The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: Novarus on April 02, 2017, 06:54:35 PM
-
This is a cross post from another Flat Earth forum, since i havent been able to glean anything useful there. Im hoping you guys can help.
The Flat Earth Theory seems to be a predominantly nothern/inner latitudes thing - most of its proponents live in North America. This is evident from the north-centric views of the Flat Earth.
Trouble is, from the perspective of someone who had lived most of their life in southern/outer latitudes, most of what is said doesn't really wash.
The prime example of this is Sigma Octantis, the southern pole star.
In the northern/inner areas of Earth, the stars appear to wheel around the star known as Polaris - it's brightness and proximity to the celestial pole make it perfect for determining true north. It is almost a fixed point in the sky, and this would be true in both Flat and Spherical scenarios.
However, in the outer latitudes of the Flat Earth theory, there would be no pole star and we would see the stars flying overhead much faster that near the centre of the disc.
This is not the case.
Instead, the southern latitudes have their own pole star, Sigma Octantis, around which all the stars circle. They also circle at the same rate as those in the northern/inner latitudes - something that would be impossible if viewed from a disc.
An object with two poles is necessarily 3 dimensional.
So I would like to hear the Flat Earth explanation for this.
Diagrams and animations encouraged.
-
I also have this question, but it would appear that nobody has an answer. Even Samuel Birley Rowbotham couldn't answer it.
(By the way, do the forum admins prefer muddying the forum by creating duplicate posts, or is the better practice of searching and replying to existing posts preferred?)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t30-YbayyXE
Are you guys lazy or ignorant? Google is your friend no?
-
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.
-
Are you guys lazy or ignorant? Google is your friend no?
There's no need for name calling. Every place I look there is a bunch of nonsense and nobody ever clearly explains it. Also, there are multiple hypotheses, so I wanted to know the answer from someone here specifically.
For RealEarth there is generally one, simple, clear model. I'm sorry that we have to ask questions here in a manner that frustrates you, but maybe it would help to create a single, clear model that doesn't differ from one FakeEarther to another.
{EDIT}
I was able to finally watch that video and it doesn't address why Sigma Octantis stays still--in the South--with the stars rotating around it, it just talks about sun rays in the east and west.
Also, this doesn't match what Tom was talking about, and provides an example of why you guys make this so hard to understand for someone like me trying to learn this stuff.
-
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.
First, where is the "official Flat Earth model?" I'd like to see it in one place, and I'd like to know who forms the consensus. This would make my research a lot easier.
Second, the Bi-Polar model has been debunked: https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=59769.0
What I'm looking for is an answer that matches direct observation.
-
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.
You know as well as the rest of us do that there's no such thing as "the official Flat Earth model". The Gleason map is the flat earth model most common among the FE who I encounter routinely. Most of the FE who post here don't seem to hold to the bipolar model. As far as I have seen, nobody has attempted to postulate paths for the sun and moon over a bipolar flat earth, and if you know of it I'm sure we would all be interested.
-
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.
Oh really?
How not?
Doesn't light travel in straight lines? I believe you said so.
In that case, if you draw lines pointing from places in the Southern Hemiplane to the location of Sigma Octantis - they would be straight and southward (whatever direction southward is).
In the Northern Hemiplane, lines pointing towards the pole star would also have to be straight and northward.
Right on the equator, the line pointing North would not line up with lines pointing Southward.
The "bipolar" map utterly fails on those grounds.
The other ("unipolar") map fails because "south is everywhere".
There is no possible FE map that has:
1) A north pole.
2) A south pole.
3) Straight lines of sight to the two pole stars.
Sorry Tom...this is another concrete proof that the Earth isn't Flat.
-
This is not a problem in the Bi-Polar model, which was made the official Flat Earth model in the early 1900's after discovery of the South Pole.
Emphasis mine. You might want to update the wiki. :P Almost everything there is based on the unipolar hypothesis.
-
This is a cross post from another Flat Earth forum, since i havent been able to glean anything useful there. Im hoping you guys can help.
The Flat Earth Theory seems to be a predominantly nothern/inner latitudes thing - most of its proponents live in North America. This is evident from the north-centric views of the Flat Earth.
Trouble is, from the perspective of someone who had lived most of their life in southern/outer latitudes, most of what is said doesn't really wash.
The prime example of this is Sigma Octantis, the southern pole star.
In the northern/inner areas of Earth, the stars appear to wheel around the star known as Polaris - it's brightness and proximity to the celestial pole make it perfect for determining true north. It is almost a fixed point in the sky, and this would be true in both Flat and Spherical scenarios.
However, in the outer latitudes of the Flat Earth theory, there would be no pole star and we would see the stars flying overhead much faster that near the centre of the disc.
This is not the case.
Instead, the southern latitudes have their own pole star, Sigma Octantis, around which all the stars circle. They also circle at the same rate as those in the northern/inner latitudes - something that would be impossible if viewed from a disc.
An object with two poles is necessarily 3 dimensional.
So I would like to hear the Flat Earth explanation for this.
Diagrams and animations encouraged.
I don't hold to this or anything, but I heard from some that the Earth with an ice wall has a firmament dome wrapped around the Earth, giving a mirror effect, with the concave nature of the dome, therefore all observers in the south hemiplane looking due south will see the same stars.
Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth.
In the Northern hemiplane, we see the north star rotation and Polaris as a barycenter, as we move south, the northern stars disappear below the horizon and the southern stars enter our field of vision. The north stars are the under part of the plate that we see directly, the southern stars are the other side of the plate (the top), which reflect off of the firmament dome and comes into view near the southern hemiplane. We are in reality looking up at a reflection off of the dome of the top of the dual astroplane, with sigma octantis being the center point star on the other side of the astroplane.
Here's an illustration on a video: https://youtu.be/Z6SK7FmNEXc
Now, concave mirrors, and any mirror surrounding you will reflect the same center point given that it's an equal distance away from it. So, all across the Hemiplane, all across the circumference of the ice wall and to the firmament, we will see the same stars because the top astroplate is reflecting.
The south star reflection will follow the same rotation of the north stars, but will appear to rotate in the opposite direction because it's mirrored.
I hope that makes sense, I don't hold to the ice wall model or existence of this firmament, but it sounds like an interesting theory to have given you grant those.
-
[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...
-
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole? If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane. Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole? If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane. Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.
-
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole? If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane. Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.
Hmm,
Yet the thick atmosphere doesn't prevent seeing the appropriate stars on a clear night? Are the stars viewed from the northern hemiplane physically closer than the south pole itself or Cape Horn? If I were to get up on the highest mountain in the northern hemiplane and look directly towards the south pole, surely I would have covered a significant distance vertically and be able to see further with a sufficiently higher power telescope but I still wouldn't be able to see the south pole or southern cross?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole? If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane. Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.
Hmm,
Yet the thick atmosphere doesn't prevent seeing the appropriate stars on a clear night? Are the stars viewed from the northern hemiplane physically closer than the south pole itself or Cape Horn? If I were to get up on the highest mountain in the northern hemiplane and look directly towards the south pole, surely I would have covered a significant distance vertically and be able to see further with a sufficiently higher power telescope but I still wouldn't be able to see the south pole or southern cross?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
The FE hypothesis would simply say you cannot because of perspective. How do we know it's perspective? Well the ancient Greeks never studied the limits of perspective, so obviously it has a convergence point closer than infinity. Thus the horizon, and how the sun and moon vanish. But that's just about all I recall seeing said on the topic. Oh, and the fact the reason we can't see across the ocean is because the atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, so it blocks the view of distant objects eventually, because of the accumulated particles etc.
-
If there is an agreed upon two pole model of the flat earth, would it not be possible to see Sigma Octantis with a strong telescope from the North Pole? If everything is above the flat plane of the earth, surely one could observe the southern cross constellation from the northern hemiplane. Why is it that no one has ever photographed the southern cross constellation from within the arctic circle?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Perspective. It's the go to from what I've seen for any of these questions. Perspective and thick atmosphere that doesn't allow you to see past a certain distance.
Hmm,
Yet the thick atmosphere doesn't prevent seeing the appropriate stars on a clear night? Are the stars viewed from the northern hemiplane physically closer than the south pole itself or Cape Horn? If I were to get up on the highest mountain in the northern hemiplane and look directly towards the south pole, surely I would have covered a significant distance vertically and be able to see further with a sufficiently higher power telescope but I still wouldn't be able to see the south pole or southern cross?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
The FE hypothesis would simply say you cannot because of perspective. How do we know it's perspective? Well the ancient Greeks never studied the limits of perspective, so obviously it has a convergence point closer than infinity. Thus the horizon, and how the sun and moon vanish. But that's just about all I recall seeing said on the topic. Oh, and the fact the reason we can't see across the ocean is because the atmosphere isn't perfectly clear, so it blocks the view of distant objects eventually, because of the accumulated particles etc.
Curious Squirrel,
Thanks for the highlights. It can be hard to sum up the thoughts and ideas of others when you don't really get a consensus from them on any given topic so I appreciate it. It would still be beneficial to know why you can see stars close to the horizon on a clear night, just not the right ones. Is there a testable hypothesis somewhere in all of this perspective and atmosphere reasoning or just more unsupported proclamations of knowledge? I would love to hear back from anyone in the FE community if they feel so inclined.
Thank You
CriticalThinker
-
[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...
I'm not one for drawing precise 3d models, so, I'll just put up some pictures that may get you to see.
The first one is the astroplate above the Earth, the top is the other side seen in the south by reflection. The dome is concave and surrounds the Earth, so it reflects the same stars on top from all across, so anyone looking due south will see it even if in different directions due to the circling ice wall.
The astroplate may in fact be so that it curves around to the other side, but for visualization purposes, just think of it as a disc of stars above the Earth with two sides.
But to answer your potential objection, it seems the astroplate would have a thickness of stars curving around so that when it reflects, the stars curving to the top of the astroplate will reflect too, meeting the reflection and the actual stars seamlessly, shaped just like an alien flying saucer, so it's not completely flattened.
But yeah, think of a concave mirror circling you with a plate above you and when you look up at the mirror surrounding you, the top of the plate is reflected.
Damn, just realized my pictures are too large of an attachment. I'll try again with something else.
-
[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...
Alright, considering that attachments are all too large, i had to resort to image address links.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/h0NHo49YiMs/maxresdefault.jpg)
This is an illustration I found on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0NHo49YiMs
It doesn't deal exactly with what I am talking about here but it shows an astroplate above Earth and it would contain two sides, a top and bottom. It could be shaped more like a flying saucer like I said earlier (not completely flat), but "plate" describes it accurately.
Here is something else I found that would do better than I could do:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cXUmFaTuBsM/maxresdefault.jpg)
This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.
-
[...]
This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.
I don't think it'd work as you think. If I get around it tomorrow I'll make you a 3d view (night time here...) but it's the same reason why old videogames had a separated "sky box" for the far scenery. Perspective messes things up. None of the options you cite would really work once you're a bit sideways. You'd see either far stars getting too close to each other, or close constellations deformed.
-
[...]Basically, inside the firmament, there is an astroplate, a flat plane of stars with two sides, a dual astroplane rotating inside the firmament and above our Earth. [...]
I'm having a hard time visualizing this, but wouldn't the perspective effect play quite the role here? Travelling South you would see the northern stars all cropped up in a point of the sky, and new stars would start appearing in the middle of the sky, while you get closer to the edge of the firmament disc... or am I getting this totally wrong?
Why don't you try drawing a 3D diagram with the "correct" proportions? With sketchup or the like
Edit to differentiate between 3d graphics and food...
Alright, considering that attachments are all too large, i had to resort to image address links.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/h0NHo49YiMs/maxresdefault.jpg)
This is an illustration I found on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0NHo49YiMs
It doesn't deal exactly with what I am talking about here but it shows an astroplate above Earth and it would contain two sides, a top and bottom. It could be shaped more like a flying saucer like I said earlier (not completely flat), but "plate" describes it accurately.
Here is something else I found that would do better than I could do:
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cXUmFaTuBsM/maxresdefault.jpg)
This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.
It's hard to make out from the images. Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth? With the single pole model the existence of the south pole is difficult to explain as it would theoretically not exist as a single location despite multiple visitors each year that travel to it. I was specifically questioning star visibility in the dual pole model where both poles were single physical locations. At that point they should be close enough that being on a high point in one hemiplane would allow you to see constellations from the other hemiplane.
Thank you for the images,
CriticalThinker
-
[...]
This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.
I don't think it'd work as you think. If I get around it tomorrow I'll make you a 3d view (night time here...) but it's the same reason why old videogames had a separated "sky box" for the far scenery. Perspective messes things up. None of the options you cite would really work once you're a bit sideways. You'd see either far stars getting too close to each other, or close constellations deformed.
I don't quite know what you mean here, but I am assuming you are referring to the angle of view problem with stars and the moon that I just made a thread on (asking about how it works): https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6821.0
Otherwise, I'd have to see what you mean.
-
It's hard to make out from the images. Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?
Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:
(http://reflectionofmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/60-BIBLE-VERSES-DESCRIBING-A-FLAT-EARTH-INSIDE-A-DOME-1024x438.jpeg)
-
I don't quite know what you mean here, but I am assuming you are referring to the angle of view problem with stars and the moon that I just made a thread on (asking about how it works): https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6821.0
Otherwise, I'd have to see what you mean.
That is precisely what I mean. Tomorrow I'll still try to make you a 3d view just for the fun of it, time permitting.
-
It's hard to make out from the images. Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?
Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:
(http://reflectionofmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/60-BIBLE-VERSES-DESCRIBING-A-FLAT-EARTH-INSIDE-A-DOME-1024x438.jpeg)
Nice looking but sun/moon are in the firmament.
-
It's hard to make out from the images. Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?
Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:
(http://reflectionofmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/60-BIBLE-VERSES-DESCRIBING-A-FLAT-EARTH-INSIDE-A-DOME-1024x438.jpeg)
So, the repeated trips of people to the south pole don't exist why? How can people physically walk to the south pole if it doesn't exist in the unipolar model? People visit the single south pole every year that are not government employees.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
-
It's hard to make out from the images. Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?
Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:
(http://reflectionofmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/60-BIBLE-VERSES-DESCRIBING-A-FLAT-EARTH-INSIDE-A-DOME-1024x438.jpeg)
Nice looking but sun/moon are in the firmament.
They are in the commonly accepted firmament model.
(http://enoksbok.se/christianufology/img/hebrew_conception_universe.jpg)
-
It's hard to make out from the images. Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?
Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:
(http://reflectionofmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/60-BIBLE-VERSES-DESCRIBING-A-FLAT-EARTH-INSIDE-A-DOME-1024x438.jpeg)
So, the repeated trips of people to the south pole don't exist why? How can people physically walk to the south pole if it doesn't exist in the unipolar model? People visit the single south pole every year that are not government employees.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
In that case, the supposed 'south pole' would just be a location along the ice ring inside the firmament, with it just being deemed the "south pole" because we suppose the Antarctic is an ice continent on a globe.
The ice wall model has many problems regarding how large the Antarctic circle would be and the larger circumference of the southern hemiplane, but I figured this question could be given a hypothetical answer regarding southern star trails on a unipolar map (dome reflection).
-
It's hard to make out from the images. Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?
Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:
(http://reflectionofmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/60-BIBLE-VERSES-DESCRIBING-A-FLAT-EARTH-INSIDE-A-DOME-1024x438.jpeg)
So, the repeated trips of people to the south pole don't exist why? How can people physically walk to the south pole if it doesn't exist in the unipolar model? People visit the single south pole every year that are not government employees.
Thank you,
CritcalThinker
In that case, the supposed 'south pole' would just be a location along the ice ring inside the firmament, with it just being deemed the "south pole" because we suppose the Antarctic is an ice continent on a globe.
The ice wall model has many problems regarding how large the Antarctic circle would be and the larger circumference of the southern hemiplane, but I figured this question could be given a hypothetical answer regarding southern star trails on a unipolar map (dome reflection).
And the 24 hours of continuous sunlight observable in every one of the research stations along the rim ice wall simultaneously? Even 24 hours of sunlight on the rim period?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
And the 24 hours of continuous sunlight observable in every one of the research stations along the rim ice wall simultaneously? Even 24 hours of sunlight on the rim period?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Got a great answer from my friend "CriticalThinker" for this one, here's a quote from them:
Douglips,
I'll save you the trouble for this one. The first requirement that you will be asked to provide is a 24 hour continuous raw video showing the sun at the south pole not taken by any government agency, edited in any way, with some other verifiable proof of time, date, length of video etc. If there has been even the slightest post production edit or time lapse, it will be dismissed as a fake. For best results, if you can find one, it would be a video specifically shot for the purpose. 24 hours plus and additional hour for good measure, with a mechanical watch with date dial in the field of view at all times and a live person that attends it at regular intervals to show that it isn't fake. Even then, they'll probably dismiss it as a conspiracy plot by someone. The other possible response will be some alteration to the 2 pole model that states the sun moves in a continuous figure 8 or something along those lines and before you ask, at no point will any of these models theorized be substantiated by hard evidence. They have essentially drawn their line in the sand and stated that we must prove to them that the earth isn't flat and then immediately dismiss any evidence that it isn't flat as fake, inaccurate or failing to take into account some magic that can't be measured.
Thank you and welcome,
CriticalThinker
Link: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6819.0
There's the answer.
-
And the 24 hours of continuous sunlight observable in every one of the research stations along the rim ice wall simultaneously? Even 24 hours of sunlight on the rim period?
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
Got a great answer from my friend "CriticalThinker" for this one, here's a quote from them:
Douglips,
I'll save you the trouble for this one. The first requirement that you will be asked to provide is a 24 hour continuous raw video showing the sun at the south pole not taken by any government agency, edited in any way, with some other verifiable proof of time, date, length of video etc. If there has been even the slightest post production edit or time lapse, it will be dismissed as a fake. For best results, if you can find one, it would be a video specifically shot for the purpose. 24 hours plus and additional hour for good measure, with a mechanical watch with date dial in the field of view at all times and a live person that attends it at regular intervals to show that it isn't fake. Even then, they'll probably dismiss it as a conspiracy plot by someone. The other possible response will be some alteration to the 2 pole model that states the sun moves in a continuous figure 8 or something along those lines and before you ask, at no point will any of these models theorized be substantiated by hard evidence. They have essentially drawn their line in the sand and stated that we must prove to them that the earth isn't flat and then immediately dismiss any evidence that it isn't flat as fake, inaccurate or failing to take into account some magic that can't be measured.
Thank you and welcome,
CriticalThinker
Link: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6819.0
There's the answer.
Just to confirm exactly how much of my other post you agree with. Will you automatically dismiss an unedited continuous 24 hour stream from the Antarctic rim showing 24 hours of sunlight with a mechanical watch in the field of view as undeniable proof or will you dismiss everything off hand? I provided two scenarios and it's incredibly important to know which one you fall into before continuing the discussion.
Alternatively, I'd accept physical evidence or live video from the rim that shows the dome where it meets the edge of the world as proof.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
-
Just to confirm exactly how much of my other post you agree with. Will you automatically dismiss an unedited continuous 24 hour stream from the Antarctic rim showing 24 hours of sunlight with a mechanical watch in the field of view as undeniable proof or will you dismiss everything off hand? I provided two scenarios and it's incredibly important to know which one you fall into before continuing the discussion.
Alternatively, I'd accept physical evidence or live video from the rim that shows the dome where it meets the edge of the world as proof.
Thank you,
CriticalThinker
No, I am not dismissive of footage there. I don't consider anything "undeniable" though.
I wouldn't know an explanation of the 24 hour Antarctic sun on the rim model as its been commonly dismissed as fake by advocates.
Considering that the dome would act like a mirror from what I explained about stars, they can attempt to claim and explain some mirroring effect around the entire rim possibly, though I can't say anything for them unless I wanted to get very speculative about it and I don't care a whole lot to try to explain it. I left behind the ice rim FE model because of how it was fraught with problems.
Never been far enough across the Antarctic (never stepped foot there in my life), I lack the resources to get an expedition across and try to find whats over there. That's why we got models and discuss them among ourselves to see what best fits what we do know.
-
[...]
This is actually quite spot on, think of that dome as the concave mirror wrapping around you, and the top of the astroplate (that line with some blue around it) is reflected off of the dome around, and it even has lines to illustrate it. I don't think this picture even had this purpose (looks more like its modeling the december solstice), but it works as an illustration.
I don't think it'd work as you think. If I get around it tomorrow I'll make you a 3d view (night time here...) but it's the same reason why old videogames had a separated "sky box" for the far scenery. Perspective messes things up. None of the options you cite would really work once you're a bit sideways. You'd see either far stars getting too close to each other, or close constellations deformed.
I don't quite know what you mean here, but I am assuming you are referring to the angle of view problem with stars and the moon that I just made a thread on (asking about how it works): https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6821.0
Otherwise, I'd have to see what you mean.
So, here are a few pictures from the model I've done.
I had to eyeball the proportions from your pictures, because no dimensions are given (figures...)
In the side view you can see the earth and the astroplane.
The darker area in the astroplan is a rough approximation of the visible sky from a point on earth ca. halfway "south" of the Astroplane center. From your map it would be like Florida? Egypt? beats me.
The other picture is a first person view from that point at ground level. As you can see, perspective has a massive effect.
I lack the time now to render the concave / convex alternatives, but, trust me, you'd get similar problems.
Crappy quality, but the attachment size costraints are crippling
-
So, here are a few pictures from the model I've done.
I had to eyeball the proportions from your pictures, because no dimensions are given (figures...)
In the side view you can see the earth and the astroplane.
The darker area in the astroplan is a rough approximation of the visible sky from a point on earth ca. halfway "south" of the Astroplane center. From your map it would be like Florida? Egypt? beats me.
The other picture is a first person view from that point at ground level. As you can see, perspective has a massive effect.
I lack the time now to render the concave / convex alternatives, but, trust me, you'd get similar problems.
Crappy quality, but the attachment size costraints are crippling
Dimensions don't get to my point, whether you pick the standard FES dimensions or something else, the concept is the same.
Based on perspective assumptions, there is a ratio of around 1:2 (altitude : distance away from the ground that's perpendicular to the above object) at past the apex of perspective lines, which would be celestial bodies on this model. So, it may be about 3,125 mile high sun : 6,250 miles away from a ground point perpendicular to the sun with perspective in standard. Stars, wouldn't know all the altitudes exactly.
But, to your main point, I still fail to see how it cripples the hypothesis I brought up. It just picks at how we would seem to perceive things and relies on the ambiguity of that to take it down.
How perspective would work for this is unknown and will clearly rely on more variables that what we simulate with angles of view.
-
[...]
But, to your main point, I still fail to see how it cripples the hypothesis I brought up. It just picks at how we would seem to perceive things and relies on the ambiguity of that to take it down.
How perspective would work for this is unknown and will clearly rely on more variables that what we simulate with angles of view.
What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?
-
[...]
But, to your main point, I still fail to see how it cripples the hypothesis I brought up. It just picks at how we would seem to perceive things and relies on the ambiguity of that to take it down.
How perspective would work for this is unknown and will clearly rely on more variables that what we simulate with angles of view.
What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?
Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.
-
Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.
I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that ;D
-
It's hard to make out from the images. Is this the single pole or dual pole model of the flat earth?
Unipolar (ice wall with a firmament dome surrounding).
This model:
(http://reflectionofmind.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/60-BIBLE-VERSES-DESCRIBING-A-FLAT-EARTH-INSIDE-A-DOME-1024x438.jpeg)
Um...you do know that none of those words mean anything - and the math you quote is completely nonsensical...right?
These "biblical flat earthers" are even more batshit crazy than the regular kind!
-
Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.
I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that ;D
What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?
Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.
-
Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.
I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that ;D
What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?
Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.
What factors do you believe are missing? What evidence do you have to support their existence?
Thank You,
CriticalThinker
-
Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.
I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that ;D
What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?
Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.
what factors? What are you talking about? I'm a layman, but perspective doesn't strike me as one of those esoteric fields of study at the borders of human knowledge...
-
Knowing all the variables and effects at hand is not the same as a=a.
I'm sorry you'll have to elaborate on that ;D
What do you mean how perspective would work for this? Perspective is perspective. Unless you are proposing that light doesn't travel in straight lines. Is that what you're saying?
Perspective being perspective doesn't mean we understand all the factors at play here or how perspective works in all cases either.
what factors? What are you talking about? I'm a layman, but perspective doesn't strike me as one of those esoteric fields of study at the borders of human knowledge...
The trouble is that the fuzzy thinkers around here haven't quite realised that "perspective" isn't a "law of physics" that could be incorrect somehow. It's an emergent property of the fact that light travels in straight lines. If you assert (as Tom does) that light does indeed travel in straight lines - then there are no FE sunsets. I CLEARLY proved that with the world's simplest diagram on the thread I started about that.
FE'ers have to abandon light travelling in straight lines and go back to the "Electromagnetic accelerator" - it's their only hope of having sunsets. It has the huge benefit (for them) that it's already beautifully decorated with bullshit math and vague assertions in the "Bishop Equation" and the unknown (why?) "Bishop Constant".
Sadly, of course, that theory is ridiculously easy to bust too.
There is no way out of this trap. Flat maps can't work, Flat astronomy can't work, Flat sunsets can't work. These are all utterly, undeniably, proven now...even according to the "rules of evidence" that FE'ers will accept.
-
Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?
Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?
-
Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?
Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?
nah, friend, you are at the wrong place for domes
-
Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?
Wow! That's a new one! That's absolutely hilarious.
EXPERIMENT TO DISPROVE:
* Stand outside at night for a few hours.
* Watch the stars slowly track across the sky.
* Reflections of lights on the fixed dome from the immovable Earth couldn't do that.
* Q.E.D.
Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?
That's a good question - but this particular faction of FE-ism (there are several) is anti-dome. The pro-dome people tend to be the biblical literalists - and they are MUCH easier to out-argue than this lot. Much to everyone's chagrin - the pro-dome nutcases do visit here from time to time.
One of the crazier ideas that I saw were from a splinter group who claimed that the moon is self-illuminated (which solves many problems that the tfes.org faction has) - and that the light comes from tiny luminous creatures (think 'fireflies') who migrate back and forth across the surface of the moon over the course of a month!
Nobody here seems to believe that one - which is a shame because it's hilarious.
-
Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?
Wow! That's a new one! That's absolutely hilarious.
EXPERIMENT TO DISPROVE:
* Stand outside at night for a few hours.
* Watch the stars slowly track across the sky.
* Reflections of lights on the fixed dome from the immovable Earth couldn't do that.
* Q.E.D.
Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?
That's a good question - but this particular faction of FE-ism (there are several) is anti-dome. The pro-dome people tend to be the biblical literalists - and they are MUCH easier to out-argue than this lot. Much to everyone's chagrin - the pro-dome nutcases do visit here from time to time.
One of the crazier ideas that I saw were from a splinter group who claimed that the moon is self-illuminated (which solves many problems that the tfes.org faction has) - and that the light comes from tiny luminous creatures (think 'fireflies') who migrate back and forth across the surface of the moon over the course of a month!
Nobody here seems to believe that one - which is a shame because it's hilarious.
This was actually my first post in this forum. All of the stories I've been told about FE before coming here, involved some kind of dome. And actually, the "day and night cycle" illustration in the Wiki made me think people here had the same beliefs.
-
Weren't stars simply dome reflections from Earth's lights?
Wow! That's a new one! That's absolutely hilarious.
EXPERIMENT TO DISPROVE:
* Stand outside at night for a few hours.
* Watch the stars slowly track across the sky.
* Reflections of lights on the fixed dome from the immovable Earth couldn't do that.
* Q.E.D.
Why can't FEers get their things together and consensus about anything?
That's a good question - but this particular faction of FE-ism (there are several) is anti-dome. The pro-dome people tend to be the biblical literalists - and they are MUCH easier to out-argue than this lot. Much to everyone's chagrin - the pro-dome nutcases do visit here from time to time.
One of the crazier ideas that I saw were from a splinter group who claimed that the moon is self-illuminated (which solves many problems that the tfes.org faction has) - and that the light comes from tiny luminous creatures (think 'fireflies') who migrate back and forth across the surface of the moon over the course of a month!
Nobody here seems to believe that one - which is a shame because it's hilarious.
This was actually my first post in this forum. All of the stories I've been told about FE before coming here, involved some kind of dome. And actually, the "day and night cycle" illustration in the Wiki made me think people here had the same beliefs.
The information in the Wiki (which we're continually directed to read) is often not what "current thinking" in FET says.