Measuring the Sun

Measuring the Sun: a sun shining through the clouds

This article was prepared and written by @rokro11, not Stacey McStationary, and is a guest article appearing on this site.  If you have any questions or comments you may contact @rokro11 on Twitter or leave a comment below.

The last article was about measuring the moon.  This article will be about measuring the moon’s brother — the sun.  

Scientist, engineer, and educator – Eric Dollard, says nobody knows what the sun is.  He confirms the sun is not burning anything and it’s not related to fusion. He indicates the sun produces electromagnetic light and heat as a transformer.

The earth is stationary and the sun moves above the earth.  The speed of the sun changes from its slowest of about 952 mph, while it is above the Tropic of Cancer and the Tropic of Capricorn, to its fastest of about 1,038 mph, when it’s above the Equator.  

measure_sun_flat_earth.jpg

Timeanddate.com provides the sun’s speed.  The speed of the sun from this site varies because the sun is not traveling at a constant speed.  Some may incorrectly think the sun is not moving and the earth is the one orbiting around the sun, while also spinning, and hurling through space – but it’s not.

To measure the sun, just like with the moon, its movement must first be captured on video. The ideal time to capture this video is when the sun is directly 90 degrees overhead to eliminate atmosplane refraction.  

On June 7, 2018 at 12:14 pm, I recorded the sun traveling from its leading edge to its trailing edge in 2:14 minutes.  The sun’s speed on this date, which is the sun speed relative to earth, is 957 mph.

957 mph divided by 60 minutes, is 15.95 miles per minute.  Take 15.95 and divide that by 60 seconds to arrive at .2658 miles per second.  

Since the sun crossed itself in 2:14 minutes, this amounts to 134 total seconds.  How wide is the sun? It is 35.62 miles wide. (134 second x .2658 miles per second).

sun speed flat earth.jpg

Wait a minute!  Didn’t Nasa and others report the sun’s size is 864,337 miles wide?  It’s time to figure out that both the moon and sun appear about the same size because they actually are roughly the same size.  

I didn’t use the heliocentric model to determine the above measurements because that model is not accurate.  I’m not going to assume the earth is flat and stationary; I’m going to let NASA and other organizations make that declaration in regard to the flat and stationary earth.  If you have any questions concerning NASA and other organizations that confirm earth is flat and stationary, you should direct your concerns to the appropriate organization, and not to the article’s author.

See the following confirmations by NASA, US Army, MIT, and Princeton University, in which their tests, models, aircraft, UAVs, radar, and other topics refer to the actual flat and non-rotating earth or the assumption of operation on an actual flat and non-rotating earth. 

Official Reports Referring to a Flat Non-Rotating Earth:

NASA in 1972: The method is limited, however, to application where a flat, nonrotating earth may be assumed. (Pg. 2)

NASA in 1978: The earth is flat and non-rotating.  (Pg. 14)

NASA in 1988: “This report derives and defines a set of linearized system matrices for a rigid aircraft of constant mass, flying in a stationary atmosphere over a flat, nonrotating earth.” (Pg, 36)

NASA in 1993: Lastly, the equations of motion for the zeroth-order problem of flight in a vacuum over a Flat Earth are presented. (Pg. 32)

The Army Research Laboratory: In its title, Propagation of Electromagnetic Fields Over Flat Earth, (2001)

MIT in its Abstract, “Three targeting methods were considered: assuming a Flat Earth…” (2006)

Routledge Taylor/Francis Group, for MIT, via Princeton, reports  a flat, non-rotating Earth even if the trajectory is plotted on a round Earth. (2006) (pg. 3)

In my Measuring the Moon article, the moon’s size was determined to be about 34 miles wide. The measurements relating to the sun have determined the sun is about the same size of the moon, at 35.5 miles wide. Both the sun and moon move East to West over our flat and stationary earth and at almost the same speed of over 2 minutes to cross themselves. Do the sun and the moon look the same size? Of course they do. A mile or two of variance is not noticeable in celestial bodies which are both less than 4,000 miles away.  

sun clouds lovely
The sun is a small, local light

Nasa misled the world beginning in the late 1960s by faking the moon landings 6 times. Nothing gets to space but in order for NASA to exist and remain relevant to collect $52,000,000 per day, they have to lie about what they can do.  Although they have lied about many things, they cannot lie about everything – that has been pointed out and referenced above.

Is the sun closer to 35.5 miles wide or is it closer to 865,000 miles wide?  Is the information Nasa provides about the size of the sun reasonable at 865,000 miles wide when both the moon and sun appear about the same size?  

That’s something you need to determine on your own. I can provide the facts, but I can’t make people who are unwilling to accept reality understand those facts.

19 Comments

  1. Great work @rokro👍 determining the diameter, once people observe themselves that the sun is no where near 93million miles, neither is it some burning gas as they’re educated to believe, they can repeat your experiments & come to same factual conclusion; on our Flat & Stationary Earth!
    Interesting piece, even had a little NASA humor😉

  2. What absolute nonsense. The sun and moon do not appear the same size. the sun appears as a constant size, the earth does however travel in an elliptical orbit around the sun so the earth does get slightly closer and further away on its orbit but due to suns distance from the earth, it is not noticeable.

    The moon also has an elliptical orbit around the earth, but of course it is much closer so the moon appears larger and smaller during its orbit.

    This is basic staff. How do you not know this?

  3. You have essentially repeated several things you’ve been told or read (with absolutely no evidence) from the programming you’ve received every day of your life since you were born.

    Those repeated stories include:

    1. The sun is 400 times larger than the moon
    2. The sun doesn’t change size because it’s too far away to notice a change in size
    3. The earth travels in an elliptical path
    4. The earth orbits
    5. The moon travels in an elliptical path
    6. The moon orbits

    George Airy, famously known for Airy’s Failure confirmed in 1871 the earth is stationary and the aether moves. Airy was attempting to prove the earth moved and the aether (containing the sun, moon, and star) was stationary. He failed because his results concluded the aether moves – not the earth.

    Because of Airy’s failure which confirmed the aether moves, Michelson/Morley created an experiment to confirm the earth was in motion in lock-step with the moving aether. The Michelson/Morley conclusion and summary letter, sent to Lord Rayleigh in August 1887 confirmed the earth did not move and it was noted the experiment to prove earth movement had a “decidedly negative result”.

    Michelson proposed a theory that the aether was attached to the earth and that’s why his and Morley’s experiment ended with a negative result. He opined his negative result was because part of the aether was attached to and moved with the earth. (This opinion was quickly dismantled by H. A. Lorentz.)

    Between the 1881 and 1887, H. A. Lorentz conducted an experiment involving the moving glass and the glass at rest which confirmed the aether was not attached to earth.

    In 1925, Michelson and Henry Gale completed what is called the Michelson/Gale experiment. Their experiment concluded the aether is not attached to the earth, which is consistent with the Lorentz experiment.

    In 1913, George Sagnac published that his experiment with the interferometer mounted on a turntable proves the existence of the aether. Sagnac’s light experiment supported Airy’s finding that the aether exists and is in motion.

    Now that we have the facts established, I will address the errors of each of the stories that you’ve repeatedly heard and read, and now mindlessly repeat.

    1. The sun is 400 times larger than the moon. Keep in mind the earth is stationary and the aether moves. Within the aether are the sun, moon, and stars. All the celestial bodies move at a speed of around 1000 mph. You can see confirmation within my Measuring the Moon article at https://flat-earth.blog/2018/06/03/measuring-the-moon/
    That article uses the speed relative between the moon and the earth. Because the earth is stationary as confirmed by Airy, Michelson, Lorentz, Gale, and Sagnac – the moon’s size can be determined using the moon as a virtual tape measure. The size of the moon is slightly over 30 miles wide.

    2. The sun doesn’t change size because it’s too far away to notice a change in size. Nobody knows what the sun is, but it is within the aether and the aether moves so its size can be determined because the sun relative to earth’s speed is reported by timeanddate.com. This can be found in the Measuring the Sun article found at https://flat-earth.blog/2018/06/13/measuring-the-sun/ Please take notice that the US military, Nasa, Princeton, MIT, and engineers relay in their directions to assume the earth is flat and nonrotating – notably because the earth is flat and immobile.

    The sun’s size has been determined to be slightly over 30 miles wide, which is very comparable to the size of the moon. If one is concerned with the alleged 67,000 mph speed of the solar system (which allegedly contains the earth) will affect the results of the sun relative to earth speed that is not a concern because the solar system is not moving – because the earth is stationary. See Airy, Michelson, Lorentz, Gale, and Sagnac. Additionally, since the earth has been confirmed to be stationary, both the sun and earth cannot be stationary at the same time and the sun is the terrestrial body which shows motion. If the sun moves in relation to the earth and the earth is stationary, there is no such thing as a solar system.

    3. The earth travels in an elliptical path. The earth is stationary and due to the discovery of that fact, the earth has no elliptical path. See Airy, Michelson, Lorentz, Gale, and Sagnac.

    4. The earth orbits. The earth is stationary – see Airy, Michelson, Lorentz, Gale, and Sagnac.

    5. The moon travels in an elliptical path. There is no proof the moon moves in an elliptical path. An elliptical path of the moon is an assumption and is discarded as such.

    6. The moon orbits. There is no evidence the moon orbits anything. The moon has been viewed up to 12 hours per 24 hour period from a single observer and, during that time, it orbits nothing. No evidence has ever been provided that the moon orbits anything – including the stationary earth. If there is evidence contrary to this, I would have an interest in reviewing it. The evidence must meet the criteria of objective and verifiable.

    If you wish to leave any further comments, it is advisable you do some research prior to that endeavor because the things you think you learned were learned incorrect – but that appears to be the intended outcome.

  4. But surly you would agree that the earths shadow cast on the moon during its orbit around the earth is visible evidence of the earths shape? And how do you explain the moons size getting larger and smaller due to its elliptical orbit around the earth. This seems like good evidence.

    1. There is no evidence the flat and stationary earth casts a shadow on anything. You can be told a billion times the earth casts a shadow, but the earth casts no shadow unless it is proven the earth casts a shadow. At this time, there is absolutely no evidence the earth casts a shadow. There is absolutely no evidence the earth orbits. Additionally, there is no evidence anything orbits anything. I don’t talk about things that have not been supported factually with evidence. Realize assumptions and people making unproven and non-evidenced claims of something does not amount to evidence or proof.

      If you would look into George Airy and his experiment to proof the earth was in motion, you will realize he failed in his attempt. That is why it’s called Airy’s failure. It’s been covered up and the experiment will be repeated sometime this year by a reputable group who will again reveal the findings and conclusion of what Airy discovered by experimentation in 1887. He failed to prove the earth moved. Amazingly, the other part of his experiment concluded the aether (which includes the sun, moon, and stars) is what moves.

      Experiments after that were conducted to prove part of the aether was attached to the moving earth that also concluded the earth is stationary and that no part of the aether is attached to the earth. The aether is independent of the earth and within the aether the sun, moon, and stars move.

      Just like the sun, the moon’s apparent size doesn’t change. The reasoning given for the sun’s apparent size not changing is because it is 93,000,000 miles away – too far to realize a change. The apparent size of the moon doesn’t change either and it’s allegedly 238,000 miles away. It is supposedly 400 times closer than the sun but the apparent sizes of both don’t change. We are told by nasa that the sun is too far away to notice any change but the size of the moon should change considerably since it is 238,000 miles away. My measurements of both the sun and moon are a little over 32 miles in width. At that size, both the sun and moon are within 4000 miles from the stationary and flat surface of the earth.

      I suggest the sun and moon are much, much closer than we’ve been told and the size of each doesn’t change because of the magnification affect of the atmosplane as each travels about our flat and stationary earth. The air contains significant quantities of water within the large volumes of air that make up our skies and I imagine the view is very similar to looking at each from under water. People will try to replicate this experimentally to confirm this could the reason why we see what we see or they will rule it out. Regardless, it can’t be confirmed or ruled out until objective and verifiable experiments have been done. If you want to cooperate in conducting experiments of this nature with me or others, let me know.

      Let me remind you that you asked a question about how I would explain something about the alleged elliptical movement of the moon. Neither my explanation nor your question amounts to evidence. Evidence is observable, measurable, repeatable, and falsifiable. Let me repeat, evidence is not a question and it never will be. For you to suggest a question seems like good evidence is embarrassing. Not for me because I know about what evidence is.

  5. I am a little confused with your answer. Please be patient with me. I am trying to understand. You say the shadow covering a portion of the moon isn’t the earths shadow. It looks to me like a shadow of the earth has been cast onto the moon and of course we have all done simple experiments with a flashlight and couple of balls to mimic the earths shadow onto the moon, The shadow works with the moons orbit and earths rotation so what am I missing? What is the darkened area on the moon if its not the earths shadow?

    1. Because of George Airy in 1887, and his failure called Airy’s Failure, we know the earth is stationary while the aether moves, which contain the sun, moon, and stars.

      In 350 BC, Aristotle assumed the earth was spherical. And he opined the round shape observed on the moon during an eclipse is the shadow cast by the earth when he wrote this: “The earth is spherical…in eclipses the outline is always curved: and, since it is the interposition of the earth that makes the eclipse, the form of this line will be caused by the form of the earth’s surface, which is therefore spherical.” Scientists should not assume, but if they have to, they should assume within the confines of a theory and either prove that theory or discard it. The assumptive notion that the stationary earth casts a shadow has never been confirmed or proven.

      From the assumption Aristotle made over 1650 years ago that the earth cast a shadow on the moon during eclipse gave birth to the heliocentric theory. A theory is a scientific guess which has never been proven. An assumed shadow (because nobody even knows if it’s a shadow) should not be assumed to arise from a stationary earth (see Airy’s failure mentioned above) especially when the Sun and Moon are visible during a lunar eclipse. When the sun and moon are both present from observers on the earth it is a phenomenon called the Selenelion.

      Attached is a video of a selenelion eclipse occurring. (I don’t even know if calling what is observed should even be called an eclipse): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIyw6xuEJxk

      You said, “It looks to me like a shadow of the earth has been cast onto the moon”. You are making assumptions based on things that are already based on assumptions. You don’t know if what looks like a “shadow” on the moon is actually a shadow. You don’t know if the “shadow” originates from the stationary earth. Science requires observable, repeatable, measureable, and falsifiable. Falsifiable means that all other possibilities must be considered to dismantle the current position. Falsifiable has never been done concerning a lunar eclipse. The assumptions are even further discredited by the selenelion phenomenon.

      Let me ask, with your flashlight and experiment with the balls, did you assume the earth is spherical (despite no evidence it is a spherical)? Did you assume the earth is the source of the “shadow”? Did you assume what seems to be occurring on the moon is due to the affects of a “shadow”? Did you conduct your experiment so both the light source and the moon were both at locations viewable from observer from the object you considered the earth? Did you consider how to make the ball and light experiment display what is observed in the real world with a stationary earth (See George Airy’s discovery) in light of the selenelion condition?

      There is no proof anything orbits anything. You’ve relied upon the moon orbiting the earth, which is an assumption. The moon is, at most, observed by an observer on the earth up to 12 hours per day. No observer has ever seen the moon orbit the earth. What is more likely to be happening is the moon is moving above the earth.

      You’ve also mentioned the earth’s rotation. See George Airy’s findings. The earth does not move – let alone rotate. Your assumptions are blaring in your post. Assumptions have nothing to do with reality and science. Evidence, facts, and proof should be the foundation of science only.

      You ask what the darkened part on the moon might be. The one part of science that should guide you with that is the falsifiable part of any experiment – not an assumption or what you’ve been told all your life. Don’t worry, we’ve all been lied to and misled our entire lives. The important thing to do about that is require objective and verifiable evidence of everything. If things can’t be objectively verified, it must be rejected.

  6. The image in the video is a lunar eclipse. The sun is on the opposite side of the globe earth, the sun reflects light off the moons surface. The Earths orbit past between the sun and the moon creating this image of the lunar eclipse, What your seeing in the video is the shadow of the earth cast onto the surface of the moon. We had a lunar eclipse January this year. I stayed up watching it, it gave a very similar image to this video. Cool clip, shows clearly what I’m revering to as the earths shadow cast onto the moon.

    I know you don’t believe the earths shadow theory, But there is evidence for this. Like I said earlier, the two balls and flash light mimics this. You said that this experiment isn’t science because of the assumption of the results before the experiment was conducted. Am – lets see…. why would anyone conduct an experiment if they weren’t trying to verify that results matched their theory. Based on your logic, all experiments would have to be deemed fake due to folks trying to gain results to support their assumptions. If nobody had assumptions why would anyone be conducting experiments?

    1. Your entire post was chock-full of assumptions. I read 4 or 5 assumptions and I was not even to the 3rd sentence. I’ve ignored your entire post.

      I don’t deal with assumptions. Assumptions may be the cornerstone of your life, but they have no part in mine.

  7. I am explaining the shadow on the moon, the shadow is real and has to come from somewhere, I gave you an explanation and you gave me nothing in return, You just say we don’t know what it is.

    You are wrong -We (If we is such a thing) have formulated a rational explanation for the shadow. You don’t have an answer, so you claim we don’t know. In the year 2019, you cant just shrug your shoulders and say science is wrong because its assumptions. We don’t live in the dark ages, opposition to scientific theory has to be countered with an opposing theory. What’s your theory?

    1. You can explain whatever you want – I’ll ignore your stories every time. You should not assume the condition you think you observe is a shadow.

      When things are unknown, it is best to accept it as unknown rather than guessing what it is and being wrong.

      A perfect example – nobody knows what the sun is and if they say they do, they are lying. Regardless what the sun is or is not, it works like a precision time piece and is the basis for life on this earth. Do we need to know what it is in order to be alive? This is a rhetorical question.

  8. You are mistaken – The shadow on moon is not unknown, it is only unknown to you. You have built pre-mediated ideas of what you want to believe. Please don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with being sure of your ideas, but once your ideas have blocked out all opposing information you have become ignorant.

    1. The shadow on the moon is unknown by every single person and if they tell you what they think it is, it’s simply an assumption. Things that are assumed without evidence will always be an assumption.

      There are many things unknown to us humans. Some of those things are:

      What’s below the earth’s surface since nobody has been able to penetrate the surface of earth further than 10 miles? This is an unknown but you’ll be shown silly cartoons like this and after enough exposure, you’ll believe this nonsense.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%27s+core&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjJnMSb8aTgAhWn64MKHa33CY0Q_AUIDigB&biw=1440&bih=789

      What about the sun? The sun is not known by anybody. It is assumed what it is and those assumptions even give you assumptions all the way to the sun’s core. It’s entirely an assumption the sun is spherical, has a core, and every-single-thing about it.

      http://solarviews.com/eng/sun.htm

      There are so many lies, assumptions, and made-up stuff we’ve been told about stars. Have you been told they are distant suns – trillions of light years away? These are assumptions and if you want to see these suns that you’ve been told all your life how to imagine them, the reality of these stars does not match the programmed imagination.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9O-wWtPqbA
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJCHahC_v8Y
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmBh-WZzjIg

      These are just a few but there are so many examples that exist. Science doesn’t have all the answers, and when they are unable to obtain answers, those answers are simply made up. And a lot of gullible people just accept that made-up stuff without thinking. You are one of those people. I encourage everybody to think.

  9. Rokro111 – You comment, “Nobody knows what the sun is” – “the sun works like a precision time piece”.

    Are you suggesting the sun is man made object?

    1. I compared the sun to a precision time piece. I don’t suggest anything or make assumptions. I simply said the sun is LIKE a precision time piece. Try to focus on the words used instead of making things up.

  10. I thought NASA may have made the sun out of old tires. After all, we don’t know what it is right, it could be old tires.

    1. Your post is resembling the response expected of a 9 year old girl having a tantrum. Your entire post was completely ignored since it rendered no value to the subject of this article entitled measuring the sun.

Leave a Reply