Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #60 on: January 10, 2022, 10:22:00 AM »
Actually he says that the stars appear as measurable disks in telescopes
Yes. And he explains why. It's amusing that you accuse me of dishonesty when you have bolded the part which makes your point, quoted the part which explains why but didn't bold it  :D

Quote
No, actually, you need to explain why the stars and galaxies are illusions but nothing else is in the sky.
It's explained in the part you quoted. Try reading it.

Your continued attempt to derail this thread, which is about maps, is noted. So I'll try again:
Can you explain how the technology which you concede can tell us accurately our co-ordinates can work unless it has accurate maps which tell it where those co-ordinates are and how far apart they are from other co-ordinates?
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

Offline Gonzo

  • *
  • Posts: 50
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #61 on: January 10, 2022, 11:24:54 AM »


Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies



I've been an air traffic controller for 23 years, and I find nothing anomalous about air travel in the southern hemishpere. It's literally tested every day.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 3082
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #62 on: January 10, 2022, 05:36:27 PM »
Quote from: stack
It's used because, as your article states, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient. The calculations can be done with plane trigonometry…"

The reason why they think or assert they are using it is rather irrelevant compared to the main point that they are using it.

Why would the reason for using something be irrelevant to using something?

Because the main point is that they are using them. The question of why it is in use compared to the statement that they are in use is a different line of inquiry entirely and does nothing to contradict it.

The answer to the question as to why they are used is right up there, above, "Despite the fact that the assumption of a flat Earth is fundamentally wrong, calculation of areas, angles and lengths using latitude and longitude can be complicated, so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient." But they become inaccurate when using larger areas:

"Now these coordinate systems that we're going to discuss are plane coordinate systems based upon the fiction that the earth is flat, which, of course, immediately introduces distortion."

Quote from: stack
Where does it say in the article that "the idealized spherical world model is based upon those flat maps."? I can't find that anywhere.

Right here:

http://www.boshamlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PrimeMeridian.pdf

  “ By 1911, the Greenwich meridian had been accepted as the prime meridian for the whole world. However, relating the maps of an individual country or region to a standard system of latitude and longitude is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible. The earth is approximately spherical, but maps are flat. They are fitted as closely as possible to the surface of the earth in one region, but when fitting them to a standard system of latitude and longitude, there are bound to be slight discrepancies. The differences between the coordinate systems used by different maps really didn’t matter until recently. When the GPS system was introduced in the 1980s, it was realised that having dozens of ‘local’ systems of latitude and longitude for different countries wasn’t going to work. A single coordinate system had to be devised, which would give the best results for every part of the world. It is known as WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 1984).

The spherical earth is based on "flat maps".

From one of the articles you previously cited:

It's when the flat map, the flat coordinate system, extends beyond a limited area that the distortion can get out of hand.  Therefore, the projection of points from the Earth’s surface onto a reference ellipsoid and finally onto flat maps is still viable.

As for this new citation above regarding the UK's version of "State Plane Maps", you missed some bits. In the article it states that:

The datum for most Ordnance Survey maps is ‘OSGB 1936’, in which the Greenwich meridian is, indeed, zero degrees. Other maps, using ‘WGS 84’ as the datum, or any device which is based on the GPS system, will show a discrepancy comparable to the one which I found.

‘OSGB 1936’:

The grid is based on the OSGB36 datum (Ordnance Survey Great Britain 1936, based on the Airy 1830 ellipsoid), and was introduced after the retriangulation of 1936–1962.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_National_Grid

All mapping in Great Britain is in the OSGB36 National Grid coordinate reference system, and heights are above mean sea level defined at Newlyn in Cornwall – Ordnance Datum Newlyn (ODN).  OSGB36 is what might be termed a “traditional” datum.  The “36” refers to 1936 when the coordinate reference system concepts were designed and adopted. It uses an ellipsoid, known as Airy 1830, that’s fitted close to the geoid just across the area of GB.

Quote from: stack
You are wrong. The State Plane mapping system was developed in the 1930's. It uses two globe projections, both spherical, Lambert Conformal & Transverse Mercator, depending on the State shape.

Wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Plane_Coordinate_System

  “ The State Plane Coordinate System (SPS or SPCS) is a set of 124 geographic zones or coordinate systems designed for specific regions of the United States. Each state contains one or more state plane zones, the boundaries of which usually follow county lines. There are 110 zones in the contiguous US, with 10 more in Alaska, 5 in Hawaii, and one for Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands. The system is widely used for geographic data by state and local governments. Its popularity is due to at least two factors. First, it uses a simple Cartesian coordinate system to specify locations rather than a more complex spherical coordinate system (the geographic coordinate system of latitude and longitude). By using the Cartesian coordinate system's simple XY coordinates, "plane surveying" methods can be used, speeding up and simplifying calculations.

It literally has the word "plane" in the name.  ::)

Sure, using the plane maps allows for "plane surveying" techniques to be used. That's the whole point as to why they exist, Plane surveying techniques, "...so plane coordinates persist because they are convenient."

Quote
The North American Datum (NAD) is the horizontal datum now used to define the geodetic network in North America. A datum is a formal description of the shape of the Earth along with an "anchor" point for the coordinate system.

Lower down in the above article we read that the State Plane Coordinate Systems are associated with the North American Datum of 1983:

  “ Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27). Later, the more accurate North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83) became the standard (a geodetic datum is the way a coordinate system is linked to the physical Earth). More recently there has been an effort to increase the accuracy of the NAD83 datum using technology that was not available in 1983. ”

The United States Government echoes the same association:

https://catalog.data.gov/dataset/united-states-stateplane-zones-nad83

  “ United States Stateplane Zones - NAD83 Metadata Updated: August 11, 2016

U.S. State Plane Zones (NAD 1983) represents the State Plane Coordinate System (SPCS) Zones for the 1983 North American Datum within United States. ”

These systems involve flat coordinate systems. There may be a backend element which uses an ellipsoid to connect to other systems for converting coordinates between geographic models, but the data is flat. Utah's page The Earth is Not Round! Utah, NAD83 and WebMercator Projections says that the spherical models are getting data from the flat ones.

Yes, quite the compelling title for the article, "The Earth is not Round". However, everything in the article references a baseline of an ellipsoid. Heck, they even have an image as to how Utah is positioned on a globe earth:



The State Plane Coordinate System of 1927 was designed in the 1930s by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (predecessor of the National Ocean Service) to enable surveyors, mappers, and engineers to connect their land or engineering surveys to a common reference system, the North American Datum of 1927.

NAD27:

The North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27) uses a starting point at a base station in Meades Ranch, Kansas and the Clarke Ellipsoid to calculate the shape of the Earth.

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/why-are-usgs-historical-topographic-maps-referenced-outdated-datums

And in your quote above, "Originally, the state plane coordinate systems were based on the North American Datum of 1927 (NAD27)."

What about "based on" are you unclear about?

The long an short of all this is nowhere can you point to where State plane maps are not based on an ellipsoid model. Whether it be NAD27, NAD83, WGS84 datums, or otherwise. Not to mention that all State plane maps use Globe projections for display.  Your entire assertion that State plane maps are not based on an ellipsoid is completely dismantled by the evidence.

Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #63 on: January 10, 2022, 07:00:27 PM »
Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.

Observational science is defined as pseudoscience. Science must follow the scientific method.
The only reference to "observational science" on that wiki page is the U of Madison statement that astronomy is an observational science, sure that's obvious.
You completely ignored my quote from Maxim Sukharev's paper on the scientific method (he is your FIRST quote on the wiki here about the scientific method).  Here is the key part
Quote
4. Predict – this is where it gets really interesting! In order to test our hypothesis, however mystical and crazy it may look, we need to make an experimentally testable prediction: in
10 hours it is going to be dark again.
5. Test predictions – well, is it dark? It is vital in this method that a given test must be done
objectively and could be independently repeated. This is where the scientific method truly distinguishes between what is real (objective) and what is just a figure of our imagination (or fraudulent attempt).
Note that the key part is to make a prediction and test that prediction against observation.  That observation can of course be of a controled experiment where you can modify numerous conditions but it need not be (as it was not in Sukharev's example).

Quote from: ichoosereality
Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.
  • FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
  • FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
  • FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.
Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

Some elements in FE are pseudoscience, and some of it is not. Anything astronomy is pseudoscience, like in RE astronomy is largely pseudoscience, since it cannot be directly tested.
My question was not whether FE claims are pseudoscience (that's obvious), but whether FETheory is FALSE according to Sukharev's outline of the scientific method. 

Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies
We have traveled extensively around the planet and the times/distance match the RE model and are not close to matching the FE model.  Grasping at straws of "well they are not non-stop flights" and "there are storms and unusual winds" does not get you out of this. Such things are not remotely of sufficient scale to account for the extreme distances around the edge of FET claimed disk not to mention no one ever observing this claimed edge despite global travel (much of which should be impossible with the FE model).

Plus of course you completely ignored the atmospheric containment mechanism that FET predicts but has never been observed.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Scientific American has a problem with the cosmology professed on websites like that:
(link to Jeranism reading a Scientific American article deleted).  If you would like to hold Scientific American up as a source of truth, then show us an article there claiming the earth is flat?
Of course you can not do so.  Further it is not one published paper which makes the case, that is only the first step.  The work must be repeated and verified and stand the test of time.

I agree that cosmology is highly speculative (so do many, maybe even most, cosmologists).  We were not talking about cosmology, if my reference to the astrophysics work at Stanford where they clearly delineate observation vs experiment (clearly finding scientific value in both) side tracked that conversation then my bad  The point of the article is that even in their experimental work, it is often about making a special tool to observe.  e.g. we can not generate gravity waves but the project to detect them is clearly classified as experimental.

Quote from: ichoosereality
This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.
Refusal to appropriately address the argument provided means that you lost it.
No Tom, your insistence to pluck quotes from random self published papers means you never really made the argument.  The whole point of peer review is that lay folks like you and I and likely everyone on this site, do not have the expertise to know what is being left out, what should the author have addressed, how was the analysis performed etc. 

Quote from: ichoosereality
Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

Actually it's easy to find that the Scientific Method is still the standard for science, and has nothing to do with only applying to Roger Bacon's time.
The Scientific Method does not require experiments where all conditions can be controlled but predictions which can be tested by observation (potentially of an experiment, but that is not required).  My reference to Bacon who lived 700 years ago was that he could not comment about modern astronomy.

I am not questioning the scientific method, I am asserting that those pushing FET are NOT using it.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2022, 10:28:45 PM by ichoosereality »
If "bendy light" were real the spot shape and power output of large solid-state lasers would vary depending on their orientation relative to the surface of the earth, but this is not observed thus bendy light is not real.

Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #64 on: January 11, 2022, 09:45:16 AM »
There is no easily seen Southern Star. To find North-South in the South celestial navigation uses various constellations that have stars in them that tend to be aligned North-South. There are also other methods to determine latitude by the stars without needing a Southern Star.

Of course there's a "Southern Star"  —visible from the entire southern hemisphere, and even from
some extremely southerly land masses within the northern hemisphere.  It's within a constellation
know as the "Crux" or cross.  Its brightest multiple star system is Acrux, which looks like a single
bright star.



I can walk out of my house now, and find it (and determine north) in about 5 seconds.

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1776
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #65 on: January 11, 2022, 11:59:40 AM »
... why are you convinced about RE when there is no agreed upon map?

There is an agreed-upon map.
Patently untrue.
If there were not, international travellers would be getting lost, every day. The fact that they all get to their destinations, whether by international flight, ocean voyage, by train or by motor vehicle, is the proof the map is agreed.
Utterly ridiculous.

There is a recommended route to many destinations, but no agreed upon map, even for RE.
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Offline Action80

  • *
  • Posts: 1776
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #66 on: January 11, 2022, 12:09:28 PM »
I mean exactly what I wrote.

Do you have an answer or not?
I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.
I understand your need to firmly cling to the concept: Humanity has a grip on the size and shape of land masses and the distances between places.

And for most places we do; however, the "go to" argument for many RE-adherents here is this: Why the FE map has a problem with the size of Australia, conveniently ignoring, for instance, the problem with the size of Greenland AND Africa on the Mercator.

The fact of the matter is, given the many imperfections of the land (mountains, valleys, hills, and dales, etc.) the true flat earth plane could be relegated to a sphere of the appropriate size accounting for these imperfections and not indicative of its true shape.

That is how the globe came to be.
You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)

Actually, you get bullshit when you try to paint flat earth into real tearms(sic).  This is why there is no agreed upon FE map.  IF the earth were flat, creating a map of said earth would be an incredibly simple task with modern technology.  It actually would have been an incredibly simple task with less than modern technology.
When you have an agreed upon RE map, then feel free to come back and tell us how "easy," it is.

Jesus, you write as if you are a world renown cartographer or something.

You have no clue about how easy something would be. If you did, then you would have used an "easy," spell check to correct your post.

I'll give you the something (maybe you were a boy scout and took the map reading badge course, who knows), but I will not concede the world-renown cartographer.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2022, 12:17:05 PM by Action80 »
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"

Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #67 on: January 11, 2022, 12:58:19 PM »
the "go to" argument for many RE-adherents here is this: Why the FE map has a problem with the size of Australia, conveniently ignoring, for instance, the problem with the size of Greenland AND Africa on the Mercator.
Wow.

The reason the Mercator map has a problem with the sizes and shapes of places is because the earth is (roughly) a sphere and a map is not.
It is not geometrically possible to accurately depict the surface of a sphere on a plane.
So any map is a projection from the surface of a sphere on to a plane. That's why all map projections have distortions. Different projections simply distort things in different ways.
This is also why Google Maps now, when you zoom out enough, starts showing the earth as a sphere so as not to distort things.

But none of this would be a problem if the earth was flat. If the earth is flat and maps are flat then the only issue is scaling.
So the fact there is no RE map - as you are defining it - is evidence that the earth isn't flat.
Tom: "Claiming incredulity is a pretty bad argument. Calling it "insane" or "ridiculous" is not a good argument at all."

TFES Wiki Occam's Razor page, by Tom: "What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter to an escape velocity of 7 miles per second"

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 2997
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #68 on: January 11, 2022, 04:48:18 PM »
Patently untrue.

Why? Just because you say so?

There is a recommended route to many destinations, but no agreed upon map, even for RE.

Again, why? Because you say so?

I said there's an agreed map, and gave reason why. Do you have any reasons?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #69 on: January 15, 2022, 02:23:34 PM »
Incorrect. The Sun gets gradually weaker and outputs less intensity as it descends. The sun is not giving out as much energy at 45 degrees than when it is directly overhead. Your assertion that the Sun maintains its output or intensity is fundamentally incorrect.

Not so.  The energy output remains exactly the same at every part of the day (and night).  It's done
so for billions of years, and in all likelihood will effectively do so for billions more.  To claim that
the output of the sun varies on a periodic basis is erroneous.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
On Sunlight Intensity:

https://firstrays.com/supplemental-light/

"Natural sunlight intensity starts at zero just before dawn, reaches a peak at noon and then fades back to zero at dusk. As we have shown, that “intensity curve” can be estimated by a triangle."

This is referring to the amount of sunlight striking the earth's surface at a given time, and not any
variation in the output of the sun's energy.  And that amount varies—naturally—from sunrise to noon
to sunset.  You've completely misinterpreted that report and graph from the gardening site Tom.  Sorry.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
You are assuming that the sizes of the stars we see are true to their size according to perspective, and that a further star would be smaller than a closer star.

Of course two stars of the same physical size will appear to be larger or smaller than the other dependent
on their distance from the observer.  This is not an "assumption" but an optical and/or geometric fact.

Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #70 on: February 25, 2022, 08:32:19 PM »
I mean exactly what I wrote.

Do you have an answer or not?
I don't think I understand the question. In what way is there no agreed map of the earth?
By "map" here, I don't mean a flat piece of paper. I mean it in the more general sense that the earth has been mapped - we know the size and shapes of land masses and the distances between places.
In what way do you think any of that is in dispute? We have a whole global transport system and technologies like GPS which rely on this being the case.
I understand your need to firmly cling to the concept: Humanity has a grip on the size and shape of land masses and the distances between places.

And for most places we do; however, the "go to" argument for many RE-adherents here is this: Why the FE map has a problem with the size of Australia, conveniently ignoring, for instance, the problem with the size of Greenland AND Africa on the Mercator.

The fact of the matter is, given the many imperfections of the land (mountains, valleys, hills, and dales, etc.) the true flat earth plane could be relegated to a sphere of the appropriate size accounting for these imperfections and not indicative of its true shape.

That is how the globe came to be.
You get bullshit when you try to paint reality (i.e., flat earth) in unreal terms (i.e., spherical)

Actually, you get bullshit when you try to paint flat earth into real tearms(sic).  This is why there is no agreed upon FE map.  IF the earth were flat, creating a map of said earth would be an incredibly simple task with modern technology.  It actually would have been an incredibly simple task with less than modern technology.
When you have an agreed upon RE map, then feel free to come back and tell us how "easy," it is.

Jesus, you write as if you are a world renown cartographer or something.

You have no clue about how easy something would be. If you did, then you would have used an "easy," spell check to correct your post.

I'll give you the something (maybe you were a boy scout and took the map reading badge course, who knows), but I will not concede the world-renown cartographer.
It is not about maps. It's the model. WGS83.

Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #71 on: March 04, 2022, 12:29:26 PM »
Quote
The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.
Where do you get this tosh from Tom? Sirius over one tenth the visible diameter of the Moon!?! You don't actually believe that to be true do you?  The Moons visible diameter is half a degree give or take a few arc minutes. Lets call it 32 arc minutes.

That means one tenth of that is 3.2 arc minutes which is actually larger than the apparent size of Jupiter in a telescope at opposition. Jupiter was 47 arc seconds in size last August 20th when it was opposition. 47 arc seconds is less than 1 minute of arc (60") as I'm sure you know.  Do something for me Tom. Next clear night aim your telescope at Sirius and confirm for me that it looks over 190 arc seconds to you. That would be pretty amazing! That would be saying that the disk size of Sirius is over 3x the apparent size of Jupiter! Absolutely no way.

The little disk we see when we look at a star through a telescope is known as the Airy disk. The size of that depends on telescope aperture and is an optical effect only. The larger the aperture the smaller the Airy disk. Nothing to do with the star itself.

You link mentions about Kepler who was and still is renowned for his equations for planetary motion. His views about the size and distance of the stars however it seems were in need of some revision.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2022, 04:16:11 PM by astroman »

Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #72 on: March 04, 2022, 05:01:52 PM »
Quote
Even under those claims, the spacecraft are still just observing, and not experimenting, on the stars to know their true nature.
Oh I see, so just because we can't go sample collecting among the stars to bring back to Earth for experimenting on, that means we haven't a clue about the nature of the stars. Right Tom? I can probably learn more about the stars from my back garden using my own spectroscope than you will ever know.

Obviously your definition of the scientific method does not include observation as a means of collecting data. I wonder why that would be? I think many others would take a different view. Especially those who do not confine themselves to the flat Earth version of the scientific method.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2022, 05:04:03 PM by astroman »

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 9873
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #73 on: March 04, 2022, 05:11:33 PM »
Quote
The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false. In one example the angular diameter of Sirius is given as over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon.
Where do you get this tosh from Tom? Sirius over one tenth the visible diameter of the Moon!?! You don't actually believe that to be true do you?  The Moons visible diameter is half a degree give or take a few arc minutes. Lets call it 32 arc minutes.

Why are you asking for a source when I gave it, and you cut it out of your quote? Dishonest.

Quote
The little disk we see when we look at a star through a telescope is known as the Airy disk. The size of that depends on telescope aperture and is an optical effect only. The larger the aperture the smaller the Airy disk. Nothing to do with the star itself.

Yeah, claiming that the sizes of the stars are optical illusions definitely supports the narrative that the sizes of the stars and celestial bodies are not optical illusions. ::)

Quote
Oh I see, so just because we can't go sample collecting among the stars to bring back to Earth for experimenting on, that means we haven't a clue about the nature of the stars. Right Tom? I can probably learn more about the stars from my back garden using my own spectroscope than you will ever know.

You can do so, but it is not considered scientific knowledge. The US Supreme Court (1993) in Daubert v. Merrell made a determination of what qualifies as "scientific knowledge":

https://web.archive.org/web/20211108172509/https://law.onecle.com/ussc/509/509us590.html

  “ [I]n order to qualify as ‘scientific knowledge,’ an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method. ”
« Last Edit: March 04, 2022, 05:15:47 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Flat Earth maps?
« Reply #74 on: March 04, 2022, 05:15:52 PM »
Quote
Why are you asking for a source when I gave it, and you cut it out of your quote? Dishonest.
Who needs 'sources' in the form of descriptions of how big they imagined the stars to be during the 17th century when you can simply go out and have a look for yourself? In any case Tom your 'sources' are always just links to a page of your FE Wiki. Hardly what can be described as 'independent'. Just go outside, look through a telescope at any star and then look at Jupiter or Saturn even.  See the difference?  You can see the disk of Jupiter with a simple pair of binoculars but Sirius will only ever appear as a point source. Surprise surprise!

It is completely ludicrous to even suggest that Sirius is ever going to look much bigger in an eyepiece than the largest planet in the solar system.  Don't you think? I don't know what telescopes they were using back in the 17th century but if that's the impression that Kepler got then there was something seriously wrong going on.

If you can see Sirius looking like a disk 3x the size of Jupiter through your telescope Tom then either it doesn't work, you are looking through the wrong end (only kidding) or it is seriously out of focus. A star out of focus is going to look like a big disk. I don't know about you but I always find telescopes perform better when they are in focus.

Quote
Yeah, claiming that the sizes of the stars are optical illusions definitely supports the narrative that the sizes of the stars and celestial bodies are not optical illusions.
I never said anything about optical illusions did I.  I said the Airy disk is an optical effect of how telescopes work.  Lenses and mirrors are round and the focal plane forms a small circle.  That is the Airy disk. Nothing to do with optical illusions.

Quote
You can do so, but it is not considered scientific knowledge. The US Supreme Court (1993) in Daubert v. Merrell made a determination of what qualifies as "scientific knowledge":

Good for them...I don't particularly give a damn what the US supreme court says about scientific knowledge. I tend to go with scientific organisations rather than the law courts to decide on a  definition about what is or what isn't scientific knowledge. Count up how many times the word 'observation' crops up in this source about what scientific knowledge is. Is the US Supreme Court a recognised scientific organisation? Scientific knowledge is gained from the data that we gather. How can we do that completely if we don't count the observations that we make of how nature works? Even when carrying out experiments we learn by observing the results of those experiments.

https://whatmaster.com/what-is-scientific-knowledge/

or indeed this one.. this one even mentions about ancient beliefs about the world being flat!

https://www.visionlearning.com/en/library/Process-of-Science/49/The-Nature-of-Scientific-Knowledge/185

We know the distance to Sirius and anyone with an ounce of common sense will realise that you are never going to see any physical disk on something that far away with any telescope. The reason being the visible disk diameter is much, much less than the resolving power of any telescope. Hence we see them as point sources.

You may not accept modern methods of measuring the distances to the stars because they don't fall in line with what you want to believe, but that in itself doesn't make them any less valid. Mother nature decides what is true and what isn't, not you. 

With regards to Keplers 'De Stella Nova' publication, I have downloaded the publication but I cannot find any reference to where he apparently addressed the size of the nova. As suggested by the Wiki article...

Quote
In On the New Star, Kepler addressed the size of the nova
He did describe the position of the nova relative to nearby stars (with excellent accuracy) and the brightness curve but not the 'size'. He also described how he imagined that all other stars to be giants.  But it doesn't mention the size of the nova specifically. Perhaps you could provide a page number where he addresses that?   Many people seem to describe brightness in terms of size. For example I have heard people say 'I saw Venus last night and it looked really big'. But of course what they mean is it looked really bright. 

Obviously knowledge of the stars in general back in the early 17th century was not quite on a par with what it is today. Thanks largely to developments in spectroscopy and optics during the mid-19th century. You cannot really base your understanding of the stars now with what was known about them during the 17th century.  Except perhaps if it helps your position on what you believe.

« Last Edit: March 05, 2022, 09:30:15 PM by astroman »