Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
But in order to accurately judge the nature and extent of spatial distortion in one, you do.
Why? That sounds more like a mathematical concern than a geographic one.
Irrelevant. You don't need to be a cartographer to know how maps work.A globe suffers from the least amount of distortion for RE maps. Which FE map suffers the least distortion?
I'm not a cartographer. Are you?
It's an approximation. The amount of curvature is proportional to the sun's horizontal distance from the observer. so minimizing this distance makes the most accurate approximation. In fact, observations made at the same time on the same day at different latitudes could prove to be an effective way to measure the rate of curvature due to EA, though I strongly suspect it will be similar to what has been assumed to be the rate of earth's curvature by Eratosthenes. I believe his measurements weren't wrong, he was simply wrong about what was doing the curving. Still, his change in latitude was only 7 degrees or so, so triangulating the sun's altitude from this small distance may be pretty accurate.This leads to a Catch-22 situation. You can't know what the height of the sun is without knowing the rate of curvature due to the EA and you can't know the rate of curvature due to the EA if you don't know the height of the sun. So, in effect, you can't prove that light even bends because of some sort of electromagnetic acceleration.
I'm still not sure what observations you're referring to. Sighting polaris works to determine latitude, it's just that the lines of latitude were assigned values of degrees as if the earth were a sphere.Let me ask you this: Do you agree that degrees of latitude are evenly spaced 60 nautical miles apart?
So, one of you is saying that the spacing between the lines of latitude are consistent, and the other is saying that they are not consistent. Which is it?We are both saying that latitude is consistent on a round earth, but not a flat one.
Both of you claim that the lines of latitude don't work when flattened to a plane - but there are flat maps with latitude and longitude on them available in every convenience store. It's a coordinate system, nothing more.First of all, you do understand that the "flat maps" that you are referring to are flat projections of a round earth, don't you? Projections always introduce some sort of distortion on one axis or another.
The lines of latitude and longitude may have been assigned values of degrees with the assumption that the earth is a sphere, but that doesn't make them less useful as a coordinate system.Actually, it does. For example, the lines in this drawing are 5 degrees apart, but the spacing at the bottom changes. This makes the RET definition of 1 degree of latitude being equal to 60 nautical miles inapplicable to a FET coordinate system.
How about defining "the route" as "the path taken to travel the shortest distance from Perth, Australia to Cape Town, South Africa" and not being needlessly pedantic?If the picture above is correct what is the shortest distance between Perth, Australia and Cape Town in miles? Please show the route.Define "the route".
However, unless you live at 45 degrees latitude, you will not get the 3000 mile figure that Voliva did. In fact, Rowbotham performed similar calculations in England (as documented in chapter 5 of ENaG) and concluded that the sun is no more than 700 miles high.Tintagel-You say you base your views on experience and empirical evidence yet in this thread you said the altitude of the sun was 3,000 miles based on a purely mathematical model. This is inconsistent to say the least and makes it very difficult to have a clear conversation since you are effectively shifting your evidential goal posts.
False. I can find my own latitude, and use that to measure the angle of the sun just as Eratosthenes did. I have done this myself, these findings are based upon experience and my own understanding of geometry. This is the process by which the altitude of the sun is found.
In short, I don't think the moon is as reflective as RET says.How reflective do you think RET says the moon should be?
If it were, then the light from the sun bouncing up from the earth would make even the darker sections brighter than they appear.Funny, that's just my thought on self-luminescence. It seems that self-luminescence should mean few, if any, shadows in craters near the lunar terminator.
I will concede that sunlight has an effect on the moon's luminescence, and my own observations support this, but I still believe there's an element of self-luminescence at play, or it just wouldn't be as bright as it is.I'm confused. Do you think that moon is brighter or darker than RET says it should be?
No, it doesn't make sense (to me,at least). Why do you think that lunar self-luminescence triggered by sunlight is a better explanation than the moon reflecting sunlight? How would someone tell the difference?What's your opinion on the phases of the moon? Do you believe in the bioluminescent migrating shrimp or some other theory?
I believe that the moon's phases are a combination of effects. I believe that the moon is self-luminescent, and that the luminescence is triggered, at least in part, by sunlight. The result is that the bright parts of the moon are the portions where sunlight is most intense, but the light we see is not reflected light from the sun, if that makes sense.
Honestly, I'd like to see that too, but I doubt that will ever happen. Unless and until FE'ers can start supporting their FE "models" with math that matches real world observations, then your "Graduate School" will be no better than FES grade school.I'm a bit worried that this would carry an impression of us being the other FES. It feels extremely similar to, for example, the Oxford Brookes University. Y'know, that second university in Oxford that everyone is talking about... not. They're not even a bad university, but the name acts as a detractor and provides opportunity for mockery.
But as it stands right now we are already the "other" Oxford. Rather than being an unrelated Oxford startup school I would prefer to be the Oxford Graduate School, the place of higher studies for Oxford University.
As I see it, the Flat Earth Academy of Sciences would still be part of the Flat Earth Society. It's a sister organization. We will present ourselves to the world as being part of the Flat Earth Society.Wouldn't it be a better idea to have a strong society before worrying about spinning off sister organizations?
This is simply our research branch.*ahem* No comment.
The .org site is for the noobs, the academy is where people eventually migrate for higher level discussions and to organize projects.
Pizza, this site is essentially a clone of the other site. The logo here just looks like a refresh of the original logo. Even most of the tired, old arguments are the same here. I haven't really looked to closely, but I'm guessing that the wiki hasn't changed much since it was copied from the other site either. Face it, other than a few subtle (and much appreciated) improvements to the forum software, there is hardly any distinction at all between this site and the other.With all due respect, can the logo really be held up as a distinctive feature? I don't think a casual observer would even notice the difference unless they were to have both forums open at the same time.I'd think they would, but I have no data to back it up. Personally, I pay lots of attention to logos, but it's very possible that that's just me being weird.
Not if your legal system prohibits double jeopardy.Well YOU do sure, but can't the prosecution appeal to a higher court?Isn't it true in all nations that either side can appeal to a higher Court if they lose in one of the lower?You appeal guilty verdicts, not innocent verdicts.