2181

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 09:49:02 PM »

Are you standing by your point that Stellarium shows that the stars don't maintain their angular separation as they rotate? It's a really simple question.

I haven't seen any evidence that they do. If you think so, I look forward to you providing the compelling evidence for your topic of interest.

That’s not what you said though, is it?

You said they didn’t, and you offered a laughably pathetic attempt at science to justify your statement.

That’s not the same thing as saying you haven’t seen evidence that they do, is it?

So, again, are you standing by your statement, or are you admitting you were wrong?

Nope, I wasn't wrong at all. I looked at Stellarium and couldn't find circular star trails.

I do see that you have neglected to prove that the polar layout would produce distortion, that every layout produces distortion, or find the one which does not prove distortion. So far the evidence you have produced for your circular star trails remains at zero.

2182

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 09:39:09 PM »

Are you standing by your point that Stellarium shows that the stars don't maintain their angular separation as they rotate? It's a really simple question.

I haven't seen any evidence that they do. If you think so, I look forward to you providing the compelling evidence for your topic of interest.

2183

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 09:36:31 PM »

Yes, that's what an extreme fisheye does. But many lenses, in fact most have only minor distortion in the center, and get worse at the edges and especially the corners.

There were straight lines all across the entire image at various angles. You keep repeating your weak argument.

I haven't seen circular star trails in Stellarium, and nor would Stellarium be a real world observation enough to count as compelling evidence for perfectly circular star trails.

You should learn to correctly operate the software you use to try and prove your points.

As has been stated many times, the circular star trails produced by Stellarium are indeed compelling evidence since you can use that software to predict the position of the stars anywhere in the world, take pictures and compare them with yours. They will match. That's pretty compelling.

I just see multiple claims here. I haven't seen demonstration of these claims. I look forward to you demonstrating each and every one of your claims beyond dispute.

2184

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 09:26:52 PM »

I've already answered that. I said that I haven't seen much evidence that the stars make perfect concentric circles.

..and you used a picture from Stellarium where you measured the pixels to try to prove your point, saying:

Both the distances and angles between the stars change throughout the night in stellarium.

Do you now agree that this was a flawed methodology to use, or are you standing by your point that Stellarium shows that the stars don't maintain their angular separation as they rotate?

I haven't seen circular star trails in Stellarium, and nor would Stellarium be a real world observation enough to count as compelling evidence for perfectly circular star trails.

2185

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 08:53:28 PM »

I've already answered that. I said that I haven't seen much evidence that the stars make perfect concentric circles.

2186

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 07:48:40 PM »

The straight lines throughout the image show that it's taken with a rectilinear lens. If the lens was causing distortion, it would appear in the lines.

If there is distortion, it's caused by something else like resizing the image and not keeping a proper ratio, and nothing to do with the inability of a rectilinear lens to capture the shapes of images.

It might also be that there is no radical distortion in such images and that the stars don't always appear to be as circular from one scene to the next, depending on location and time of day.

Arent you basically arguing JSS' point here?
I've provided an image where we dont know about the lens or anything that has been done to the photo in post-processing. You've now (rightly) provided a list of potential issues with the image...

We've been mainly talking about lenses here. I haven't said much about possible post-production effects. Stretching the image in photoshop is possible. It's also possible that the stars in star trails which do seem circular were edited to be more circular because that is the ideal result. Showing that we have no good evidence as originally claimed:

I haven't seen much evidence that the stars move in concentric circles.

2187

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Joe Biden is winning by a landslide

« on: February 02, 2021, 07:14:29 PM »

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

Right. My point is in any large data set you can find data which if you have an agenda you can call an anomaly.

So in 2016 Trump got a bigger electoral college majority than anyone in history who lost the popular vote. Every other winning President either won the popular vote or had a narrow electoral college win despite losing the popular vote

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_in_which_the_winner_lost_the_popular_vote

1888 was the only other time in history someone won a big majority in the electoral college without winning the popular vote.

So explain that. Trump can’t possibly have won in 2016. He lost the popular vote and yet won the election by a landslide. Never happened in history. In fact since 1888 there has only been one US election before Trump where the winner lost the popular vote and that was Bush vs Gore which was on a knife edge.

Ergo, there’s no way Trump could have won. Do you expect me to believe he could have got 306 electoral college votes without even winning the popular vote? It’s never happened...

This is a fallacy. Plenty of people did think that there was a lot of illegal voting in the 2016 election, and that Clinton was receiving illegal votes.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/trump-is-right-millions-of-illegals-probably-did-vote-in-2016/ - Trump Is Right — Millions Of Illegals Probably Did Vote In 2016

But there is evidence to back Trump's claims. A 2014 study in the online Electoral Studies Journal shows that in the 2008 and 2010 elections, illegal immigrant votes were in fact quite high.

"We find that some noncitizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and congressional elections," wrote Jesse T. Richman, Gulshan A. Chattha, both of Old Dominion University, and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

Pointing at an anomaly in another election does nothing to support Joe Biden's anomalies, however, and just makes more assumptions.

You're still trying to justify the possibility of anomalies rather than simply showing strong correlation that Joe Biden was legitimately elected. Again, you have presented zero positive evidence, only excuses.

This year the data were as normal as any other year if you ignore all the factors swirling around. What election data is 'normal'?

2020 saw a record number of votes and mail-in voting during a global pandemic, and was perhaps the most nasty race I've seen? But the voting data itself isnt all that weird.

I'd claim that Trump's 2016 win created a stranger data set. Winning the EC while losing the popular vote is a bigger 'anomaly' than any of the frivolous arguments TB et al. have put forward here. And he did it while stealing huge swaths of typically Dem votes by convincing Cuban ex-pats that Hillary wanted to establish communism, aided by external actors.

The 2020 election was the furthest from normal we've ever seen.  But is the data that came out of it any more irregular than a typical year?

I asked for strong positive correlation showing that Joe Biden was legitimately elected, not more excuses that ridiculous anomalies are possible.

And in order to point at anomalies in the 2016 election you would first need to prove that the election was untainted. You have not. Fallacy.

2188

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 06:57:49 PM »

As I showed with my example of the blinds, you can't just find a straight line in one part of an image and declare the rest of the image is free of distortions.

It wasn't just one part of the image. There were lines all throughout the images posted.

Listen carefully to what I am saying.

You can not use a straight line in one part of an unknown image to determine the distortion in another part.

You measured a few lines, none of which even go the entirety of the image, none of which you proved were perfectly straight in reality, and then tried to claim the image is distortion free. This does not work.

You can not measure spot A and prove spot B has the same distortion, or lack of it.  Especially as you have no idea what post-processing may have been done.

Sorry, but none of those images are useful at all as proof.  That's just not how lenses work.

The image of the blinds you posted showed that the lines were straight only through the center of the image. All other places the lines were warped. If the a lens was warped, it should be detectable in lines in the image.

You have not shown by way of example that straight lines can be scattered throughout an image of a fish-eye lens.

2189

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 06:51:55 PM »

Same photographer, same bridge... straight lines... still see distortion

https://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages%2Fartworkimages%2Fmediumlarge%2F1%2Fmosquito-creek-star-trail-2-willard-sharp.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpixels.com%2Ffeatured%2Fmosquito-creek-star-trail-2-willard-sharp.html&tbnid=WjdDEbaWkt48bM&vet=12ahUKEwiX06Ln6cvuAhVKSawKHfHoApwQMygQegQIARB_..i&docid=_rnCygLUqSiWjM&w=900&h=600&itg=1&q=mosquito%20creek%20%20bridge%20iowa&ved=2ahUKEwiX06Ln6cvuAhVKSawKHfHoApwQMygQegQIARB_

The straight lines throughout the image show that it's taken with a rectilinear lens. If the lens was causing distortion, it would appear in the lines.

If there is distortion, it's caused by something else like resizing the image and not keeping a proper ratio, and nothing to do with the inability of a rectilinear lens to capture the shapes of images.

It might also be that there is no radical distortion in such images and that the stars don't always appear to be as circular from one scene to the next, depending on location and time of day.

2190

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 06:11:50 PM »

As I showed with my example of the blinds, you can't just find a straight line in one part of an image and declare the rest of the image is free of distortions.

It wasn't just one part of the image. There were lines all throughout the images posted.

The straight lines were not centered in the picture in the image of the farm provided. The lines on the elements of the farm were not centered. It appears that you are unable to adequately demonstrate your assertion.

Another rectilinear image. Lines are straight throughout the image:

https://fineartamerica.com/featured/mosquito-creek-star-trails-willard-sharp.html



Lines are straight:



Yet it is easy to see that the curves are not concentric circles:

Shift + Circle Tool in Paint.net:

And nor are the lines on this farmhouse centered on the image.

Here is an example to try, with some nice straight lines in the foreground.

https://www.reddit.com/r/BeAmazed/comments/50ziy3/long_exposure_of_star_trails_against_a_farmhouse/



Hold shift with the circle tool in paint.net for a symmetrical circle. The curves just aren't arcs of a circle, and nor are they concentric:

2191

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 05:58:45 PM »

Maybe a little inherent distortion, but since lines on buildings and structures appear straight beyond anything that is easily detectable in quality rectilinear lenses, it's irrelevant.

2192

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 05:39:11 PM »

Any lens with a focal length less than infinity produces a distorted image

no

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/tips-and-solutions/perspective-distortion-photographic-composition

2193

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 02, 2021, 05:10:59 AM »

I don't see the world in a Polar Projection with a 180° FOV like above when laying down and observing the sky. But apparently you do (and rabbits as well). Extraordinary.

Nope. Rabbits have nearly 360 degree FOV. Humans have an FOV of about 190 degrees. You appear to have difficulty understanding the rabbit diagram you saw and with basic concepts like degrees. Please research these subjects before commenting in the future.

2194

Suggestions & Concerns / Re: Personal attack?

« on: January 31, 2021, 10:33:51 PM »

I said I programmed n-body simulations before. I offered to prove it by writing one in any language Tom chose, but Tom declined to take me up on that offer.

This is just more evidence of someone fibbing in my book. In the Suggestions Thread you're offing to write a N-Body Gravity Simulation in any language, implying that you are proficient in all computer languages. 

This is another example of Tom accusing me lying because he doesn't understand the subject.

I never once claimed I was 'proficient in all computer languages'.  That is Tom making assumptions about a subject he seems to not know much about. What I implied was that I could learn any language quick enough to write a simple program in it. I was offering a demonstration to prove it, as an n-body simulator isn't very complex.

I didn't say it was a lie. I said that I considered it further evidence of someone fibbing. Why claim that you could do it in any language and then later claim that you would need to learn the language first? If you have to learn it, then you can't do it.

"I'm a great linguist! Tell me something and I'll translate it for you in any language of your choosing!" "Okay, wait... I need to learn that language first... But I'm an expert linguist. And once you know one language it's easier to learn others..."

Stop claiming that you're an expert who has special knowledge which wins your arguments if you don't want to be called on your claims.

2195

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 31, 2021, 10:11:45 PM »

It really is extraordinary. Not only do you have the FOV of a rabbit, but you can see in a Polar Projection format as well.

I didn't claim anything about having the FOV of a rabbit. You appear to be misinterpreting what the Rabbit's FOV is and the amount necessary to see East and West at once.

The argument was that high FOV means distortion. This argument was unable to be defended.

2196

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 31, 2021, 09:53:48 PM »

Like I said you say you can see the world like this:

You have optical powers shared by no other humans. Extraordinary.

That's what the polar projection assumes, yes.

You can see points over 180 degrees around you. If you can't see such a space vertically because your upper brow is in the way all you need to do is rotate your head. Vertical FOV is fairly high as well.

The argument was that a wide field of view must necessarily produces distortion. Since we can see a very high field of view with human vision, this argument about FOV and distortion is incorrect.

2197

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 31, 2021, 09:38:49 PM »

Irrelevant. You seem to think you have the field of view of a rabbit.

Nope. A rabbit laying down on its back would have a much greater field of view than necessary to see both East and West at once.

2198

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 31, 2021, 09:25:34 PM »

If you are going to argue something, you need to have more sources than a Wiki page you wrote.

Incorrect. Only a small percentage is original content. The vast majority of that content comes from contemporary sources. You have failed to rebut those sources.

I offered to demonstrate my abilities by writing code for you, you declined to take me up on the offer.

This is just more evidence suggesting fibbing in my book. In the Suggestions Thread you're offing to write a N-Body Gravity Simulation in any language, implying that you are proficient in all computer languages. 

I said I programmed n-body simulations before. I offered to prove it by writing one in any language Tom chose, but Tom declined to take me up on that offer.

2199

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 31, 2021, 09:13:20 PM »

A wide angle view is the idea, yes. Refer back to the explanation of a polar projection. It simulates the view of laying down and holding a piece of paper in the air to trace paths. Notice that the labels North, South, East, and West are on the sides of the circle like the image you posted.

https://www.e-education.psu.edu/eme810/node/534

2200

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 31, 2021, 08:41:41 PM »

Irrelevant. We have a very wide field of view. If you had a bunch of trees and hills and buildings circled around you, you would see them circled around you.