the myth of flat earth debunked again

[Hans Blaster]

I gave factual maths.

You did math without understanding it.

109 earths could line the face of the sun.
11,746.131 earths code line up from the earth to the sun.

So we are getting how much sun we can see from the 1 earth.

109 / 11,746.131= .0092796
.0092796 * 864,938 = 8,026

All you demonstrated is that you don't understand how geometry works.

The math gives us about 8,026 miles worth of sun, which means we can't see it all,
and we definitely shouldn't see the edges of it. And what we should see of it should be bigger than earth itself.

 

[Hans Blaster]

" God's word" says Pi=3

I think you need to read the latest implications on pi to cosmology...

[2403.20219] Circular reasoning: Solving the Hubble tension with a non-$π$ value of $π$

 

[Astrid]

The Bible simple does not say that Pie is 3.

This is what is said, that is a common tactic to twist and use against Christians.

"He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other ....
and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about."
1 Kings 7:23

10 and 30.

One coming at a perfect cubit sized circle with only a 1x measuring stick, a 1 cubit stick, would get about 30 and 10.

Which is, in exact numbers, 29.9079368 cubits and 9.52 cubits, which we can see is indeed mathematically very close to 30 and 10.
Rounded it is 30 and 10.

Rounded is approximate.

You've had an epiphany! Your bible is (at best)
approximately correct.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We are able to fly to the moon just the same, and go straight through it.

What do you mean go straight threw it. Do you have evidence?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Show me mathematically that I am wrong, what I said included math.

Pie is 3.14159

29.9079368 / 9.52 === 3.14159

Math.round(29.9079368) = 30
Math.round(9.52) = 10

First, it's Pi not pie.

Second, do you not know how to tell how close 2 numbers are? You find the difference.

3.2 - 3.1416 = .0584
3.1416 - 3 = .1416

.0584 < .1416 so Pi is closer to 3.2 than 3.

 

[Astrid]

What do you mean go straight threw it. Do you have evidence?

Evidence it is that someone just says things.

 

[prodromos]

If the earth was a ball, then as we gain altitude the horizon should be more and more below eye level.

This is exactly what we observe. You only claim otherwise because you do not use any instrument to determine what is your eye level and instead go by your subjective (and very wrong) opinion.

 

[prodromos]

So...the bible says it's 3.000000,
which is not correct.

I believe the two measurements given which you have used to calculate pi are of the inside and the outside of the bowl. Since there are two different diameters due to the thickness of the bowl wall your calculation gives a wrong result for pi. If you account for the thickness of the wall it will give a more accurate result.

 

[prodromos]

The sun is rising (or setting) just above the horizon. The view of the sun (and the horizon) is obscured by clouds. The horizon is clearly below eye level as expected on a globe earth.

 

[prodromos]

Even inside of a flat straight building as you look down a hall there is a horizon.

What you refer to here is the vanishing point caused by the angular width of objects being smaller than our eyes can discriminate. Others have already posted photos of large objects (islands) which are much larger than the minimum our eyes can discriminate, yet they are obscured from our view by the horizon caused by the earth's curvature, not because of some arbitrary 'maximum distance' we supposedly can't see beyond.

 

[Bradskii]

This thread has gone from a mildly amusing tussle with some people that had a small grasp of science to...sad.

 

[sjastro]

How is it that you can capture the limb darkening of the suns sphere from 93 million miles away? Is not what we see just a light from the sun and not the sun itself? Or did you take a picture of the moon and sun, themselves?

Do you understand a camera and the human eye are examples of photon detectors which capture light?
Despite this your question doesn’t even make any sense, the moon in my partial eclipse image is black because there is no sunlight illuminating the surface of the moon on the earth side, it is still an image of the moon despite no light reaching the photon detector.

 

[sjastro]

If it is 93 million miles away and so very big one should not be able to capture the spherical edges of it, only a bright light.

Yes, the light is how we see it,
but given the distance and the great size we certainly should not be able to see the spherical part of it, only just light.
The globe should be bathed in a ray of solid light,
and we should not be able to see the outer edges of the sun.
This is the supposed scale:


View attachment 345555


With the math they give us:

The diameter of the earth is 7917.5 miles.
The diameter of the sun is 864,938 miles.

How many earths could line up to the sun? 11,746.131
You could line up 109 earths across the face of the sun.

109 / 11,746.131= .0092796

.0092796 * 864,938 = 8,026 miles across worth of sun to see from earth.

This is complete utter nonsense.

To add further to @Hans Blaster's post, the human eye is like a liquid filled refractive lens with a pupil diameter which ranges from 2 - 7 mm, has a focal length of approximately 22mm and f-ratio which varies from f/2.1 /to f/8.3.
It has a theoretical resolution of around 18 arc-seconds, the sun like the full moon has an angular diameter of around 1920 arc seconds, hence the naked eye will easily resolve the sun’s disk at a distance of 93 million miles or 1.496 x 10¹¹ metres.

Unless you have a pupil diameter of a pinhole at the same focal length, then yes you won’t be able to resolve the sun’s disk.

This leads to your maths which is complete rubbish, your calculated value is a distance unit, since the moon and sun subtend an angle of 1920 arc seconds, the correct math is,

where δ is the angle in degrees, D is the diameter of the sun and R is its distance from the earth.

I’m sure you were aware of a major event yesterday there was a total eclipse of the sun, since the angular diameters of the sun and moon are approximately the same.
Since we know the angular diameter of moon and its distance using parallax, radar or laser measurements, we can calculate its diameter.
The distance to the sun can be calculated by measuring the transit times of Venus across the sun’s surface as viewed from different locations on earth.
It is found the earth-sun distance is 400 times greater than the earth-moon distance and since the angular diameters of the sun and moon are roughly the same, the sun has a diameter 400 times greater than the moon.

 

[prodromos]

Your not referencing the video I gave, which is only 30 seconds with no vocals.

Why no sound? Probably because the pilots were contradicting the narrative put out by the person posting the video.

 

[sjastro]

We are able to fly to the moon just the same, and go straight through it.

Hilarious given the total eclipse indicated the sun's light could not pass through the moon.

 

[Phil G]

Why no sound? Probably because the pilots were contradicting the narrative put out by the person posting the video.

FE folks don’t understand globe earth geometry. Their minds can’t break away from the mantra “the earth is flat”.

 

[Astrid]

I believe the two measurements given which you have used to calculate pi are of the inside and the outside of the bowl. Since there are two different diameters due to the thickness of the bowl wall your calculation gives a wrong result for pi. If you account for the thickness of the wall it will give a more accurate result.

I will resist the temptation to do a snark one.

That which you offered is of course a moldy
retrofitted oldie.

But it doesn't matter. Cubits, a line, the
impossibility of precision casting or measurements,
no matter how it's apologrticsized, it simply cannot
be that "30" and "10" are anything but approximations
on a level unacceptable to today's construction standards.

So...there it is plainly, that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

How many, what kind and how big the errors / inaccuracies
must be to mar a " perfect, inerrant " book, you tell me.

 

[prodromos]

I will resist the temptation to do a snark one.

I've got thick skin

That which you offered is of course a moldy retrofitted oldie.

It isn't something I read anywhere. It just made sense to my engineering mindset.

But it doesn't matter. Cubits, a line, the
impossibility of precision casting or measurements,
no matter how it's apologrticsized, it simply cannot
be that "30" and "10" are anything but approximations on a level unacceptable to today's construction standards.

I agree. Even the standard dimensions changed depending on whose fore-arm or foot was being used as the baseline.

So...there it is plainly, that the Bible contains inaccuracies.

How many, what kind and how big the errors / inaccuracies must be to mar a " perfect, inerrant " book, you tell me.

As we keep having to tell flat earthers, the Bible is not written to be a science textbook. The Word of God is true, but not in the sense that they believe.

 

[prodromos]

Hilarious given the total eclipse indicated the sun's light could not pass through the moon.

Yep, there is no consistency to their arguments.

 

[prodromos]

5 years later his theory was proven to be completely false. There is no evidence of him continuing to push that theory after 1969, is there.