[Tom Bishop]

Sorry I just dont understand your point.

If you made an effort to understand, perhaps you would.

[Munky]

I did read it. I don't believe you actually understand it. It doesn't explain the earlier video
The author makes a lot of mistakes and assumptions in this book.

Everything published is not fact. Thats why there is a section called Fiction in the book stores and library.

The point I was trying to make, is that an Accurate map of the FLAT earth is just simply not possible.

Using the flight times of airline flights and distances posted you will not be able to lay out the pieces on the map properly and accurately.

A flight from lets say the southern part of South America to Australia would take roughly four times the distance and time to travel than it actually currently does on a round earth. So it will be hard to scale things on the flat earth map, if you are placing based on time it takes to fly from city to city, you will find that a globe makes more sense than a flat earth map.

[Munky]

Also, just like I said, the author of the video in which he was creating a Precise scale flat earth map, has officially scrapped his map, and attempted to start over.



HAHA!!

I doubt he will be successful by starting with the south pole up either...

[Wezzoid]

Also, just like I said, the author of the video in which he was creating a Precise scale flat earth map, has officially scrapped his map, and attempted to start over.


HAHA!!

I doubt he will be successful by starting with the south pole up either...

He's done more since. First flathead ever to openly admit he was wrong? More guts than the rest of them put together! He's still got some nutty ideas but have to respect him for this recent foray into reason.

[Munky]

I respect his attempts. I never discount that. However I can gaurantee that he will not succeed.

He realized this halfway through making the current Map that it wouldnt work, and that he had to work it a different way.

Because the issues that FE'ers have with the flat earth model is not about the Northern Hemisphere, it is about the Southern Hemisphere..

[Tom Bishop]

I did read it. I don't believe you actually understand it. It doesn't explain the earlier video
The author makes a lot of mistakes and assumptions in this book.

Everything published is not fact. Thats why there is a section called Fiction in the book stores and library.

The point I was trying to make, is that an Accurate map of the FLAT earth is just simply not possible.

Using the flight times of airline flights and distances posted you will not be able to lay out the pieces on the map properly and accurately.

A flight from lets say the southern part of South America to Australia would take roughly four times the distance and time to travel than it actually currently does on a round earth. So it will be hard to scale things on the flat earth map, if you are placing based on time it takes to fly from city to city, you will find that a globe makes more sense than a flat earth map.

The author of the video isn't using the Flat Earth model in the book I linked.

[Munky]

the flat earth model in the book you linked does not work either. 

[rabinoz]

Sorry I just dont understand your point.

If you made an effort to understand, perhaps you would.

I will take the time look in a bit more detail later, but on a cursory glance this but struck me as a bit weird!
On page 32 of "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918)" I came on this bit:

In this it is stated that the parallax of Alpha Centauri 0.75" of arc.  Then it says that the Lick telescope with a resolving power of 0.5" should be able to resolve a disk.  This is basically rubbish as the parallax of a star is the apparent change in position of the star when the earth moves through the mean distance from the earth to the sun - Actually the (total position change over 6 months)/2.

Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all, and in fact what we call Alpha Centauri is in reality three stars, the largest being Alpha Centauri A with an estimated diameter of 1.2 times our sun.  This makes the anglular size of the disk about 0.009" of arc, way below the resolving power of the Lick telescope.

I am afraid I can find such a glaring error on a quick reading means I am not going to waste time over it!

Surely if you can't get something a bit more accurate an up to date you will make the Society into a laughing stock.

[Tom Bishop]

Sorry I just dont understand your point.

If you made an effort to understand, perhaps you would.

I will take the time look in a bit more detail later, but on a cursory glance this but struck me as a bit weird!
On page 32 of "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918)" I came on this bit:

In this it is stated that the parallax of Alpha Centauri 0.75" of arc.  Then it says that the Lick telescope with a resolving power of 0.5" should be able to resolve a disk.  This is basically rubbish as the parallax of a star is the apparent change in position of the star when the earth moves through the mean distance from the earth to the sun - Actually the (total position change over 6 months)/2.

Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all, and in fact what we call Alpha Centauri is in reality three stars, the largest being Alpha Centauri A with an estimated diameter of 1.2 times our sun.  This makes the anglular size of the disk about 0.009" of arc, way below the resolving power of the Lick telescope.

I am afraid I can find such a glaring error on a quick reading means I am not going to waste time over it!

Surely if you can't get something a bit more accurate an up to date you will make the Society into a laughing stock.

Take it up with your Round Earth scientist Alfred Russel Wallace:

https://books.google.com/books?id=P6QRAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA98&ots=p_tSnbMt2X&dq=wallace%20%22The%20fact%20that%20there%20are%20no%20stars%20with%20visible%20discs%22&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=wallace%20%22The%20fact%20that%20there%20are%20no%20stars%20with%20visible%20discs%22&f=false

[Munky]

We are taking it up with you. Since you are a "Zetetic Council Member" as it may seem.

Why are you refusing to answer direct questions?

[Tom Bishop]

Why would I be involved? AR Wallace is the source for that figure in the book.

[Munky]

But you are the one quoting his information. You are posting it either erroneously or as evidence to support your point.

Why is it that you feel his information is worth mentioning?

[Tom Bishop]

But you are the one quoting his information. You are posting it either erroneously or as evidence to support your point.

Why is it that you feel his information is worth mentioning?

I did not quote his information to make a point.

I was asked to defend the points made by a Round Earth scientist. I questioned why.

[rabinoz]

Sorry I just dont understand your point.

If you made an effort to understand, perhaps you would.

I will take the time look in a bit more detail later, but on a cursory glance this but struck me as a bit weird!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In this it is stated that the parallax of Alpha Centauri 0.75" of arc.  Then it says that the Lick telescope with a resolving power of 0.5" should be able to resolve a disk.  This is basically rubbish as the parallax of a star is the apparent change in position of the star when the earth moves through the mean distance from the earth to the sun - Actually the (total position change over 6 months)/2.

Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all, and in fact what we call Alpha Centauri is in reality three stars, the largest being Alpha Centauri A with an estimated diameter of 1.2 times our sun.  This makes the anglular size of the disk about 0.009" of arc, way below the resolving power of the Lick telescope.

I am afraid I can find such a glaring error on a quick reading means I am not going to waste time over it!

Surely if you can't get something a bit more accurate an up to date you will make the Society into a laughing stock.

Take it up with your Round Earth scientist Alfred Russel Wallace:

. . . . . . . . . . . . .

Absolutely NOTHING to take up! On this point I have no argument with Wallace!
Your "authority" is simply factually WRONG.

Please address to issue! Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all.

Your reference (over a century old!) "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918)" claims that the size of Alpha Centauri can be determined from its parallax 0.75" of arc.

Here is a repeat of the extract:

. . . . . . the astronomers to immeasurable distances away from us, for the credit and convenience of their theories - yet not so far but that they profess to be able to find a parallax for many of them. The star Alpha Centauri is said to be one of the nearest to us, and it has been given a parallax of 0" 75. But if it were a sun of such a size, even though it were many times farther off than it is said to be, it would shew in the Lick telescope a distinct disc of at least half a second; so that the contention of Sir A. R. Wallace is here justified :-­ "The fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size." - Fortnightly Review.

Yes, the astronomers "profess to be able to find a parallax for many of them", but then he goes on to say "But if it were a sun of such a size". Nothing could be further from the truth. The parallax of a star has nothing whatever to do with the size of the star. 

As a matter of fact what we call Alpha Centauri is made up up three stars of very different sizes!
The largest is Alpha Centauri A with an estimated diameter of 1.2 times our sun. 

This makes the anglular size of the disk about 0.009" of arc, way below the resolving power of the Lick telescope.

I stress again the parallax of a star is purely measure of its distance and stars with a measurable parallax are the only ones whose distances can be "measured", though with an accuracy rapidly falling off with distance.  With space based telescopes the parallax of many further objects is being determined.

I have absolutely argument with the statement of Sir A. R. Wallace is here justified :-­ "The fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size."

Just accept that on this point your reference is wrong, and is simply ignorant on some simple astronomical facts.

[Tom Bishop]

Please address to issue! Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all.

Actually, it does. A closer body would parallax more than a distant body. If our sun is an "average star" as claimed by astronomers, it can be calculated about how big an average star that exhibits parallax should be.

I have absolutely argument with the statement of Sir A. R. Wallace is here justified :-­ "The fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size."

The author of The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions is basing the text on the writings of AR Wallace. We can see in the link I provided AR Wallace indeed argues that the stars should be around half a second.

I am afraid you will have to take your demands for answers to AR Wallace supporters, or perhaps some Round Earth forum. I have no idea why the stars don't fit your Round Earth model.

[rabinoz]

Please address to issue! Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all.

Actually, it does. A closer body would parallax more than a distant body. If our sun is an "average star" as claimed by astronomers, it can be calculated about how big an average star that exhibits parallax should be.

I repeat Parallax is purely a measure of the distance to a star.  A star at that distance can be of any size.
For example look at the stars of the Alpha Centauri cluster:

A comparison of the sizes and colors of the stars in the Alpha Centauri system
with our sun. Via Wikimedia Commons.

Alpha Centauri A (distance 4.37 ly) and Alpha Centauri B (distance 4.37 ly) form a binary pair. Proxima Centauri, the tiny one is the closest (known) star to earth at a distance of about 4.24 ly and it doubtful whether it is even part of the same system.

So, while these three stars have a similar parallax, they are very different in size.

It is obvious that if all these stars were closer to us they would have a larger parallax and would appear larger.
But, my beef with "Sea-Earth Globe, etc" is that in that it assumes that one can calculate the apparent size from the parallax.
"The star Alpha Centauri is said to be one of the nearest to us, and it has been given a parallax of 0" 75. But if it were a sun of such a size". 

That is quite incorrect as the apparent size simply cannot be inferred from the parallax - however you try to bend my words!

I have absolutely argument with the statement of Sir A. R. Wallace is here justified :-­ "The fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size."

The author of The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions is basing the text on the writings of AR Wallace. We can see in the link I provided AR Wallace indeed argues that the stars should be around half a second.

I am afraid you will have to take your demands for answers to AR Wallace supporters, or perhaps some Round Earth forum. I have no idea why the stars don't fit your Round Earth model.

My "Round Earth model"? - you are the one with a Round Earth, mine is a Globe Earth!

I don't really see how Wallace's statement is in any way in conflict with the globe earth. He is doscussing the Nebula Hypothesis and my be relevant to a cosmologist, but of no relevance to flat or globe earth!
See it a bit more of that quote.

The late Mr. Ranyard remarks that if the Nebular Hypothesis is true, and our sun once extended as far as the orbit of Neptune, then, among the millions of visible suns there ought to be some now to be found in every stage of development. But any sun having a diameter at all approaching this size, and situated as far off as a hundred times the distance of Alpha Centauri, would be seen by the Lick telescope to have a disc half a second in diameter. Hence the fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size, and adds another argument, though not perhaps a strong one, against the acceptance of the Nebular Hypothesis.

"AR Wallace indeed argues that the stars should be around half a second", yes stars as big as the diameter of Neptunes Orbit!

OK, so what relevance does this have back on earth?

[Tom Bishop]

I repeat Parallax is purely a measure of the distance to a star.  A star at that distance can be of any size.

Please follow along:

1. It is thought that our sun is an average star

2. Closer bodies parallax more than distant bodies

3. If the sun were to parallax as much as stars like Alpha Centauri, it has been computed that it should have a diameter of 0.5 degrees

4. Since the Alpha Centauri stars are much smaller than 0.5 degrees, yet still exhibits the parallax it does, the Round Earth model comes into question.

5. The fact that there are no stars, who parallax to the degree that they do, which have a diameter of 0.5 degrees, it can be concluded that either the Sun is unique in that all other stars are tiny in comparison or that the underlying model is incorrect.

Again, please take this to a Round Earth forum if you are seeking answers. We would not be able to tell you why the observations don't match your model.

[rabinoz]

I repeat Parallax is purely a measure of the distance to a star.  A star at that distance can be of any size.

Please follow along:
1. It is thought that our sun is an average star

OK, I'll follow on! Yes, the sun is a reasonably average star.

2. Closer bodies parallax more than distant bodies

Here we deviate a bit. Saying stars "parallax" seems an odd way to put it. Parallax is defined as the

the angle subtended at a star by the mean radius of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.

it is often quoted in mas, which stands for milli-arcseconds.
So, parallax is simply a measurement made on a star.

3. If the sun were to parallax as much as stars like Alpha Centauri, it has been computed that it should have a diameter of 0.5 degrees

So, saying "If the sun were to parallax" is quite meaningless!  The sun simply cannot parallax. Surely from the definition you can see that.

4. Since the Alpha Centauri stars are much smaller than 0.5 degrees, yet still exhibits the parallax it does, the Round Earth model comes into question.

Well no, that is not what was said. Read a bit earlier from Wallace, and I believe you will see he says that if the sun extended out to the orbit of Neptune it would show a disc of about 0.5° at the distance of α Centauri etc (I am not quoting exactly as I am doing it from memory)
Then you say "the Round Earth model comes into question". No, not at all! What is called into question was not the Globe Earth, but Wallace's "Nebula Theory".
You must realise that Cosmology was very much in its infancy when this was written!
But, in any case the Globe Theory does not depend on Cosmology in any way. I am certainly no cosmologist. I read a bit on some of it with interest, but I don't really have any "belief" in particular theories.

5. The fact that there are no stars, who parallax to the degree that they do, which have a diameter of 0.5 degrees, it can be concluded that either the Sun is unique in that all other stars are tiny in comparison or that the underlying model is incorrect.

Nothing of the sort! When Wallace says "there are no stars", he is saying that there are no stars with diameters out to Neptune's orbit! I did mean to check on some of Wallace's figures there, but haven't had the time yet. I'm afraid I don't keep things like the diameter of Neptune's orbit in my head.
Again "the underlying model" is Wallace's nebula theory, and might be of interest to a cosmologist, but is of no relevance to the Globe model.

Again, please take this to a Round Earth forum if you are seeking answers. We would not be able to tell you why the observations don't match your model.

I am not looking for answers that I have not found and please tell me

why observations Wallace may or may not have made about his "nebula theory" might affect the validity of the Globe Earth.