Non-changing view of Stars prove flat earth

Throughout thousands of years the same stars and constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed.

Conclusion: The constant non-changing view we have of the stars and constellations and the polestar remaining fixed over the north pole would be impossible if the earth moved in the way it is supposed in the globe earth model. Our observations of the sky lead us to presume the earth is fixed in its position within the universe. Earth could still be a globe rotating but would have to remain fixed in one place for the sky to appear as it does to us. So while this is not proof the earth is flat it is a strong indication the earth does not move in space as it is proposed in the globe earth model.

Supporting Flat Earth Proofs

  • 19) Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved around the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months orbital motion could not fail to be seen.
  • 148) Quoting “Earth Not a Globe!” by Samuel Rowbotham, “It is found by observation that the stars come to the meridian about four minutes earlier every twenty-four hours than the sun, taking the solar time as the standard. This makes 120 minutes every thirty days, and twenty-four hours in the year. Hence all the constellations have passed before or in advance of the sun in that time. This is the simple fact as observed in nature, but the theory of rotundity and motion on axes and in an orbit has no place for it. Visible truth must be ignored, because this theory stands in the way, and prevents its votaries from understanding it.”
  • 149) Throughout thousands of years the same constellations have remained fixed in their same patterns without moving out of position whatsoever. If the Earth were a big ball spinning around a bigger Sun spinning around a bigger galaxy shooting off from the Biggest Bang as NASA claims, it is impossible that the constellations would remain so fixed. Based on their model, we should, in fact, have an entirely different night sky every single night and never repeat exactly the same star pattern twice.
  • 150) If Earth were a spinning ball it would be impossible to photograph star-trail time-lapses turning perfect circles around Polaris anywhere but the North Pole. At all other vantage points the stars would be seen to travel more or less horizontally across the observer’s horizon due to the alleged 1000mph motion beneath their feet. In reality, however, Polaris’s surrounding stars can always be photographed turning perfect circles around the central star all the way down to the Tropic of Capricorn.
  • 151) If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines.

25 Replies to “Non-changing view of Stars prove flat earth”

  1. Philip Gunby

    #151 I think there is an error by stating the galaxy moves @ 670 million mph. What is the source of that statement?

  2. Hook

    “If Earth were a spinning ball revolving around the Sun it would actually be impossible for star-trail photos to show perfect circles even at the North Pole! Since the Earth is also allegedly moving 67,000mph around the Sun, the Sun moving 500,000mph around the Milky Way, and the entire galaxy going 670,000,000mph, these four contradictory motions would make star-trail time-lapses all show irregular curved lines.”

    Nearest star is 2 light year away. A star-trail photo takes maximum 12 hours to take.
    12h * 500,000mph = 6,000,000 miles, one light year is 6,000,000,000,000 miles, so there is 1 millionth of scale difference at least. The difference is even way higher for galaxies, as the nearest galaxy is 2 million light year away. If you are thinking that 1 millionth scale difference should be detectable on a star-trail photo, then probably do rest the math. You will get the difference even on a 8k resolution image would be way less than a pixel.

    • Big L

      Pretty convenient that they are choosing such high numbers then. As if they needed those numbers to make the model work…

    • Rico

      Forget the stars look up Venus how far is it from earth the sun moves across but Venus is closer and it barely moves.

    • On the Level

      “Nearest star is 2 light year away.”

      How do you know?

      Mark Twain

      “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.”

      ― Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

      • Hook

        ““Nearest star is 2 light year away.”

        How do you know?”

        Well, the whole topic here could have given you a clue about it.
        For close stars, the distance measured by parallax, the closest one is 0.772-arcsec away, from that you can get a pretty accurate distance. Of course, you can claim, that is a lie too, but even an amateur astronomer can make this measurement with a simple telescope for some of the nearby bright stars. (and have been done countless times in the last 150 years)

        (note, I was actually wrong, the closest star (Alpha Centauri) is 4.4 light years away)

        • Flat Earth Facts

          How can you measure parallel over 4.4 light years away???

          Why don’t you do the math before speaking.

          4.4 light years is 25,865,950,000,000 miles. This is 2 of the sides of the triangle you are trying to measure the angle of.

          Other side of the triangle is the movement of the earth from one side of the sun to the other. Earth, so they say, rotates around the sun, and sun, they say is 93,000,000 miles away. So in 6 months the earth moves twice this distance, six months later the earth will have moved to other side of sun which is 186,000,000 miles away. That is the third side of the triangle and the only way you can estimate the distance to the star is by accurately measuring this angle.

          So what is this angle you have to measure. This is called an Isosceles Triangle. The base of it is the distance the earth moves in 6 months, 186 million miles away, the distance to the star is unknown. But if you know the base and the angle, then you can get the distance to the star… We know the base. And we have guessed, more-or-less the length of the two long sides, because the angle is so small, sides will be practically the same as the height of the triangle which is the distance to the star, we guess to be 25,865,950,000,000 miles.

          So what is the angle we have to measure to verify the distance to the nearest star??

          https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/isosceles-triangle?c=CAD&v=hide:0,b:186000000!mi,a:25865950000000!mi

          Put in: side b = 186000000
          side a = 25865950000000

          So we have a very big problem in measuring this angle… The two angles on the base of the triangle are 90 degrees…

          The actual angle that we have to measure accurately to verify the 4.4 light year distance of the star is: 0.000412 degrees…

          There is absolutely no way that anyone can measure an angle from the earth to an object in the sky with this degree of accuracy.

          So there is no such experiment. No one can do this experiment. There is no way whatsoever of verifying the distance to the stars. They have guessed only. And the only reason they put the stars so far away is they have to be so far away if the earth is moving almost 200 million miles in 6 months to the other side of the sun… If the stars were not so so so unimaginably far away, we would be able to measure the parallax.

          • Hook

            “…The actual angle that we have to measure accurately to verify the 4.4 light year distance of the star is: 0.000412 degrees…”

            Man, this was in my comment:
            “For close stars, the distance measured by parallax, the closest one is 0.772-arcsec”

            1 Degree is 3600 Arsec (if you dont know something (like arcsecond and parallax) then look it up, but as the possible owner of this site, you should really know what is arcsecond and parallax….

            So 0.772-arcsec is actually 0.000278 degree, approximately half of your 0.000412 degree value, as it should be…

            You have this site and you don’t even know such basic terms?

            “So there is no such experiment. No one can do this experiment. There is no way whatsoever of verifying the distance to the stars.”

            A typical 8” hobby telescope has a resolution of about 0.6 arcseconds, Ganymede has about 1.4-1.8 arsec angular diameter, you can easily see it with most hobby telescopes. Anything more professional bigger telescope can easily have magnitudes of better resolution.
            This is actually so easy measurement that even in 1838 Friedrich Bessel measured that 61 Cygni had a parallax of 0.314 arcseconds (he was about 10% off).

            You could buy your own very good telescope and do some actual research, though I warn you, that will take a lot more effort than just googling stuff…

          • Flat Earth Facts

            Hi Mr. Hook. Thanks for the information. I think you are a bit mistaken about how they are measuring the parallax. What I have said is completely correct. There is no way you can measure an angle so small with a telescope from earth. Impossible. What they are doing actually is looking at the more distant stars. And that is how they are finding the parallax. So they find slightly different relationship of the more distant stars to the star they are observing, that is how they deduce the parallax. But they can not actually measure an angle so small.

            So it is an indirect measurement, based on assumptions which may not be correct. They are not measuring the angle, they are looking at the more distant stars and deducing the angle based on their assumptions of the light-year distances of the stars and the earth rotating around the sun. But things could be different from their assumptions, if their assumptions were not 100% correct, then their deductions could be way off. Astronomy is not an exact science…

            The same visual effect could be produced with the stars in different positions. Everything could be much closer than they think, or much further away then they think, and still produce the same visual effect. So they don’t know. They can’t measure such a small angle so they can not calculate the distance. Observing parallax by seeing a different arrangement of the stars behind the star you are observing may tell you some things, but it does not tell you the distance. You can calculate a distance based on your assumptions, but your assumptions may not be correct.

          • hschuring

            “There is absolutely no way that anyone can measure an angle from the earth to an object in the sky with this degree of accuracy.”
            The resolution of the unaided eye is 1 to 2 arcminutes. A backyard telescope can magnify this 100x so with the help of a backyard telescope we can already see details smaller than 1 arcsecond (0.0003°). So even an amateur astronomer can make two pictures of a star field 6 months apart and clearly see a nearby star having changed position. The last step is taking a ruler and compare the displacement with the known angular distances of the surrounding stars.

          • Flat Earth Facts

            You misunderstand. Yes. Of course. You can see the stars changing position in relation to other stars, if they do that. That is not measuring the angle to a star from the earth. Observing changing distances between stars is NOT measuring their angles accurately from earth. Then you can make assumptions, of course, based on the observations of slightly different distances between the stars at different times and you can postulate the cause of this difference. In this way you can imply so many things. But these are not direct observations, and any conclusions you come to are based on many assumptions, which may or may not be correct.

            For example you are presuming the earth is rotating around the sun, and you are presuming the distance between the earth and the sun is 93 million miles. The results you get from your observations are determined by these initial assumptions. If it turns out, for example, that the earth is stationary, and the sun is moving around the earth, then the results of your calculations will be meaningless. Garbage in > garbage out.

            So my point stands. “You can not measure an angle from the earth to an object in the sky with this degree of accuracy.”

        • Michael

          Wrong again. Not to be nitpicky, but the nearest star to our Sun is Proxima Centauri, only ~4.24 LY from us. It’s one of three stars that make up the Alpha Centauri SYSTEM, which is the nearest star SYSTEM to our own.

  3. Hook

    ” I think you are a bit mistaken about how they are measuring the parallax.”

    Can you elaborate on that?

    “There is no way you can measure an angle so small with a telescope from earth. ”

    Again: “A typical 8” hobby telescope has a resolution of about 0.6 arcseconds, Ganymede has about 1.4-1.8 arsec angular diameter.”
    I can see Ganymede even with my own hobby telescope that is less than 8”.
    Really, any telescope that is about human-sized can easily make the measurement.

    “What they are doing actually is looking at the more distant stars …. So it is an indirect measurement, based on assumptions which may not be correct. …. Observing parallax by seeing a different arrangement of the stars behind the star you are observing may tell you some things, but it does not tell you the distance. ”

    You can easily find stars or galaxies that have like 1000 times less arsec movement and will look like solid points (on a star map generated from measurments) compared to nearby stars. These stars wouldnt produce a “different arrangement of the stars behind the star”.

    “on their assumptions of the light-year distances of the stars and the earth rotating around the sun. ”

    You know, all these “assumptions” build on each other, if the “assumption” is not correct somewhere, then all the theories and predictions made from it won’t work. But the thing is, the predictions and theories work in general.

    Like you say:
    “…The same visual effect could be produced with the stars in different positions. Everything could be much closer than they think, or much further away then they think, and still produce the same visual effect. ”

    But in that case that would mean even Mars would be further or closer. A planet where multiple satellites were sent through space and they all managed hit their target (Mars). But I guess, your theory already includes that all those missions must have been fake, like almost everything related to Astronomy in the last 200-500 years. Its not that you remove one brick from this “not exact science” and it collapses, you try to remove every brick to collapse it…

    • Flat Earth Facts

      You don’t understand Mr. Hook. Having the resolution does not mean you can measure the angle. Resolution just means you can see it. You may be able to resolve it, but you can’t measure the angle your telescope is pointed so accurately. Resolution is a very different thing altogether. I think you should try and do it yourself with your telescope and see if you can measure it actually. You would have to measure the angle between the earth and the star six months apart and compare the results. But you can not get that angle from the earth to the star, so accurately.

      You can just remove one brick and the whole thing collapses. I know you think it is impossible, but, for example, if the earth was stationary, everything would collapse and everything would be wrong. This is a fundamental assumption made by modern astronomy, that the rotation we see in the sky is a result of the earth rotating on its axis. There is a rotation certainly, but we are inside the system, so we see the relative rotation. But there are two possibilities. Earth could be rotating or everything could be rotating around the earth. We can not tell the difference from within the system. We have assumed earth is rotating and calculated and speculated everything based on this assumption. If that assumption is wrong then everything following that mistaken assumption is wrong. It is like if you are making some very large complicated calculation, if you make a mistake in the beginning, no matter how wonderful your mathematics is, your result will always be incorrect.

      • Hook

        “…You may be able to resolve it, but you can’t measure the angle your telescope is pointed so accurately. Resolution is a very different thing altogether. …”

        So this how you measure the angle (using an amateur telescope of Meade 10″ (f/10) LX200 Schmidt-Cassegrain):
        https://www.quora.com/When-measuring-distances-to-stars-how-is-the-parallax-angle-actually-measured-from-a-photograph

        Here are some other examples of amateurs finding star parallax, that I found with a somewhat quick google search:
        http://www.astro-richweb.net/astro/nearby_stars.htm#Cyg_61
        https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/692566-trigonometrical-parallax-measurment-is-it-possible/?p=9990176
        not really parallax, but a quite nice animation: https://www.cloudynights.com/topic/543768-annual-barnards-star-animation-now-spanning-10-years/
        Even using United States Naval Observatory’s database, the parallax is quite visible:
        https://www.stelledoppie.it/index2.php?iddoppia=93063

        But I guess all these are just fake bricks. (plus the countless professional papers and other amateur astronomers)
        So, do you now realize that there can be indeed significant resolution to detect parallax, even in an amateur setup?

        ” This is a fundamental assumption made by modern astronomy, that the rotation we see in the sky is a result of the earth rotating on its axis. … Earth could be rotating or everything could be rotating around the earth. We can not tell the difference from within the system. ”

        We can easily tell the difference even from earth. As the fact is that the rotation we see on the night sky is opposite to each other on the two hemispheres, something that wouldn’t be possible on a flat earth.
        Here are some nice shots of that: https://amazingsky.net/2016/08/25/the-moving-stars-of-the-northern-hemisphere/
        Though I guess those images are also all fake bricks…

        “If that assumption is wrong then everything following that mistaken assumption is wrong. It is like if you are making some very large complicated calculation, if you make a mistake in the beginning, no matter how wonderful your mathematics is, your result will always be incorrect.”

        True, but you know, then countless related calculations must be wrong too. It’s like saying the speedometer in your car is wrong (miles/hour), even though the GPS in your phone showing the same speed. They are using very different measurements and calculations, yet they both end up with the same speed. There are countless examples like that in astronomy too. Specially when measuring an object’s distance in our solar system.
        Like all planets in the solar system can be even radio pinged and were physically visited, and of course, you can do parallax measurements of them too, but you know, each time you do a parallax measurement on them, it must show something different than the ‘official values’, cause all those measurements or calculations are wrong.

        • Flat Earth Facts

          Hi Hook. So did you read it? If you read it you would understand that everything I said was correct. You absolutely can not measure such a small angle using a telescope from earth. What this guy is doing is taking pictures of a particular star and getting the photos and identifying all the stars around it. It is completely irrelevant where his telescope is pointing. He is just taking photos of the star with it. But realistically his calculation does not prove anything at all. He is looking for a shift in the star much smaller than a pixel in his camera. In other words he is working well within the margin of error. So the results from this experiment are meaningless. But anyhow, lets say it works. He is doing what I suggested they would have to do to see parallex. He is comparing the position of the star with the position of all the other stars around it. And presumably this star is close and some of the others are far far away. So he is calculating the position of this ‘close’ star in relation to the more distant stars and trying to find a movement in it that is only a fraction of a pixel in his camera.

          So it is not a valid experiment. But even if it is, he is not measuring the angle, he has got so many assumptions that underly his experiment and if any one of those assumptions fail then his results are wrong. Anyhow his results are meaningless because they are within the margin of error for his experiment.

          So if you actually read it you would understand I am correct. You can’t measure that angle. And any calculation of the parallax is based on many assumptions which maybe wrong.

          As far as the rotation, I am not talking about a flat earth. Take the earth as a globe. My point is there is a relative rotation. There are two possibilities, one is the earth is rotating, the other is everything is rotating around the earth. Either possibility could be true. We have arbitrarily chosen to assume it is the earth that is rotating. But that assumption could be wrong, it could be that everything is rotating around the earth, in that case everything in astronomy would be incorrect.

          Yes. Of course, all the related calculations would be wrong. That is my point. If you make a mistake in one of your fundamental assumptions, everything after that is wrong.

          As far as the speed of your car, that is something you can measure. That is not a good comparison. We can’t measure the distance to a star, but you can measure the speed your car is travelling at.

          This guy didn’t measure the distance to that star. He calculated what the angle should be and what the parallax should be, just a fraction of a pixel on his camera, then took some photos, and exclaimed “I found it.” It is cheating, he has not proven anything at all.

          • Hook

            ” If you read it you would understand that everything I said was correct. You absolutely can not measure such a small angle using a telescope from earth. What this guy is doing is taking pictures of a particular star and getting the photos and identifying all the stars around it. It is completely irrelevant where his telescope is pointing. He is just taking photos of the star with it. But realistically his calculation does not prove anything at all. He is looking for a shift in the star much smaller than a pixel in his camera. ”

            So, let make these more clear.
            It seems one of your problems is that he is comparing the star’s position to other stars and the other that there is not enough “resolution”.
            Well, there is not being enough “resolution” is flat out wrong. On a good amateur telescope, there is enough “resolution” for your camera that the difference would be more than 1 pixel. Like even here, that seems to be taken by not so good camera (not even long exposure or high resolution) you can see the difference is more than 1 pixel in a half year: http://www.astro-richweb.net/astro/nearby_stars.htm#Cyg_61
            Btw even I can easily 1-2 arcseconds difference with my very basic amateur telescope.

            Your other problem seems that the calculations made by comparing them to other stars positons. And that is not direct enough for you. Well, you know, earth moves, so actually there is no other way to do this. Also, feel free to explain how all the stationary stars are not good comparing positions if they are stationary to each other, while all the other stars we see which are not stationary are all moving in different directions explained by the current physics. Are you trying to suggest that those stars not stationary and actually move? If so, please explains how the moving stars actually can move in opposite directions to each other???

            “In other words he is working well within the margin of error. ”

            Repeated measurements how people deal with margin of error, the links I sent to you have many measurements and not just one. If the measurements are wrong cause margin of error, then there is very little chance that all the like 30 measurements would show the star moving away in one direction for half of the year. Note, this is something done in every field of science (like medical sciences).

            “But even if it is, he is not measuring the angle, he has got so many assumptions that underly his experiment and if any one of those assumptions fail then his results are wrong.

            I yet to see any of these “assumptions” (not exactly sure to what you refer to that by assumptions) to fail.

            “So if you actually read it you would understand I am correct. You can’t measure that angle. And any calculation of the parallax is based on many assumptions which maybe wrong.”

            I try to understand. But it’s hard when you are not exact…

            “As far as the rotation, I am not talking about a flat earth….There are two possibilities, one is the earth is rotating, the other is everything is rotating around the earth. Either possibility could be true…”

            So you do actually realize that the stars rotating in different directions on the opposite hemispheres actually disproves a flat earth shape?
            (yes it doesn’t prove that the stars rotate around the earth or the earth rotates, but you know, this whole site is about the “assumption” of the earth is flat and you talk to me about “maybe wrong assumptions”…)

            “Yes. Of course, all the related calculations would be wrong. That is my point. If you make a mistake in one of your fundamental assumptions, everything after that is wrong.”

            Great, then show me how all those calculations wrong and like how they predict wrong things and such, cause they are wrong.

            “As far as the speed of your car, that is something you can measure. That is not a good comparison. We can’t measure the distance to a star, but you can measure the speed your car is travelling at.”

            Why? You know, actually, you just measure how much the tires spin in your car when the car measures the speed of your car, by your logic that is an indirect measurement, that is false, you don’t measure any actually “distance” or whatever….

            ” He calculated what the angle should be and what the parallax should be, just a fraction of a pixel on his camera, then took some photos, and exclaimed “I found it.””

            So you not just saying the method is wrong, you also believe that he is faking it… It will be hard to prove anything to you, if you think everything is fake (even amateur astronomers).

          • Flat Earth Facts

            There’s no point writing all this. You just admitted it is not possible to measure the angle on a spinning earth with your telescope and that is my point. You can’t measure it. And the way they say they are ‘measuring’ it is not a direct measurement and depends on many assumptions that may or may not be correct.

            You write so many things but this is my only point and my point is correct. You can not measure the angle of parallax with a telescope from earth. The only way, which I said in the beginning, but you disagreed with me, is what this guy is trying to do. Measure the relative positions of the stars at different times of the year and try to detect the tiny difference that should be there due to parallax in the distances between the stars. But it is such a tiny measurement practically can’t be measured accurately and anyhow it is not measuring the angle and you can’t measure the angle and that is my only point.

  4. Hook

    “You just admitted it is not possible to measure the angle on a spinning earth with your telescope and that is my point.”

    It is not possible to “measure it”, as much as it is not possible for your car to measure the speed of your car… that is what I “admitted”.

    “There’s no point writing all this…”

    I have the same feeling too. You still claiming that telescopes don’t have enough “resolution”: “it is such a tiny measurement practically can’t be measured accurately”, which is flat out false. Even good amateur telescopes have enough “resolution” and that is a pretty obvious fact, but no, you can not accept even that.
    I guess all the amateur astronomers are liars and all these telescopes that cost like 200-500 hundred bucks are fake.
    I would like to ask what do you think, what is the resolution of a good astronomer telescope, you can even link a telescope, but I guess you won’t be replying.
    It’s sad, cause it is very easy to disprove this false belief of yours, ultimately you can just buy a telescope on your own, which you know, might be a good idea if you have this site going on…

    Sadly, as always, I see it’s easier to bail than actually counter my points in a meaningful way.

    • Flat Earth Facts

      You don’t put forward any meaningful points. So what is there to counter?

      I am talking about measuring the angle, which is what is necessary to measure the distance of a star using parallax. Remember, it is an isosceles triangle. It has two equal sided sides going out to the star and we know the base distance is the distance the earth moves in 6 months. twice the distance to the sun, 93,000,000 x 2, so we need that angle to calculate the distance to the star.

      My point is you can’t measure that angle with your telescope. No one can measure that angle with a telescope.

      You talk about resolution, do you know what it means? It means to resolve. It means to see. So all resolution means is if you can see the star or not. Just because you can see it does not mean you can measure the angle.

      The only way, as I have said from the beginning, and what your example guy was trying to do, is to try to estimate the angle by studying the relative distances from this ‘close’ star to more distant stars 6 months apart. But this requires so many assumptions, it is not at all a direct measurement. If any of the assumptions are wrong the result will be totally meaningless.

      I know all about telescopes, I own a telescope and use it regularly and know very well what they are capable of and they are NOT capable of measuring this tiny difference in the angle to a star caused by the earth moving to the other side of the sun.

      I don’t know what you are talking about, of course you can measure the speed of your car, but you can not measure such a tiny angle with your telescope…

      • Non Believer

        There are so many assumptions on those who believe and defend the globe position. Instead of defending, why do not they question and explore? My question is: How did they measure the 93 million miles from the earth to the sun? -thanks

        • hschuring

          It starts with the work Kepler did before he discovered his third law (1619). From the maximum angular distances between inferior planets (Mercury and Venus), and the Sun (their elongation) he could find (with some trigonometry) the distance between the planet and the sun RELATIVE to the distance between the Earth and the Sun. The distance between Earth and Venus could be measured during a Venus passage (crossing the Sun). When two observers, far apart, determine the exact moment of a number of events during that Venus passage, they can use trigonometry (again) for determining the distance. And hence the distance between Earth and Sun. Great travels have been made to get as far away as possible, like the journey James Cook made in 1768 to the pacific.
          Nowadays that is done by radar. The time it takes a radar signal to return from f.i. Venus (and a lot of other objects) times the speed of light gives its distance that moment.
          Another crude method, already tried by the ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus, (who as an exceptiont thought that the Earth orbited the Sun in 3rd century B.C. ) is to determine the elongation (the angle Moon – Earth – Sun) of the Moon at the moment of 1st quarter, when the angle Earth – Moon – Sun is by definition 90°. Trigonometry (again) will give you the relative distance Earth – Sun : Earth – Moon. So when we know the second we also know the first. Aristarchus came with a ratio of 20 : 1; obviously he had no way of determining the exact moment of Fisrt Quarter nor determining the angle accurately, so he was way off. Today (distance to the Moon is now easily determined by radar) this method is still rather crude, but repeated and averaged measurements give about the right distance but still with a large margin of error.

Leave a Reply to Michelle Leonard Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *