The Size And Distance Of The Sun/Moon

When I was a kid, I'd shoot model rockets.
We'd measure the altitude we shot them to with a simple altimeter. (Estes calls it an "altiscope")





All parts are fixed except for the long screw eye hanging from the center of the circular dial.
That swings freely when the altimeter is tipped forward or back.



Three of us would position ourselves equidistantly away from and around the launch site. (120 degrees apart, X distance from the launcher.)
We were starting on the basis that the inside corner leg of each of our own equilateral triangle was 90 degrees.
Tracking the rocket through flight, we'd hold the altimeter up, (screw eyes up) sighting through both screw eyes on the rocket.
As the altimeter is raised, the hanging wire moves to display the angle of inclination.
When it reached apogee, we'd clamp the gauge wire against the body with our thumb, then read the angle.
That's the angle of the outer side of the triangle.

Crunch a few numbers, do a little math with paper and pencil (calculators? ha! this was 50 years ago for me).
We'd average all three based on drift, elevation, errors, etc, but always pretty accurate between the three of us.
The old Pythagorean method for equilateral triangles.

So it got me to thinking...

Why couldn't 2 (or more) of us, as close to or along the same longitude line, shoot a reading at the same time of day when the sun is as overhead as it gets?
For example, one locale is NH, the other is Florida.
(I'd highly suggest really good sunglasses or even a welder's mask.)

Knowing the distance apart from each other, along with the readings, gives us all that's needed.
Plug the numbers into a CAD system and it does all the calculations for you.
Here is an example:



Now, this doesn't take into consideration altitude above sea level, but that can easily be factored/drawn in.
Plus, not being on the same longitude will introduce errors as well.
I'm sure the results wouldn't be accurate down to the foot, but even a few miles +/- ain't such a bad thing, is it?

So, is there any merit to this approach?

I's be happy to make up a bunch of altimeters and send em off to folks who'd want to conduct this experiment.

Talk to me People!

Interesting approuch found this video today


https://youtu.be/lozvuBI5Bmg

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but if the Moon were truly 238,900 miles away, then when the Moon peaks through the clouds at night, the entire cloud cover from our perspective would be illuminated by the Moon's light, instead of just the clouds that are near to the Moon.

In the photo below and others like it (and we've all seen a similar scene as this ourselves with our own eyes), only the clouds that are nearest to the Moon are illuminated, while the clouds get darker as they get further away from the Moon and it's illumination.

So this means the Moon is close; it is within our firmament.

I was under the impression that the sun and moon were thought to be inside the dome, but this isn't possible if the dome is 32 miles up and the sun is 3,000 miles away.  If the sun was measured at that distance, does that mean then that the dome is 3,000 miles high? Just wondering if there is a consensus at IFERS about that.

There is still no conclusive evidence of whether a dome actually exists or not, so questioning its exact height is presumptuous. The 32 miles measurement is the diameter of the Sun/Moon as calculated by a sextant, and 3000 miles is the approximate height of them.

I found this picture while searching around. Some math member can have fun with it. so many great pics out there. Lot of airline pilots take pics for fun and blog'em.

Light years, more evidence for stationary earth

YES, Visual proof exists of both the Sun shrinking to a point and sinking bottoms-up.

I believe it depends on three things:

1. The position of the Sun on its daily and yearly cycles between Cancer and Capricorn at an altitude less than the accepted radius of the Earth, North Pole to Equator
2. Your position between NP/Meru and the Ice wall on the flat plane and your altitude above sea level
3. The Visual Axes orientation of the optical instrument and the bearings to the Object of interest. (Eye-Line)

Direct vision and true perspective can account for the different Sunset scenarios.

The smallest visual space visible to the naked eye is about 1 degree from your Eye-Line. As the distance of an Object increases, the visual angle subtended at the eye decreases. A reciprocal relationship. In normal conditions the eye can distinctly register an Object about 3000 times its own diameter removed. You cannot see a one-inch coin, when it is farther than 3000 inches from you, about 250 feet.

This limit is due to the ever decreasing visual angle subtended at the eye approaching the limits of the optical instrument. This limit applies in every direction of visual space. Up/Down and Left/Right. Anything subtending an angle at your eye, less than this limit will appear to vanish.

Objects, vertically or horizontally closer to your Eye-Line, will make smaller angles to the Eye-Line sooner/quicker than Objects that are more distant from the Eye-Line. If the Objects are equidistant from the Eye-Line and seen directly, they will appear to approach equally “fast”, since the angles are diminishing equally. Objects farther from the Eye-Line subtend larger visual angles at the eye and even if they decrease more rapidly to begin with, they still take “longer” to reach the visual angle limit.

The same is true of one Object when we consider its extremes, such as the top and bottom of a Sun diameter. If the extremes of the object (top and bottom) are not equally distant from the eye, (which they aren’t when we view a setting sun, since the bottom is closer to the ground and hence closer to our Eye-line), then the one that is closer will reach the visual angle limit sooner and so will disappear “bottoms up”.

In general Parallel lines converging to the same vanishing point is only true, when the lines are equidistant from the Eye. When parallel lines are not equidistant, the one further away from the Eye will still converge to the same Eye line (the line extending from the Eye to the Horizon, since that is where we are looking), but will meet at a point farther “down the line.”

At a normal eye height of 6 feet above sea level, the ground, being closer to your eye than the sky appears to rise, just as the sky appears to descend, but the ground will reach the Eye-line first and do so at a point closer to you than the sky. If you increase your altitude, the ground will not rise to the Eye-line so “quickly”, and you can see more ground between you and the eye-line to the horizon. The Sun no longer disappears so easily “behind” the ground line and can then be seen to shrink into the distance.

Sunspot and flat earth, Photo was taken by "Astronaut" JeffW from the ISS and posted to instagram. NASA loves posting flat earth truths!

TheAlchemist wrote:
Sunspot and flat earth
Photo was taken by "Astronaut" JeffW from the ISS
NASA loves posting flat earth truths!

NO, the photo was not taken from the man made construct of space, and the fake ISS;
are you here trying to promote NASA and their Freemasons in Fake Space?

Incredible Camera Zoom Basically Takes You to the Moon:-)

Product Review below: I JUST HAD TO LAUGH OUT LOUD


"If you want to go to the Moon, you can either hitch your ride with NASA and Space SeX or you can get yourself a camera with an incredible zoom like the Nikon P900 which comes with a 24-2000mm lens that can rip off an 83x optical zoom.

All you have to do is point the camera to the sky, lock in on the Moon, and basically have it bring you there, no spaceship required"

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2016/08/incredible-camera-zoom-basically-takes-you-to-the-moon/

This video has great thoughts on sun spots and reflections from the moon to show a more accurate idea of size and distance.  Still thinking through the idea, but wanted to share, .
For a more complete experiment, we could send up several weather balloons, each miles away from the sunspot and then do the math for each and see how it all matches up.

The 3000 number comes about from actually measuring the angle of the Sun using sextants at 60 degrees simultaneously from two places on Earth, proving the distance using the geometry of an isosceles triangle. This video is claiming they can measure height based on sun spots. You can measure position based on sun spots, but not height. I would however love to see a modern version of the sextant experiment performed so we can confirm the figures given to us by Rowbotham, Winship and others.

I thought this was interesting and worth mentioning. In Gleason's book "Is the Bible from Heaven, is Earth a Globe?" he calculates the sun distance at 1725 nautical miles above the equator.

As Chippy the "Gleason addict" Chipmunk points out, 1725 nautical miles is 1985 statute miles which is awfully close to Orwell's 1984. Could the title refer to the sun's altitude given that "Big Brother" is the all seeing eye, eye of providence, eye of lucifer, etc. ie. The sun? The whole one eye / sun worship symbolism that we find everywhere.

https://youtu.be/btba9LthAJg?t=49

This is one of the best videos I have seen about measuring scientifically,mathematically correct using what we see in reality- distance of Moon from earth, same method can be applied on Sun distance....