Basic Trigonometry to Calculate Distance of the Sun from FE Earth

fe sunlight rays

In one of her recent YouTube videos entitled “New Proof of a Flat Earth: Distance to the Sun?” Sasha (Orphan Red) uses simple geometry and mathematics to prove that the Sun is not 93,000,000 miles away.

Her logic is as follows …

An equilateral triangle has three equal length sides and three 60 ° angles.

If a person is standing in equatorial Macapá, Brazil on the equinox (March 21st at 10:33am) looking east and observes the Sun 60 ° above the horizon and at that exact same moment of time (four time zones away – 2:33pm) a person in Malabo, Equatorial Guinea is looking west and observes the Sun 60 ° above the horizon then the distance between these two observers is exactly the same as the distance between either observer and the Sun.

equitri

Then means that the Sun is only about 4,138 miles or 6,654 kilometers from each observer, not 93,000,000 miles away.

Simple yet brilliant!

And if you do a little more math (see fig. 1) you’ll see that the Sun rotates about 3,583 miles (5,766 kilometers) above the Flat Earth.

Sunheight

 

43 thoughts on “Basic Trigonometry to Calculate Distance of the Sun from FE Earth

  1. rwederfoort April 28, 2016 at 4:03 pm Reply

    Reblogged this on ronaldwederfoort.

    Like

  2. Vic Button April 28, 2016 at 11:05 pm Reply

    This alone is capable of replacing the classroom ‘globe’ with the flat Earth model.

    Like

  3. Pegz April 29, 2016 at 1:53 pm Reply

    Cool. There is now at the Google play store, a flat earth astrolabe app — that is helpful to grasp the sun’s sine waves on earth.

    Like

  4. Dado September 13, 2016 at 12:03 pm Reply

    Petitio principii

    Like

  5. SG Today September 13, 2016 at 10:38 pm Reply

    Very interesting.

    Now you have to provide evidence that there actually is a flat horizontal line from the east and west points of your triangle, The evidence must be foolproof, and has to be verifiable by others with absolute certainty.

    We’ll be waiting for the results, as this could be very enlightening for all of us.

    Good luck!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Manny Clay September 13, 2016 at 11:43 pm Reply

      SG, the results are already in… The distance from these two points mentioned on the equator is almost entirely over water. All experiments and repeated observations prove water is flat and not curved. It is you who has to prove water is curved, not the other way around. By the way, astro physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson says the earth is not a globe, not even an oblate spheroid but is chubbier south of the equator. Good luck finding a NASA photo of that. Is NGT mistaken or are the NASA photos fake? Or… Are they both wrong?

      Like

  6. SG Today September 14, 2016 at 3:41 am Reply

    To begin with: I didn’t claim the 4138 mile long base of the triangle pictured above is a straight line, and therefore I have nothing to prove. Unless clearly proven, the resulting calculation is rubbish.

    RE: “all experiments” – To be worthy of being called an experiment, especially one that will provide clear evidence of the flatness or curve of the earth, will requires serious planning and execution. Repeatability and lack of bias are also important.

    Results should be clear and robust, such that people who review the tests will significantly favor and/or believe the results. Testers should welcome skeptics to repeat the test to obtain fresh data, to confirm or falsify prior results.

    No one wants half-baked attempts or sloppy execution to interfere with the quality of the results obtained. It’s my guess that many experiments might fail to use proper procedures, instruments, or perhaps interpretations; resulting in unreliable conclusions.

    As far as the words: “globe”, “oblate spheroid”, “pear”, “chubbier”(?); these are not very precise in their definition or perhaps usage. I doubt disagreements over the choice of these words is significant when compared to “flat earth”; the relative distinction remains clear.

    Lastly, lack of a photo displaying a particular described feature of the subject could be due to the resolution available. As an example: a picture of a building from a distance may not show any windows; but that doesn’t prove there are no windows in the building.

    Like

    • Manny Clay September 14, 2016 at 2:06 pm Reply

      SG, here are my answers to your questions or comments.

      Unless clearly proven, the resulting calculation is rubbish.

      What remains unclear?

      RE: “all experiments” – To be worthy of being called an experiment, especially one that will provide clear evidence of the flatness or curve of the earth, will requires serious planning and execution. Repeatability and lack of bias are also important.

      Have you ever filled a cup, a pool or anything else where the water wasn’t flat and level at the top? Have you ever seen a lake freeze with a hump in the middle? Have you ever seen the ribbon of sunlight at sunrise or sunset interrupted between you and the horizon so that it does not run all the way to the shoreline?

      Results should be clear and robust, such that people who review the tests will significantly favor and/or believe the results. Testers should welcome skeptics to repeat the test to obtain fresh data, to confirm or falsify prior results.

      I believe that men, even brilliant men will refuse every proof, especially when they have taught the contrary for many years or their livelihood depends upon it. Cognitive dissonance works on the rest of us.

      No one wants half-baked attempts or sloppy execution to interfere with the quality of the results obtained. It’s my guess that many experiments might fail to use proper procedures, instruments, or perhaps interpretations; resulting in unreliable conclusions.

      Amen. One of the first answers to the mm experiment was the Fitzgerald contraction. It just so happened the apparatus arm shrunk the exact length needed to square withe the results that the earth was at rest. This fine example of science became the Lorenz transformation equation.

      As far as the words: “globe”, “oblate spheroid”, “pear”, “chubbier”(?); these are not very precise in their definition or perhaps usage.

      I disagree. Show these four shapes to a 5th grader and I am sure they will match them to their proper name.

      Lastly, lack of a photo displaying a particular described feature of the subject could be due to the resolution available.

      Can you bring one NASA photo in evidence that is not a circle?

      As an example: a picture of a building from a distance may not show any windows; but that doesn’t prove there are no windows in the building.

      The building though not complete with minute detail will still have the outline of a building. A circle is distinct from an oblate spheroid which is distinct from a pear. All you need is the outline.

      Like

  7. Manny Clay September 14, 2016 at 8:16 pm Reply

    Harmony, I refer you to SG’s last post paragraphs #3, and #4. Send me a photo of the hump this winter on the lake…

    Like

    • SG Today September 23, 2016 at 2:42 am Reply

      Manny,

      Actually, before you ask someone to provide evidence of a certain phenomena, you need to make sure they claim that thing as true. Since you seem to be the only one talking about a “hump” in the ice, this is a claim of your own creation. No one is obliged to do anything in response to such a request.

      Now, suppose you’re told there is water on the earth that exhibits a curve due to the globe. Since that is a claim from another person claims, you can request evidence, or you can try and disprove it, if inclined to do so. However, to debunk something, you have to show why their evidence leads to a false outcome. You can’t devise your own scenario that doesn’t align or clearly relate to the original claim.

      For example, you can’t use a cup of water as evidence there is no curve to ocean water, since the cup is not at all like the ocean (that would be a ridiculous comparison, right).

      Like

      • Manny Clay September 27, 2016 at 10:14 pm

        SG, thank you for the reply. The hump of ice in the middle of the lake would be there in the dead of winter just as the hump of water is there in the summer if the earth is indeed a globe. Are you stating that it changes somehow? Water is always flat, always. Now, I have asked you for scientific proof for a tilted, ball/oblate spheroid/pear shaped rotating and revolving planet earth. I am still waiting.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Harmony September 28, 2016 at 12:49 am

        Manny, you’re being disingenuous. Evidence was posted above, but you ignored it. Here it is again:

        https://www.metabunk.org/folsom-lake-photographs-demonstrating-the-curvature-of-the-earth.t7789/

        “Water is always flat, always.”

        Wrong. It’s always level, not flat. There’s a difference.

        “I have asked you for scientific proof for a tilted, ball/oblate spheroid/pear shaped rotating and revolving planet earth. I am still waiting.”

        Are you joking? Anytime anyone presents you with evidence, you just say “fake!” Or you ignore it like you did with the metabunk link. Eratosthenes proved it a long time ago. I’ve seen the FE attempt to debunk Eratosthenes and I’m sorry, but it’s just more jokes.

        Like

      • SG Today September 28, 2016 at 4:14 am

        Manny, as the most outspoken person on this hump idea, can you tell us the size of the lake you have in mind, and the size of the so-called hump you think it would have (and that you’d like us to prove)?

        It’s difficult to debate abstractions for “any lake” and your “hump”, so specific details would bring clarity to what you’re talking about.

        As far as the details for a non-perfect sphere for a globular earth; again, what are you arguing against? Can you quote any dimensions that you claim should be visibly different, or perhaps would support distinct recognition of one of the shape types you refer to?

        Like

  8. Manny Clay October 1, 2016 at 10:03 pm Reply

    SG, my apologies for taking so long to answer.
    First, consider a circular lake 12 miles in diameter. Applying the universally accepted and NDGT utilized formula (in his tweet posts with b.o.b.) of distance squared x 8″ brings us to a 6′ hump of water or ice in the center of that lake.
    Secondly, with regard to your query of a non perfect sphere I will repeat myself. Either the photos and CGI renderings from NASA are true, NDGT is true, or they are both liars.. I leave you to that.

    Like

  9. Manny Clay October 2, 2016 at 12:05 am Reply

    SG, my apologies. The hump of water or ice would be 6′ in the center of a 6 mile diameter lake, (radius of 3 miles) not a 12 mile diameter lake. 6 x 6 x 8 / 12. Sorry about that. Manny

    Like

    • Manny Clay October 2, 2016 at 12:07 am Reply

      I’m tired. 3 x 3 x 8 / 12 is 6′.

      Like

      • SG Today October 8, 2016 at 6:15 am

        Sorry for not getting back to you for a bit as well. I think I get the idea with your explanation, and it seems to be related to the frame of reference, as perhaps by an outside observer of the earth, not as a person on the surface of the earth.

        My understanding is that the globe model has no relative or absolute elevation increase as you leave the shoreline going across a lake or other body of water. The calculation, as I understand it (I’m not an expert on that by any means), describes the apparent drop of the water surface/level as distance increases due to curvature.

        Visually, your line of sight towards the horizon cannot see the water surface as curvature causes this drop and “disappearance” from view. This is the round earth model; no rise of water level occurs anywhere you would be looking.

        As far as the visual and described shape of a “spherical” earth, the factor I’m trying to describe is about the ability to see differences of a small variance at a great distance. My kids used to have inflatable rubber balls for playing with, that were “spherical” in general. If over inflated, flaws in the construction could cause uneven expansion, and the shape would no longer be round. sometimes this was visually noticeable when holding the ball. However, when the ball was across the yard on the ground, noticing the variation was not possible, as the resolution of the shape at the greater distance was too small to see.

        That is the point about pictures of the earth’s shape; seeing any difference, such as not being truly round,is related to the size of the variation, and the viewing distance one is observing at.

        Like

  10. Manny Clay October 9, 2016 at 1:45 pm Reply

    SG, the drop from the center of Lake Victoria to shore is just under a mile which is the same as a mile rise in the lake from shore to center. Such a change in distance could not but be plain to everyone.
    Consider also the photos of lakes below mountains. If they were not perfectly flat but convex or concave in the smallest degree you would not see a perfect reflection but rather a distortion.
    Apply this to the shape of the earth for a moment. Consider the globe as bulging at the equator by a distance of approximately 25 – 30 miles as science states (oblate speroid) What do you suppose would occur as the earth rotated and the sunlight began to shine over the ocean? Well you would have a distortion. The sunlight would be interrupted by that wall or hump of water at the equator. Similarly, if the earth was in fact chubbier south of the equator (pear shapedness) you would have the same issue once again. So, the only possible shapes of the earth are a perfect sphere and a flat plane. But if a perfect sphere it must also be tilted,rotating,
    and revolving. But scientists say this is unproven and unprovable. So why do they believe it? What’s of more importance is what do you believe, SG?

    Like

    • Mike October 9, 2016 at 2:01 pm Reply

      Manny, the surface of the globe Earth is only out from flat by 8 inches in each mile, or 1 part in 7,920. This would be the same as a 1 foot mirror being flat to less than 2 thousandths of an inch! I doubt whether many domestic mirrors are that flat! There is NO reason why there would be any obvious distortion from this degree of curvature.

      Like

      • Manny Clay October 9, 2016 at 2:16 pm

        Mike, thanks for the post but the actual scientific math is miles squared x 8″, and this hilds true the first two thousand miles if memiry serves. Neil DG Tyson used this method when debating rapper, b.o.b., as did the flat earth debunker in his Lake Folsom experiment.

        Using the correct calculation means a “world” of difference.

        Like

      • Mike October 9, 2016 at 2:46 pm

        Manny, you are correct, the Earth is much FLATTER than the mirror out by 2 thousandths of an inch I used as an illustration! So distortion would be even less!

        Like

    • SG Today October 10, 2016 at 12:17 am Reply

      Manny,

      No, there is no rise; from either position, there is always a drop from one towards the other.

      Take an everyday object, like a basketball where 2 points are marked off. If you can show that from left to right, there is a drop, and from right to left there is a rise, then the simulation is using false assumptions.

      Earth curvature measurement has no (left/right, or any other form of) directionality (that I’ve ever heard of).

      Like

  11. Manny Clay October 9, 2016 at 3:57 pm Reply

    Mike, the ribbon of unbroken golden light of the sun at sunrise stretching from horizon to shore would never make it to you if the earth was curved even a very small amount. This holds true for the view of perfect mountain reflections off a lake.

    Like

    • Mike October 9, 2016 at 4:25 pm Reply

      Not true, the diameter of the Sun is quite sufficient for what we observe. Any still lake is small enough for the curvature to be insignificant, as I pointed out before. Manny, you are a clever bloke, stop clutching at straws!

      Like

      • Manny Clay October 9, 2016 at 4:45 pm

        Mike, what I stated is true, Just keep in mind the correct mathematical formula and next time you see something that should be hidden by a mound of earth or hump of water due to earth’s supposed curvature you won’t be fooled by the clever bloke who tells you it is a mirage. Maybe, just maybe you see it because the world iz truly flat. Good day to you mate and the last word is yours. Manny

        Like

  12. Vic Button October 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm Reply

    For me, the biggy is the salt lake in Bolivia. It is 100 miles long and you can see or walk all the way across when frozen. IT IS AS FLAT AS A PANCAKE!

    If our Earth were a globe, there would be an enormous mile hump in the centre- just imagine that – a mile high hump right in the centre, but it just isn’t there.

    The salt lake is a well known holiday place – if you just ‘google search’ Salt lake Bolivia – you can see many splendid pictures of it.

    Like

    • Mike October 9, 2016 at 6:50 pm Reply

      Vic, ALL the pictures show A HORIZON, which can ONLY exist if the flats are curved. If they were flat, as you think, you would see right across to the highlands at the other side, with no visible horizon. They are better described as “level” as they are at a constant elevation, rather than flat, so that hump is right there as expected.

      Like

  13. Vic Button October 9, 2016 at 7:55 pm Reply

    What on Earth are you talking about Mike, I said you can see one hundred miles across the salt lake at Bolivia – you could NOT do this if our Earth was a globe – please only get back to me if you can tell me honestly how you can see through the one mile hump. – thanks.

    P. S. Distance is no object if it was not for atmospheric pollution etc.- hence you can see the Moon at 250,000 [?] miles away.

    Like

    • Mike October 9, 2016 at 8:47 pm Reply

      Vic, you CAN’T see 100 miles across the salt lake, at least not without a NEARER horizon! Look at the pictures again!

      Like

      • Vic Button October 9, 2016 at 9:10 pm

        I can only assume you are a time waster Mike- please do not reply- end of topic- GOODNIGHT.

        Like

      • Mike October 9, 2016 at 9:21 pm

        Vic, try this image – https://trilingualfamily.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/wp_20140406_229.jpg. What I see is a straight “salt flat horizon” with the mountains further in the distance. I don’t believe that is what you would see if it was flat, rather than level. Where do you think I am wrong?

        Like

  14. Aerobatics Superfluous December 10, 2016 at 12:30 am Reply

    Ok.
    So basically what you’re saying is that, at the equinox, the distance from a vantage point at 50 deg south and the sun is, at sundown, 1.24 times grater than the distance from a vantage point at 50 deg north and the sun, at midnight?

    I repeat. You’re seriously trying to suggest that although the distance from the sun and an observer in the southern hemisphere (50 deg) is greater at sundown than the distance from the sun and an observer in the northern hemisphere (50 deg) at midnight, there is still midnight in the northern hemisphere? I’m talking equinox now and I’m using your silly math.

    Try explaining this using “perspective”.
    I won’t be holding my breath while I wait.

    Like

    • jwlpeace December 10, 2016 at 3:14 am Reply

      You jsut make up stuff here.
      1.24 times grater???
      50 deg south

      who’s silly?

      Like

      • Aerobatics Superfluous December 10, 2016 at 7:01 am

        If you don’t know trigonometry, just say so.
        But if the sun is 3583 miles up on a disc with a pole-equator distance of 6000 miles, that’s what the relation between the distances of the respective vantage points and the sun are, at the respective instances of equinox. (Southern hemisphere sundown vs northern hemisphere midnight)

        Like

      • jwlpeace December 10, 2016 at 2:42 pm

        All Pole-Equator distance of 6,000 miles needs to be questioned.
        Check out Mercator map projections. Africa and So America have been downsized and Europe enlarged to make
        it look bigger. You cannot rely on any numbers of measurement given to us by mass public indoctrination.
        You don’t know trigonometry…I just showed you in the post basic trigonometry.
        If you cannot read, just say so

        Like

      • Aerobatics Superfluous December 10, 2016 at 9:43 pm

        Ok, so let’s speak plain so that there is no confusion.
        At the equinox, we place two people at the equator observing the sunset together. They now share a common vantage point and therefore a common perspective of the sun at the western horizon.
        Now, imagine that we stop time and let our two observers start moving, one to the north and one to the south.
        Time now stands still so what we are observing is the perspective of the sun as we change our respective vantage points.
        The observer going north will see the sun rising and moving eastward. The observer going south will see the sun setting further whilst moving westward.
        By the time they reach the respective poles, the northbound observer will have observed the sun returning to its “12 o’clock” position whilst the southbound observer will have observed the sun set completely. This merely from changing their vantage points in north-south direction.
        This does not support our empirical evidence, does it?

        I’ve lived in both hemispheres and can say from experience it does not. The 24h -cycle is an identical, but mirrored, experience at equinox in the northern and southern hemispheres. This supports the sun being situated on a plane intersecting the spherical earth at the equator, not in a circular orbit above a flat earth.

        Like

      • Aerobatics Superfluous December 10, 2016 at 11:34 pm

        Or consider this; the flat earth theory only allowes for a single day-night cycle at the north pole in a year.
        If D is the distance between the north pole and the projected orbit of the sun on the flat earth, then at equinox the ratio between the distance from a vantage point at the equator observing the sunset to a vantage point at the north pole in the same instant is (SQRT (D^2+D^2))/D = 1,41421
        Thus at equinox, through summer until the next equinox, the distance from any vantage point at the equator at sunset is ALWAYS grater than the distance from a vantage point at the north pole and the sun.
        If the night-day cycle is the result of perspective on a flat disc, the theory states constant day at the north pole during at least 6 months of the year.

        But you can try to be smart about it and claim the exact distance between the pole and the equator makes any difference. Only it doesn’t because the theory is so obviously flawed it is painful to watch its proponents flailing attempts at defending it.

        Like

  15. kurt roberts February 9, 2017 at 2:54 am Reply

    Yes, its a creative and simple approach, but it assumes the earth is flat. Since the earth is not flat, a line 60 degrees above the horizon towards the east in Brazil does not intersect with a line 60 degrees above the horizon towards the west in Equatorial Guinea at exactly halfway between the two. If that explanation is confusing, draw a curve between Brazil and Equatorial Guinea, sketch in the angles, and you will see what I mean.

    Like

  16. Will July 30, 2017 at 6:07 am Reply

    So… how do we know the two observers in this thought experiment both measure 60 degree angles for the sun at the same time?

    Like

    • Will July 30, 2017 at 6:09 am Reply

      More, the thought experiment assumes it’s own conclusion, since it requires a flat earth for two 60 degree angles to intersect at the assumed distance.

      Like

  17. firmamentglory July 31, 2017 at 3:18 pm Reply

    The sun does not rotate, the sun circles above the flat earth. It does not rise or set, the sun approaches and departs in a clockwise direction. As does the moon contrary to the lies, you can prove this with your eyes too. The sun takes 24 hours for a full circle and the moon 25 hours. Best wishes to all on your journey.

    Like

    • FactYouAll August 1, 2017 at 2:56 am Reply

      fg,

      When I search for “optical illusions”, there are over 640k results found. With your bold claim how we can “prove this with our eyes”, there is now at least 1 more illusion added to this list.

      Thanks for your worthy contribution to this vast collection.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: