hommework

Where does the sun go during the day?

You can see that with your own eyes.

Which sun are you talking about?

According to my new research on what uninformed people call "the sun", there are times when it is day at the extreme south of the Americas and in Australia. Simultaneously. Those are on opposite sides of the earth-disk. The same sun cannot be visible from both these points while it is night in the middle.

So, there as to be several. I dont know how many. I think it would be a worthy endeavor for flat earth scientists to try to count them and see what they're up to. Maybe try to get to one in a hot-air balloon.

That is an apparent location, not an actual location. There is no way to perceive its size and distance.

Can you believe the nerve of globists who say that the distance to the Sun was reasonably estimated centuries ago? And they're like "blah blah the transit of Venus"... Stop making words up and measuring unknowable things! They make me so angry.

"Globablists"

Why is this impossible?

They have to assume other things, such as distance to the moon.

"moon"

How thick is the pancake we're living on? Has anyone tried to drill through? That could be a shortcut to hell, which I expect to be on the other side, as heaven is above us.

And then we could check out if there is a moon on the other side too, and triangulate. In the name of Science.

If you drilled a hole through the earth the sky would leak out, exposing the greatest mystery of all.

That would be a grand cosmic fart. The vortex of everything.

It's full of stars! To quote the Space Odyssey.

So you're claiming that there's no possible way to measure the size of the sun and its distance from earth without knowing the distance to the moon? Please elaborate.

To be clear, your claim was that there is no way to perceive the size of the sun and its distance. I'm not interested in some specific method. Your claim is about the impossibility of such estimates.

I think you guys might be getting trolled itt.

Shhhhh... Don't tell anyone...

Correct I was referring to the specific method that uses distance to the moon. In general you cannot calculate a distance using trig when only 2 angles are known. If not distance to the moon then some other celestial distance has to be assumed.

What is the moon and the sun? Are they physical? Projections? It is absurd to talk of distances and sizes of things that may not even be physically occupying space in a way that such measurements can be calculated. All sizes and distances of and to celestial bodies are apparent, claimed physical measures are assumed. This is why it is referred to as a model. This is uncontroversial but people in general, that is stupid people (and I was once like them) perceive this as actually existing. It is not, and is never claimed to be, if you listen closely.

Pretty sure we measure the distance to the moon the same way we measure everything else. With lasers.

That's super-weird claim in context.

Kukraprout: Where does the sun go when it seems to set below the horizon?
You: Where does the sun go during the day?
plaaynde: You can see that with your own eyes.
You: That is an apparent location, not an actual location. There is no way to perceive its size and distance.

How you expected anyone to think that this conversation revolves around that one specific method is a mystery to me. But setting that aside:

What prevents us from using the angle-side-angle theorem, where the "side" is the distance between two earth points?

I don't understand. Are you saying that the sun and the moon don't exist?

If the Apollo missions were real they would have tied one end of a measuring tape to the modules. Imagine going to the moon and not trying to solve the age-old question of where the heck it is. Just one of the many proofs that these missions never happened.

I think he does.

It depends on the method which particular invalid assumption is used, eg earth diameter, spherical earth. In your method the angle, parallax, requires a reference point to be assumed.

The sun and moon may or may not be physical locations. They may not exist physically, eg projections. Something would cause the apparent view we see, but that cause may not be a place defined by coordinates in space, a "distance" is absurd in that case. Of course if you believe a man stood on the moon and took rock samples etc then you will have no problem believing in a physical body where the distance can be derived.

What is your rejection to the theory that one can use angle-side-angle to model the distance to the sun? You can even have a parameter in the model for the radius of the earth, including the possibility that the "radius" of the earth is "infinite" (ie, flat).

Are you saying that it's not possible to measure the distance between two points?

What are they projected onto? And wouldn't the fact that it's a projection lead to the types of effects that we can identify with other types of projections? Namely that projections from different angles (relative to the projection surface) results in different apparent shapes? There is at least a physical location of the projection, right?

This seems like something that can be tested. Do you disagree?

This needs much love. If we can't trust this being possible we may as well bin science.

I'm sure Billy can find an argument questioning the speed of light.