Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Flatout

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >
1
One of the limitations of the Soros cycle is that it doesn't predict where on the earth the eclipses will visible. 

2
Tom, you seem to make these definitive claims about what astronomers do without knowing what astronomers do.  There are significant discussions across the Internet by amateur astronomers about the free ORSA software.  Amateurs are using it to accurately create back yard predictions of planets and newly found comets. It's not being done with historical period data. Rather, by creating orbital models. Look up ORSA for yourself.  It's free software.  Many are making incredibly accurate predictions with it that include comets, satellites, and planets.  Secondly, through observation and modeling astronomers have found new planets that were never acknowledge by those 1000s of years ago.   

3
Tom,  making observations and predictions based on observational periods is not a model.  Tycho Brahe,  who was brilliant at observation,   never did generate a model that accurately fit with his own observations.  That didn't happen until Kepler who was Brahe's student.  Secondly, the naked eye is unable to resolve angular diameter smaller than one arc minute.  Galileo was first to notice the changing angular diameter of Mars via a telescope.  That didn't happen until  the early 1600s.  Your statement that we have been able to to predict the change in angular diameter of Mars for 1000's of years is absolutely false.

You seem to be struggling with the concept of a model.  Observations are not models.  Periodic observations over hundreds of years are not models.  Models are explanations for the historical observations.  A model is tested for its accuracy by using it to make predictions.  If the predictions do not line up with the periodic observations then it needs to be adjusted.  The models of Aristotle, Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Brahe all had errors.  Some large and some small.  It wasn't until Kepler proposed elliptical orbits that the modeling began to accurately fit with the periodic observations.

Lastly, are you able to look at the Java Script for the predictions for the upcoming eclipse?  If you are,  you will see that it's not pulling from a historical record.

4
No modern astronomer uses the modeling of Aristotle.  Aristotle may have gotten the shape of the earth right but the predictive capability of his model was was not very accurate. 

5
What predicts it?  Please use your model to tell us the future time in which Mars will be at max angular size?  Please explain your reasoning with your flat earth model. 

6
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 27, 2017, 02:44:21 AM »
Are referring to the link about retrograde motion?

No. The present model was just explained. Can't you read?
No, Tom.  An observation from your perspective is not a model.  A model explains an observation and has the ability to create a prediction for future observational testing.  You haven't provided a model, an explanation, or a prediction of future observation.   

7
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 26, 2017, 09:12:53 PM »
If you don't have anything relevant to the topic of the earth's shape, then I don't see the purpose of continuing. It is a waste of time to try and figure out the why this and why that for every countless thing that happens in the universe.
But the topic is about the change in angular size of Venus and Mars, can we agree on this much?

And if someone makes a topic about the temperature of Uranus, do we have to investigate Uranus?

Tom, you stated that the observations fit with the flat earth model.   Someone must have then done some modeling to determine if it could be said that "the angular change fits with the flat earth model".  I'm just curious about the model.

The current model of this phenomenon was already explained to you. The angular change happened and the earth remained flat underneath it.
Are referring to the link about retrograde motion?

8
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 24, 2017, 11:31:01 PM »
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here.

I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
The observed angular diameter change fits with the heliocentric model.  What is the flat earth explanation?

The explanation is that the observed angular change fits with the flat earth model.
Tom, you stated that the observations fit with the flat earth model.   Someone must have then done some modeling to determine if it could be said that "the angular change fits with the flat earth model".  I'm just curious about the model.

9
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 24, 2017, 03:02:39 AM »
I find that my observations fit within the heliocentric model.   You say they fit with flat earth model.  I'm asking how?

As I explained, the angular change happened, and the earth was still flat underneath it.

So, you don't know why it happens?

10
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 24, 2017, 12:21:18 AM »
Tom, I would say that if your model cannot account for some basic observations that a person can make from their back yard with a telescope,  then the model maybe suspect.

Account for what? You have not told us why it can't happen on a Flat Earth.

Quote
Secondly, If there is an unwillingness to account for the observation then the driving force behind a your model may not be derived from observation.   

You have not provided any explanation for why this can't happen on an earth that is not round. Why should we bother coming up with a figure for this particular property of Venus anymore than the temperature of Uranus?
I'm not saying it isn't possible.  I'm asking for  an explanation.  I can't find one.  You have stated that it is possible but have given no explanation.  I find that my observations fit within the heliocentric model.   You say they fit with flat earth model.  I'm asking how?  The name of this forum is Flat Earth Q & A.   You state that the heliocentric model is false.         What is an alternative model that fits with the observations being discussed? 

11
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 23, 2017, 06:39:06 PM »
Tom, I would say that if your model cannot account for some basic observations that a person can make from their back yard with a telescope,  then the model maybe suspect.  Secondly, If there is an unwillingness to account for the observation then the driving force behind a your model may not be derived from observation.   

12
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 23, 2017, 06:10:28 PM »
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here.

I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
The observed angular diameter change fits with the heliocentric model.  What is the flat earth explanation?

The explanation is that the observed angular change fits with the flat earth model.
How does an observed angular diameter change of 5x fit with model?  Please explain.
If you can tell me orbital period and orbital diameter of Venus around the sun, I'll plot it out and see if it fits.  Maybe you've already done this since you say it works.

Secondly, you must not ascribe to the firmament model.  For Venus to have a large enough orbit to be out of the light of the sun its orbit would have to go outside of the dome.....or the dome would have to be quite a bit larger than the flat earth map.

13
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 23, 2017, 06:05:15 PM »
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here.

I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
Obviously the diagram in that explanation doesn't work.  The orbit of the planet around the sun would have to be much larger for it to  be out of the spot light and observable at night.  What is the orbital distance between the Sun and Venus in your model?   What is its orbital period?

14
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 23, 2017, 05:56:31 PM »
Retrograde motion of the planets is described here.

I still don't see what the angular size change of a body above us has to do with the shape of the earth.
The observed angular diameter change fits with the heliocentric model.  What is the flat earth explanation?

15
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 23, 2017, 05:39:02 PM »
What about this event can only happen if the earth were a globe?

Take a look at this link and see the position of the planets.  Venus is close and at the largest that I've observed over the last year.  Mars is opposite us in the orbit and has been getting smaller for about 8 months by my observations.

http://www.theplanetstoday.com

I've been trying to figure out what the flat earth explanation could  be.  The planets would have to orbit above the earth daily, change their orbital speed at times to explain for the retrograde motion compared to the stars,  and increase their height by 5 or 6 times through out their individual cycles.

16
Flat Earth Debate / Re: Angular Diameter change of Venus and Mars
« on: March 22, 2017, 03:27:56 AM »
So am I to take the lack of  response to mean that TFES has no explanation for the changing angular diameter of Venus and Mars?

17
The horizon is a location that is based on a frame of reference.   This is true for many things.  If I'm sitting in car going 40 miles per hour and I toss up a ball,  the horizontal velocity of the ball from the passengers perspective is 0.  From the perspective of the road the balls horizontal velocity is 40 mph.  It could be said that the ball is going both 0 and 40 depending on the frame of reference.  The ball could also be viewed from a vehicle going 10 miles in the opposite direction and the frame of reference velocity would be 50.  In reality that ball only has a defined velocity and location in space when the frame of reference is defined.   The same is true for the horizon.  The horizon from an eye height of 5 feet above the ocean is just short of 3 miles.  You could float a boat at that geographic location and it would be right at the horizon with no part obscured and no remaining horizon behind it.  It could be put on a map.   The horizon from the reference frame of the floating boat is at a different location.

18
On a spherical earth the horizon is a real place.  That location is dependant on the topography and the elevation of the observer.  It's location can be predicted, measured, and is consistently at the same place when observed from a give  observation point providing that its not obscured by the weather.

Under absolutely no circumstance is the horizon a real place.
The reality is that we can put the horizon at a specific position in geography when viewed from a given position.  For example, the circle on many naval commercial radar screens represents the line of site horizon.  The circle will encompass a larger radius of land based on the height of the radar transmitter/receiver.  The same is true  aircraft based radar.  This is an issue of geometry not atmoplane translucence.

19
On a spherical earth the horizon is a real place.  That location is dependant on the topography and the elevation of the observer.  It's location can be predicted, measured, and is consistently at the same place when observed from a give  observation point providing that its not obscured by the weather. 

20
TheTruthIsOnHere, what is your mechanism for determining the distance to the horizon?  In the global model there is a distinct distance at which the horizon occurs according to the geometry of a sphere.   How does the flat earth community do it?  How do you justify your position?  Is your position that is just can't be known?

I own  a theodolite and I can accurately measure drop angles that predictably match the spherical model.  Have you come up with some way to take  measurements?  Have you measured to see whether the horizon actually rises to eye level?  I personally have and it never does over large expanses and the drop below horizontal can be measured and fits with spherical predictions.

To Flatout:
How close can you read angles on your theodolite ?
I have been doing the maths on my examples as explained on a previous post and the angle of the ground to the observer for most distances would be less than 1 degree and require rather precise measurements.
Perhaps one of the FES experts can give some examples of how it's done ?
As has been stated there is no horizon on a flat earth so that would not be a limiting factor in how far you could see if the earth  was flat other than "the thickness or density of the atmoplane."
±-3" (arc seconds)

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6  Next >