The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: MountainDrew on August 26, 2014, 07:05:45 PM
-
I noticed that this was never properly answered in previous threads so I will revive it anew. Constellation visibility being specific to your latitude alone disproves the flat earth theory. The farther you are from the equator the closer the constellations are to the horizon until they are no longer visible. You can't see the same constellations in the southern hemisphere that you can see in the northern hemisphere. If the world was indeed flat then you would be able to see the same constellations regardless of your location on Earth. Here are two simplified pictures demonstrating my point. Please attempt to provide reasoning as to why I'm wrong.
-
The stars are actually much smaller than you think, and are just a few thousand miles above the sea level of the Earth. If you accept this then it's easy to see how one might not see the same stars at different parts of the Earth.
Other phenomenon, like the Polaris appearing to sink as you approach the horizon is merely an optical illusion of perspective. This has been covered many times in many different threads, and we actually have a whole page dedicated to this very subject in our wiki (http://wiki.tfes.org/Shifting_Constellations).
-
I could not open your link but I assume this is the illusion you are talking about.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20horizon
This form of optical illusion does not contend with the fact that we are not dealing with an object going beyond our view but an object that is in view at the same relative size until it dips below the horizon. A ship will appear smaller as it increases it's distance from you. A star dipping below the horizon does not.
-
I could not open your link but I assume this is the illusion you are talking about.
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Ships%20appear%20to%20sink%20as%20they%20recede%20past%20the%20horizon
No. I have updated my post and fixed the hyperlink.
-
Sorry but even that is incorrect. As demonstrated in the picture of viewing the stars on a flat Earth if I had a powerful enough telescope from lets say your ice wall for example, I would then be able to see Polaris again. Something that is not possible due to the curvature of the Earth.
-
Sorry but even that is incorrect. As demonstrated in the picture of viewing the stars on a flat Earth if I had a powerful enough telescope from lets say your ice wall for example, I would then be able to see Polaris again. Something that is not possible due to the curvature of the Earth.
Indeed. http://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect (http://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect) even claims that telescopes restore the perspective effect. It's wrong of course.
-
Also if stars were only 3000 miles distant we should see much more severe parallax than is observed.
-
Also if stars were only 3000 miles distant we should see much more severe parallax than is observed.
The parallax is there. It's the illusion of constellations changing as you move across the Earth disc.
-
Also if stars were only 3000 miles distant we should see much more severe parallax than is observed.
The parallax is there. It's the illusion of constellations changing as you move across the Earth disc.
Okay... What foreground object appears to move against a background that would cause parallax? Aren't the stars (of the constellations) the farthest away in FET?
-
Also if stars were only 3000 miles distant we should see much more severe parallax than is observed.
The parallax is there. It's the illusion of constellations changing as you move across the Earth disc.
And what of the stars that do not appear to move?
-
Also if stars were only 3000 miles distant we should see much more severe parallax than is observed.
The parallax is there. It's the illusion of constellations changing as you move across the Earth disc.
And what of the stars that do not appear to move?
Most of them appear to move. Have you ever looked closely at a star? It's always blinking.
-
Also if stars were only 3000 miles distant we should see much more severe parallax than is observed.
The parallax is there. It's the illusion of constellations changing as you move across the Earth disc.
And what of the stars that do not appear to move?
Most of them appear to move. Have you ever looked closely at a star? It's always blinking.
How does blinking relate to your claim that "most of them appear to move"? Does FET explain the blinking? If so, how?
-
The Earth's atmolayer is quite thick and won't allow you to see every star simultaneously. Even the Sun eventually fades from view. From a geometric standpoint, you could graph a straight line between you and any star in the sky. This doesn't mean you can see them.
-
The Earth's atmolayer is quite thick and won't allow you to see every star simultaneously. Even the Sun eventually fades from view. From a geometric standpoint, you could graph a straight line between you and any star in the sky. This doesn't mean you can see them.
Irrelevant. As I stated earlier, with a powerful enough telescope you would be able to see the stars again. Also if the FET was true the the Sun, also a star, would clearly become visible again. Which it does not.
-
Irrelevant. As I stated earlier, with a powerful enough telescope you would be able to see the stars again. Also if the FET was true the the Sun, also a star, would clearly become visible again. Which it does not.
How, in your opinion, would a telescope alter or counteract the transparency of the atmolayer? Can we extrapolate from that and conclude that a "powerful enough" telescope could see through any substance? I'd really like to lay my hands on that x-ray vision technology.
-
Irrelevant. As I stated earlier, with a powerful enough telescope you would be able to see the stars again. Also if the FET was true the the Sun, also a star, would clearly become visible again. Which it does not.
How, in your opinion, would a telescope alter or counteract the transparency of the atmolayer? Can we extrapolate from that and conclude that a "powerful enough" telescope could see through any substance? I'd really like to lay my hands on that x-ray vision technology.
Would you believe your own Wiki? There have been experiments where half-sunken ships have been restored by simply looking at them through telescopes, showing that they are not actually hiding behind "hills of water".
-
No, I do not subscribe to Tom's model. You know this. I'm also surprised that you think perspective and the atmoplane are the same thing. I learn new things about dishonesty every day!
Besides, I'm interested in MD's claims, so please do allow him to explain himself, unless you have a claim to some greater knowledge on his own thoughts.
-
Also if stars were only 3000 miles distant we should see much more severe parallax than is observed.
The parallax is there. It's the illusion of constellations changing as you move across the Earth disc.
And what of the stars that do not appear to move?
Most of them appear to move. Have you ever looked closely at a star? It's always blinking.
How does blinking relate to your claim that "most of them appear to move"? Does FET explain the blinking? If so, how?
The blinking that you experience is actually an optic illusion caused by the extreme light stream (condensed by aetheric pressures) moving ever so slightly. Your eye has trouble processing this and converts it to blinking.
When you get down to it, the eye is a very tricky thing. We don't always see what is really there. Basic optical illusions tell us this. We can't even see in every color of the spectrum. Zetetic thinking may seem like the polar opposite of this viewpoint, but I assure you it's not.
-
Also if stars were only 3000 miles distant we should see much more severe parallax than is observed.
The parallax is there. It's the illusion of constellations changing as you move across the Earth disc.
And what of the stars that do not appear to move?
Most of them appear to move. Have you ever looked closely at a star? It's always blinking.
How does blinking relate to your claim that "most of them appear to move"? Does FET explain the blinking? If so, how?
The blinking that you experience is actually an optic illusion caused by the extreme light stream (condensed by aetheric pressures) moving ever so slightly. Your eye has trouble processing this and converts it to blinking.
When you get down to it, the eye is a very tricky thing. We don't always see what is really there. Basic optical illusions tell us this. We can't even see in every color of the spectrum. Zetetic thinking may seem like the polar opposite of this viewpoint, but I assure you it's not.
So blinking has nothing to do with the apparent movement. Got it.
-
I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but OK.
-
Irrelevant. As I stated earlier, with a powerful enough telescope you would be able to see the stars again. Also if the FET was true the the Sun, also a star, would clearly become visible again. Which it does not.
How, in your opinion, would a telescope alter or counteract the transparency of the atmolayer? Can we extrapolate from that and conclude that a "powerful enough" telescope could see through any substance? I'd really like to lay my hands on that x-ray vision technology.
What you would need to penetrate the "atmolayer" or whatever it's called is a telescope with infrared capabilities. IR has a longer wavelength that can pass through dense clouds and atmosphere where visible light cannot.
-
I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but OK.
How did you come to the conclusion that periodic changes in luminescence necessitates movement?
-
What you would need to penetrate the "atmolayer" or whatever it's called is a telescope with infrared capabilities. IR has a longer wavelength that can pass through dense clouds and atmosphere where visible light cannot.
I can assure you infrared does the opposite of what you seem to think it does. Nearly everything absorbs IR radiation, it doesn't get as far as visible light through most substances, including the atmoplane.
-
What you would need to penetrate the "atmolayer" or whatever it's called is a telescope with infrared capabilities. IR has a longer wavelength that can pass through dense clouds and atmosphere where visible light cannot.
I can assure you infrared does the opposite of what you seem to think it does. Nearly everything absorbs IR radiation, it doesn't get as far as visible light through most substances, including the atmoplane.
My bad haha. IR works so well when used.. in orbit around the globe.. anyways even with that annoying atmospheric distortion we can still see beyond it. Take the Mauna Kea Observatory for example. High in altitude like it is we can indeed observe with it. If the FEM was correct then logically with the MKO we would still be able to see those pesky little stars (not so) far above us. Unfortunately we can't due to that darned curvature of the Earth.
-
Alternatively, we can't do that because the atmosphere is still too thick from that POV.
-
What you would need to penetrate the "atmolayer" or whatever it's called is a telescope with infrared capabilities. IR has a longer wavelength that can pass through dense clouds and atmosphere where visible light cannot.
I can assure you infrared does the opposite of what you seem to think it does. Nearly everything absorbs IR radiation, it doesn't get as far as visible light through most substances, including the atmoplane.
Which is why sunsets appear blue, because all the longer wavelength light, like reds and IR, are absorbed by the air. ::)
-
Alternatively, we can't do that because the atmosphere is still too thick from that POV.
Unfortunately that is not true. Riddle me this. In FET is the atmosphere to thick to see an an object let's say roughly 384,000 km away from Earth? I mean if you can't see stars only what, 3,000 miles away, what about an object that far?
-
Unfortunately that is not true.
Could you provide some reasoning to support that?
-
Unfortunately that is not true.
Could you provide some reasoning to support that?
It's simple really my POV is supported by facts, evidence, and observation. Your POV is supported by conspiracy theories, far out theoretical ideas, and pseudoscience. Care to answer what I asked btw?
-
It's simple really my POV is supported by facts, evidence, and observation.
Okay, feel free to present those. I'm particularly curious about the "facts", since science doesn't deal with those.
Care to answer what I asked btw?
Of course, right after you're done backing up (or retracting) your misconstrued claims.
-
I don't see how you came to that conclusion, but OK.
How did you come to the conclusion that periodic changes in luminescence necessitates movement?
Numerous scientific & medical journals back up my claims.
You really need to brush up on your ophthalmology.
-
It's simple really my POV is supported by facts, evidence, and observation.
Okay, feel free to present those. I'm particularly curious about the "facts", since science doesn't deal with those.
Care to answer what I asked btw?
Of course, right after you're done backing up (or retracting) your misconstrued claims.
Hmm.. some facts.. lets see.. Well photographic evidence surely supports my POV. The fact that you can see the arc of the curvature of the Earth from the air ( much easier seen over water). With a flat plane there would be no distinguishable arc. Fact the orbit of our satellites are based on spherical principles. Fact it can be observed that the sun is a spherical object that gives off light in every direction. If the sun acts essentially as a lighthouse why then does light from the sun reflect off of the moon if it is facing the earth?
-
Hmm.. some facts.. lets see.. Well photographic evidence surely supports my POV.
You have photographic evidence of stars that shouldn't be seen from a given point of view by Round Earth standards? Holy shit, please post them immediately, that would settle the debate once and for all! I'm so excited for this new FE evidence you claim to have!
The fact that you can see the arc of the curvature of the Earth from the air ( much easier seen over water).
See: Electromagnetic accelerator.
With a flat plane there would be no distinguishable arc.
This is incorrect under virtually any Flat Earth model.
Fact the orbit of our satellites are based on spherical principles.
Please substantiate this claim, keeping in mind that you used the word fact.
Fact it can be observed that the sun is a spherical object that gives off light in every direction.
Please substantiate this claim, keeping in mind that you used the word fact.
If the sun acts essentially as a lighthouse why then does light from the sun reflect off of the moon if it is facing the earth?
It doesn't.
-
The fact that you can see the arc of the curvature of the Earth from the air ( much easier seen over water).
See: Electromagnetic accelerator.
MD, don't bother with the EA. Until FEers determine that the so-called Bishop Constant is not zero, the EA is irrelevant and not worth your time. (When the Bishop Constant is zero the entire effect of the EA is zero.)
-
You have photographic evidence of stars that shouldn't be seen from a given point of view by Round Earth standards? Holy shit, please post them immediately, that would settle the debate once and for all! I'm so excited for this new FE evidence you claim to have!
I mean in terms of photographic evidence of a spherical Earth
The fact that you can see the arc of the curvature of the Earth from the air ( much easier seen over water).
See: Electromagnetic accelerator.
False. You can still see the arc with nothing but dim moonlight.
With a flat plane there would be no distinguishable arc.
This is incorrect under virtually any Flat Earth model.
How so?
Fact the orbit of our satellites are based on spherical principles.
Please substantiate this claim, keeping in mind that you used the word fact.
See mathematics of satellite motion
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion
Fact it can be observed that the sun is a spherical object that gives off light in every direction.
Please substantiate this claim, keeping in mind that you used the word fact.
The sun's reflection off of the moon even the planets is substantial enough
If the sun acts essentially as a lighthouse why then does light from the sun reflect off of the moon if it is facing the earth?
It doesn't.
[/quote]
It can be observed that the sun rotates on it's axis making one full rotation every 25 days. That would leave us with a period of darkness every 25 days if it truly acted as a lighthouse. Even if the sun where revolving around the earth it still rotates. The principles about the lighthouse concept do not work. Also simply saying that the Sun's rays do no reflect off of the moon does not refute what I said. Please provide where the light reflecting off of the moon comes from.
-
You have photographic evidence of stars that shouldn't be seen from a given point of view by Round Earth standards? Holy shit, please post them immediately, that would settle the debate once and for all! I'm so excited for this new FE evidence you claim to have!
No, I'm saying that is impossible. You say you have facts and evidence to disprove that notion. Post 'em up or retract your claim, please.
False. You can still see the arc with nothing but dim moonlight.
Which is perfectly consistent with EAT.
How so?
By way of there being a distinguishable arc in virtually any modern FE model.
See mathematics of satellite motion
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Mathematics-of-Satellite-Motion
Right, so you have a hypothetical explanation, not facts. Thanks.
The sun's reflection off of the moon even the planets is substantial enough
I'm sorry, could you write coherently?
Please provide where the light reflecting off of the moon comes from.
The moon.
-
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
-
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
-
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
Nope. That's unbelievable. Please demonstrate your outlandish claim by working an example. Let's go with Ursa major as viewed tonight from 45o N at just after sunset, midnight, and just before sunrise. Tell us how you determined the atmolayeric refraction, and its amount for each star in all three times and that it caused, ever so conveniently, the observed consistency of the constellation's shape and size.
-
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
What medium does the light from the stars travel through before entering the atmosphere?
-
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
Nope.
I'm sorry, but that's not how you start a debate. Come back when you've learned some manners.
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
What medium does the light from the stars travel through before entering the atmosphere?
The aetheric membrane that holds the Sun & Moon discs in place.
-
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
Nope.
I'm sorry, but that's not how you start a debate. Come back when you've learned some manners.
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
What medium does the light from the stars travel through before entering the atmosphere?
The aetheric membrane that holds the Sun & Moon discs in place.
Do you have a theory as to why the refraction through this membrance does not behave in the slightest like refraction from any other medium? Specifically, why do the sun, moon, planets and stars behave exactly as if they are the distances measured by astronomers, being at distances from 100,000s to billions of kms distant, yet they are all actually 3,000-3,100kms distant?
-
If the stars are all about 3100 miles overhead, then how do the constellations maintain the same shape since I'm viewing them from different angles as the night progresses?
Atmospheric refraction.
Nope.
I'm sorry, but that's not how you start a debate. Come back when you've learned some manners.
That's exactly a polite way to start a debate. Hiding my determination of the inaccuracy of your claim would be impolite. Now do you have any evidence, particularly to the zetetic standard, to support your outlandish claim?
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.
-
That's exactly a polite way to start a debate. Hiding my determination of the inaccuracy of your claim would be impolite.
You're mistaking honesty for politeness. It's possible to be both honest and impolite (as you have demonstrated), largely because the two are unrelated.
-
That's exactly a polite way to start a debate. Hiding my determination of the inaccuracy of your claim would be impolite.
You're mistaking honesty for politeness. It's possible to be both honest and impolite (as you have demonstrated), largely because the two are unrelated.
No, they are related, though not the same. Regardless, the challenge to back up his outlandish claim remains unanswered, like so much of FEt. I suggest that you (all) post your data supporting your outlandish claims to the zetetic process's standard.
"Zetetic" process, the conclusion arrived at is essentially a quotient; which, if the details are correctly worked, must of necessity be true, and beyond the reach or power of contradiction.