You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Chasing Shadows - Proving A Round World Without NASA
What a long article with lots of name calling to finally get to the end...
where you have a proof that works just fine on a flat earth as well as a globe earth.
Ball earth - the sun is really far away and thus the light is for the most part parallel, so for the shadows to be different lengths, the earth must be curved.
Flat earth - the sun is really close. And thus the differing shadow lengths show how close the sun really is. By triangulation the sun is 3000 miles away.
A post showing why this proof doesn't prove anything
https://steemit.com/flatearth/@builderofcastles/chasing-shadows-doesn-t-prove-anything-about-the-shape-of-the-earth
Your "proof" would be more compelling if you could actually prove the sun is 3000 miles away which you can't because it isn't. You'd be blasted to ions in a fraction of a second if it was.
Next!
And you can't prove that its 93,000,000 miles away either.
The 3,000 miles away is calculated by triangulation.
But, both of these are made with assumptions. There is no way to tell how far away something is in space. It could be really big and far away, or really close and tiny.
There is a lot of evidence that the sun isn't a giant nuclear ball like we all were told in school. If the sun is 3,000 miles away, then we also have to rethink our understanding of what the sun is.
Disagreeing with me is good. But believing in what you were told as proof is wrong.
Thanks for your down-vote (flag) on my post.
You calculated 3000 miles by triangulation? I'd love to see your measurements and math on that or did you just read it on the Internet and swallowed it as fact?
How do you think they came up with 93,000,000 miles? Did they get out a measuring tape?
The data is out there. But it is all in how you define your assumptions.