The death of Eratosthenes.
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (89)
sorted by:
Well, surely this changes to some degree. An object that travels a path above me will be closest to me when it's directly overhead, and further away at other points of its traveled arc. I understand that the the relative difference may not be so large, but the sun certainly isn't always about the same distance away.
If you're going to claim that though, it definitely brings into question the aspect of it setting. It seems odd that the relative distance doesn't change much, but the view we have of it changes so drastically.
Interesting! The figures I've seen are much larger, even those against current teachings. Where does this figure come from?
...Yes. This is what I've been saying from the beginning...
As objects "collapse" into the horizon, they get smaller as they get further away. We see this all the time every day. However, with the sun, it doesn't. You've explained this by saying the sun's relative distance actually doesn't change from the viewer, essentially saying the sun doesn't get further away, and we observe that it doesn't get smaller.
So, we now have the sun behaving differently from other objects, and I guess I'm still confused as to why.
These streetlamps are considerably further away as you go down the road. You said the sun stays relatively the same distance away.
Yes, I said 'about' it's because your eyes, all lenses, have a range of view. The sun comes into your view, and it's 5000 miles away. When it's directly over your head, it's 4500 miles above and when it's sets it's 5000. Just using as examples, the distance is approximate.
I've seen video of the sun fading out, beers law, but to see that you need to be miles high and zoom in on the sun with powered lens. Guess what colors you see last. Why?
i don't know of any 'teachings' because there isn't actually a FE cult like we've been told, but I'm sure you can find all kinds of ridiculous psy ops if you look for them. Im sure if I tried, I could put together an experiment to measure, so could you, it's just trig. There's a few different ways I would approach measurements, but once you figure out the curve doesn't exist you know it's not a globe and I don't care to get accurate on exactly how large the sun is because it's not important to knowing we aren't on a globe.
This suggests that the entire path of the daytime sun is less than 1,000 miles across. That's half the width of the US. Are you sure about those figures?
I haven't seen this video. Do you have a link?
When I said teachings I was talking about the current common teachings of the sun being nearly a million miles in diameter.
The figures I've seen to counter that have been much smaller, but I haven't heard a figure as small as 30 miles. Do you know where I can find the calculations that led to this figure?
It suggest 10000, (5000 + 5000,) but ya, maybe it's 12000, it will depend on the time of year and your latitude. Getting an accurate number would tale me a lot of work. There are FE videos of you know where to look where some people explain their findings. The internet is getting scrubbed of that stuff though, harder to find.
Search Yandex for "sun fade out". yiu don't need me to provide a link, the bots here will just capture it and scrub it eventually.
its harder to find these kind of videos than you might think. I don't have time for it now, but use Yandex, find one guy and keep digging, you will find something. Think of the diagram you'd need to draw and measure, two triangles, one to the "top" o fhr sun and one to the "bottom". Your measurements would be down to a tiny difference in angle, and that's why it would be a large degree of uncertainty I think. So I say 30, but it could be 10 or 15% different.
Also could track the difference between the sun path over days and then you'd have a larger angle to measure. Survey equipment just isn't meant for this kinda distance.
There's probably a software approach too. Someone's done it.
If we go back to the point, we just have to prove the Earth doesn't curve, and that automatically throws out the possibility of the teaching we all know about sun being even remotely accurate.
Ps.Sorry for the misunderstanding about what you meant about teachings
It suggests <1,000.
5,000 miles away to 4,500 miles away from sunrise to noon is 500 miles of travel, then to be 5,000 miles away again at sunset is another 500 miles of travel. The scenario here is that the sun is closest to us at noon, where it is 4,500 miles away from us.
What exactly is 12,000 though? The travel from sunrise to sunset? Because that's still only just over the width of the Eurasian continent, and the fact that there is only an 8 hour difference in time zone between the two coastlines makes that number also a lowball estimation.
All said though, that's a big jump for your original figures. Are you just guessing these numbers or do they come from some actual dataset?
Well, yes. Accuracy takes work. That's the reason why I have doubts on this proposed scenario. In all conversations I've had, there are major accuracy discrepancies.
I have. Several times in the past. The one I usually find, and the "best" I've seen, is a very blurry video, and it is not convincing. Because of the shot being out of focus it could also be construed as a setting sun, not a fading sun. I asked you for a link because I was hoping you might have a good/better one.
Sounds like you've done some of this yourself. Can you detail a bit how you did your study? I'd be curious to try it out!
I agree! My stance currently is asking the critical questions: if the earth doesn't curve, then what is the reason we make xyz observations?
I have never seen "teachings" about fkatvea
...What?