APPEAR to get smaller? Only thing you can say is that when it was higher in the sky, it was being magnified, but then when it got closer to the horizon it was magnified less and less ... but that's the opposite of what we normally see, such as with the moon being larger near the horizon.

David Weiss has taken some video from a drone where the sun never sets but merely fades away.

I've seen video from the weather balloons (those at about 120,00 feet), and when it's in the right position, the sun does clearly appears to be headed TOWARD the balloon and getting larger. You'd expect a lot less atmospheric distortion at 120,000 feet.

And, then, it's been pointed out with those weather balloons at 120,000 feet that from one end of Kansas to another you would expect 120,000 feet of curvature, the same amount as the altitude of the weather balloons. That's an enormous amount of curvature that is not evident anywhere. You would clearly see the horizon line dip below eye level.

About 16 seconds into this simulator video is what it would look like at 120,000 feet, but the horizon line remains at eye level.

That's why Nei deGrasse Tyson had to do damage control with his "that stuff is flat" video, where he had to claim that you couldn't see any curvature at 120,000 feet (where it used to be claimed that it could be seen from commercial airplanes at 30,000 feet). Now that amateur balloons have gotten up to the 120,000 feet level, they couldn't hide behind doctored NASA images anymore with the wide angle lense. So he had no choice but to claim that curvature would not be visible at all at 120,000 feet (as per the Red Bull jump).

Good info above. I agree that 120,000 feet of curvature would be more evident than what is shown in the video you posted. That makes sense. Interesting that Neil smoke de Grasse Tyson had to do damage control about it! That's just more proof that he has try to reinforce the myth of a globe earth.

hansel · « **Reply #88 on:** March 01, 2023, 10:01:15 AM »

Quote from: Meg on February 28, 2023, 07:44:04 PM

Even if the sun were 4,517,820 miles away from the earth, wouldn't it appear to always be the same size, given that it's supposedly so far away? But the sun, in reality, gets smaller in appearance as it goes away from us, and this indicates to me that the sun is not far away at all, but quite close and above the earth. It's not absolute proof, but just evidence to me.

The issue with this video being definitive is that you have the confounding factor of glare. Notice that when the sun gets closer to the horizon in the video, it not only gets relatively smaller, but it also changes shape (becomes more uniformly round), and also gets a lot more sharp-edged. When it appears to get "bigger" higher in the sky, this increased diameter may not represent the true apparent increase in diameter, but the glare of the sun's light on the camera lens or other components of the optical equipment, as well as glare from clouds, dust etc. This creates a diffuse "fringe" of light around the sun, making it look bigger than it actually is.

When the sun is lower in the sky, the argument would be it is shining through the atmosphere etc. edge-on, which filters the light, eliminates the glare, and produces the correct diameter, while if it is higher in the sky, the glare masks the true diameter and gives the impression of increasing size as it gets away from the horizon.

It is easy to replicate this effect: simply place a bright flashlight on something stable, take a few steps away, and try to take a cellphone photo of the light directly head-on. The resulting bright white, diffuse patch of light with soft edges doesn't reflect the true size of the flashlight bulb/reflector, but rather the glare of the intense light on the lens of the camera. If you dim the light (place tissue paper or translucent plastic over the flashlight's bulb end), the glare is decreased, and now you can see the flashlight's true smaller diameter.

However, there is a simple way to definitively prove whether the sun decreases in size or not as it rises or sets: a telescope fitted with a solar filter. This cuts out the glare and just shows the "disc" of the sun. It wouldn't even need to be a big or expensive telescope; just one with a safe solar filter. You could photograph it at the same magnification throughout the day and see if it changes in size. In fact, the classic simple "pinhole" projection box method might even work; you could measure the diameter of the sun along the projected background with a ruler and see if it changes during different times of the day.

Is anyone aware of someone using this method (solar telescope or projector) and measuring if the sun's objective diameter increases or decreases with its position in the sky?

Meg · « **Reply #89 on:** March 01, 2023, 10:02:31 AM »

Quote from: Donachie on February 28, 2023, 09:12:11 PM

At least they weren't engaged in heresy, the egregious one in which Copernicus, Gilbert, Galileo, Kepler and Newton were involved.

Well, yes, but I'm not sure that Plato, Socrates or Aristotle would ever be considered as heretics for any reason since they lived long before the existence of the Catholic Church.

I don't know much about Plato or Socrates, but from what we know about Aristotle, through St. Thomas, he was of course a keen and astute observer of human nature and the natural word. But observing human nature is different than observing the shape of the earth. Other humans are in close proximity, and the shape of the earth is not. We are just little specks compared to the size of the earth. The only way to try to observe the shape of the earth in the days of Aristotle was through direct observation and mathematical calculations. It was easier to be mistaken back in his day, and there still aren't really good ways to try to observe the shape of the earth in our time. We can really only find evidence. Just my opinion.

Author Topic: Test GE and FE (Read 26495 times)

Donachie

Re: Test GE and FE

Meg

Re: Test GE and FE

Donachie

Re: Test GE and FE

Meg

Re: Test GE and FE

St Giles

Re: Test GE and FE

Meg

Re: Test GE and FE

Pax Vobis

Re: Test GE and FE

Donachie

Re: Test GE and FE

Donachie

Re: Test GE and FE

Donachie

Re: Test GE and FE

Ladislaus

Re: Test GE and FE

Ladislaus

Re: Test GE and FE

Meg

Re: Test GE and FE

hansel

Re: Test GE and FE

Meg

Re: Test GE and FE