The Moon (Part 2)

Abu Loren wrote: Like I've said this is because of the trajectory of the Sun. It's not going away from you at a great distance because it is in a circular motion, meaning the whereever you are the Sun appears and disappears at exactly the same distance. Like I've said the horizon to horizon is also the exact distance from one's own perspective, no matter where you are on the earth.

If the sun is moving in a circle and is always at the same distance from you, that can only mean that you are at the centre of the circle.  That can only be true for one location: right at the centre of the flat earth map you showed me earlier, or in other words at the "north pole" that you don't believe exists.

Just answer two questions for me, please:
1. How far away is the sun when it is directly overhead?
2. How far away is it when it is 30� above the horizon?

It is ludicrously distorted because you have the Mercator map drilled into your head since you were in kindergarten. The Mercator map was drawn up so that it would be easier for European sailors to navigate around the world. He made Europe and America bigger whilst Africa and Asia are much much smaller.

The Mercator map was not "drilled into my head".  I don't know about the school system in UAE, but in Canada we were certainly taught the relative merits of various map types (though I don't think the Peters projection was mentioned).  I can still remember when the Mercator map was first presented in elementary school, and we were cautioned that did not do very well in representing the relative sizes of countries etc.  In particular, we were advised that the size of Canada is grossly exaggerated.  We also occasionally used polar projections in school, which work pretty well for Canada (being near the north pole); and we had a globe in the classroom so we could see the sizes and shapes of the continent more accurately.

Mercator is the best representation of the shapes of land masses, but it sacrifices relative size.  Peters preserves relative sizes, but distorts the shapes.  The difference is explained nicely in Dave Goldberg's blog, from which I am quoting below.

Dave Goldberg (in his blog) wrote: Here�s the Gall-Peters [Peters projection - RW] shown another way: Each of those blobby ellipsoids represent a perfect circle drawn on the earth with a radius of about 12 degrees (about 1300 km). They get very distorted on the map. It doesn�t have to be so. There are maps that do a crappy job with area, but do a great job with shape. The Mercator, bad as it is with area, does shape very well:

Abu Loren wrote: Regarding your flight theory, you are right. Nobody will fly across the poles because the poles do not exist, so they have to use the routes they use now.

I didn't say anything about the north pole.  I said that according to your map, the shortest distance from Toronto (Canada) to Australia would be across the Arctic Ocean; and if that were true, airlines would be flying that way.  Surely you're not going to tell me that the Arctic Ocean does not exist.

No no no you have this image of the Sun as another globe. It is a disc shaped object and only one side of it is ever shown to the earth. Like I said you can imagine a torch light it is concentrated around certain parts where the light shines. Exactly the same as the Sun when it shines it shines only part of the earth, the other side being dark (which we call night).

If it is disc-shaped, it ought to appear as an ellipse most of the time, unless it happens to be exactly facing us.  For instance, if it appears as a circle to me in Winnipeg (which it does at the moment), it ought to look like an ellipse 2000 km away in Ottawa.  I could phone up my daughter and check if you want, but I'm pretty sure they are seeing it as a circle too. 

Abu Loren wrote: 1. How far away is the sun when it is directly overhead? 2. How far away is it when it is 30� above the horizon? 1. 3,000 to 5,000 miles. 2. 3,000 to 5,000 miles.

I'm guessing that the UAE school curriculum does not include geometry.  But really, you don't even need that.  Just look at the diagram again:


How can you convince yourself (let alone convince me!) that the line from you to the sun at noon is the same length as the line from you to the afternoon sun?

You are right. So why don't the airlines fly that way?

Because it's longer.  Because your flat earth map is nonsense.

And don't try to tell me that they've just never tried it.  Airlines do fly over the Arctic Ocean all the time, to get to Europe.  They know exactly how much fuel they use and how many miles they fly.  If it were a shorter route, they would use it.

Rubbish. Circle will always be a circle no matter from where you look at it, especially on a flat earth. :)

Okay, take a look at this:

See how the disc shape becomes an ellipse as it turns, then a vertical line, then an ellipse and back to a disc again?  (Careful, don't stare at it too long.  I wouldn't want you to hypnotize yourself!

Ron Webb wrote: I'm guessing that the UAE school curriculum does not include geometry.� But really, you don't even need that.� How can you convince yourself (let alone convince me!) that the line from you to the sun at noon is the same length as the line from you to the afternoon sun?

I know absolutely nothing
about schools in UAE.... :)

I can't convince you because you have your science books which are complete nonsense. Trust your eyes and look at everything with a child's eye (before he was taken to the kindergarten to be indoctrinated into the science of satan).

Ron Webb wrote: Because your flat earth map is nonsense.And don't try to tell me that they've just never tried it.� Airlines do fly over the Arctic Ocean all the time, to get to Europe.� They know exactly how much fuel they use and how many miles they fly.� If it were a shorter route, they would use it.

I don't know if you know this but airlines do not also fly from South America to Australasia directly. Do you know why? Because the shorter and straighter route there is via the Middle East. So ALL the airlines tend to fly via either Abu Dhabi or Dubai. Strange.

Ron Webb wrote: Okay, take a look at this:[IMG]http://bestanimations.com/Money/Coins/Coin-02-june.gif" />See how the disc shape becomes an ellipse as it turns, then a vertical line, then an ellipse and back to a disc again?� (Careful, don't stare at it too long.� I wouldn't want you to hypnotize yourself! [IMG]smileys/smiley36.gif" align="middle" />

The Sun doesn't spin you phool. :)

Abu Loren wrote: I can't convince you because you have your science books which are complete nonsense. Trust your eyes and look at everything with a child's eye (before he was taken to the kindergarten to be indoctrinated into the science of satan).

You can't convince me because your hypothesis violates basic geometry.  I don't know what kind of non-Euclidean spacetime warp you are living in, but in my universe a right-angle triangle with a 30 degree angle has a hypotenuse twice as long as its short side.

By the way, I'm not sure why you have this bee in your bonnet about science.  Very little of what I have said here is sophisticated enough to warrant the title of "science".  I have purposefully stuck with ordinary common sense, basic geometry and a bit of geography/cartography.  All you really have to do is to set aside your prejudices (as you keep urging me to do), and look at the diagram I drew for you.

Even a child would understand that if the sun maintains a constant altitude above a flat earth, then as it moves toward the horizon it must be getting farther away and should appear smaller and smaller.  No science required, or even geometry for that matter.  Just common sense and life experience.

I don't know if you know this but airlines do not also fly from South America to Australasia directly. Do you know why? Because the shorter and straighter route there is via the Middle East. So ALL the airlines tend to fly via either Abu Dhabi or Dubai. Strange.

Qantas Airlines regularly flies direct between Santiago, Chile (South America) and Perth, Australia, across the Pacific.  According to your map they should be flying north, straight across North America, instead.

Have a look at this page, where several seasoned travellers discuss the merits of flying between Toronto, Canada and Sydney, Australia, via Los Angeles versus Vancouver.  All of them describe routes across the Pacific.  Nobody mentions flying north or crossing the Arctic, which is what they ought to do according to your flat earth map.

It's true that aircraft prefer not to fly over the Pacific for navigational and safety reasons.  The fact that they do anyway, instead of following shorter (according to your map) routes that are primarily over land, should be telling you something.

The Sun doesn't spin you phool. :)

And it doesn't have a picture of a man's head engraved on it either.  You have an impressive knack for missing the point.  (And actually, the sun does spin, but because it's a sphere you can't tell just by looking at it.)

Okay, here's a photograph of a disc:


(Sorry about the size of the graphic.  I couldn't find a smaller one.)  Notice how it appears wider in one dimension than another.  That's because the disc was not directly facing the camera.  That's what the sun should look like most of the time too, if it were a disc.

Abu Loren wrote: There is no way to measure this than to trust what I say.

Say you are standing on a field in Winnipeg (god only knows what kind of people will live in a god forsaken place like this)and you look all around in a 360 degree view. The distance all around or rather the horizon line to your eyes will always be the same and equal distance. This is the way our eyes and brain have been programmed. Anyway, when the Sun travels overhead the distance of the Sun from you above is always the same as it glides along the sky.

You forgot to answer the most important question, which is: what does the distance to the horizon (which you haven't defined or quantified) have to do with the distance to the sun?