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.


Messages - Longtitube

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 9  Next >
21
Flat Earth Community / Re: New Universe Model ("Many Worlds" Theory)
« on: February 19, 2021, 12:48:18 PM »
Crop circles used to be quite a thing in the UK, and were beginning to be taken quite seriously by some academics. One man in particular had complex metereological models of how they were formed, the aerodynamic phenomena involved and was quite insistent they couldn’t be man-made. Until a tv documentary asked him to say whether a circle they had taken him to examine was the real deal and to describe how it might have formed. He confidently explained the typical characteristics, the prominent features and no, it couldn’t be other than genuine, dear me no, no possibility. They then showed him their film of the crop circlers making it the previous night and you couldn’t miss his embarrassment, him wishing the ground would swallow him there and then.

That was the beginning of the end of that craze: I haven’t seen one in more than a decade; the books and media attention also dried up.

Be careful what you imagine you’re seeing.

22
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 10:04:32 PM »
So you're telling me of all the hundreds of thousands of FE believers in the world today, none of them is able to draw up a detailed map ?

As Pete has already implied, I am saying nothing about an ability to draw up a detailed map, only (as Pete also says) that there is no consensus on a definitive map.

And thanks for the humour, Pete, it was appreciated.  ;D

23
Flat Earth Community / Re: A working map of the Flat Earth
« on: February 18, 2021, 10:51:24 AM »
... Did the Flat Earth community not produce a more detailed version of their agreed-upon map ?

There is the nub, there is no agreed-upon map, no agreement on the size or shape of the earth in FE circles. Make of it what you will, but that’s how it is.  ???

24
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 17, 2021, 01:05:12 PM »
Stack, I would just like to point out we have gone from talking about viewing Chicago from various places around Lake Michigan to photos of Ontario on Lake Ontario viewed from various places: was that your intention? As for observer height, the photo from Grimsby Beach includes a sailboat and almost all its mast is below the horizon - that should give you an idea how high above water the camera was.

I wonder if the original question about stars will ever be answered?

25
Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: February 16, 2021, 04:31:26 PM »
Make sure when you quote wave heights of 4-8 feet that the height is correctly quoted - does that height measure from water level to wave crest or is it from trough to crest? The second case means the wave height is half that of the first case. AATW’s diagrams don’t illustrate wave behaviour correctly, the troughs don’t all follow the same depth of water unless a shorebreak is being illustrated and the observer is in danger of being swept away.

26
Raza, if the helicopter hovered over the earth for 10 hours i bet it would still move east (opposite the earths rotation) even with normal wind conditions because the atmosphere still must trail the earth because it is a gas after all.

Do you think so? If you put a mixing rotor like a food mixer’s paddle in a bowl of water and start it going for 5 hours, does the water still spin slower than the paddle by the end? It does, because the bowl isn’t turning and that drag of the bowl slows the water down.

But with a round earth there’s nothing containing the air, so what apart from the earth drags on the air? What is to slow the air from turning with the earth, at the same turning rate as the earth?

27
Hi, the distance is the same.  I dont like to question well documented distance measurements on earth.

That’s probably wise, thank you.

28
All the usual talk of flights is all very well, but to bring the discussion down to earth I’d like to ask MetaTron what the distance on this new map is from Moscow to Vladivostock, as taken by the Trans Siberian Railway, overland. The route passes through Kirov, Yekaterinberg, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude, Svobodny and Khabarovsk to name a few places along the way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway

The actual distance is going to be a little longer than the direct measurement because the train route isn’t perfectly straight, but what sort of distance do you make it on your new map?

29
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 05, 2021, 09:43:47 AM »
There is also no accounting for Tom arguing star trails are oval or elliptical, while the wiki article AATW quoted, which Tom created in 2019 and has subsequently edited on several occasions, insists star trails are circles. It’s difficult to take him seriously here.

30
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 04, 2021, 07:43:52 PM »
I finally got a clear night and managed to capture some star trails.  I couldn't get to a really good location for a full sky view that wasn't blocked in some way, that will have to wait for spring.

I made sure that Polaris was centered in the frame so there would be no barrel distortion.

Tom never said how long the star trails need to be for his procedure, but hopefully these are long enough.

As you can see, these are circular.  They are not oval, they are not massively distorted, they do not look anything like the bridge pictures that were shown.

I made no distortion corrections to this image. It's not warped in any way. I did crop it and removed the horizon.

Overall I'm pretty happy with this, it shows what I wanted and is just in general, pretty to look at. I never took star trails perfectly centered before, I always tried to frame the picture to be interesting. So this was fun.

This experiment proves (if only to myself) that star trails are indeed circular. I know the camera, lens, setting and everything done to this image so there can be no doubt in my mind.  If anyone has questions, feel free to ask.



Yep, nice job. ;D  I make the angle of rotation around 63 degrees, so using Bob Knodel's handy aide-memoire that makes an exposure of around 4 hrs 12 minutes?  That image would illustrate the wiki article quite nicely.

31
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: February 03, 2021, 07:15:05 AM »
See the red arrows as I would expect the beams to be:



No. Vertical structures tilt if the camera is crooked and not parallel with the surface.

Whereas the star paths are unaffected? You see what you just said? Wow.

32
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 29, 2021, 07:54:56 AM »
Tom, you haven’t made a convincing case. The star trail simulation isn’t convincing either; I have never seen the sun or moon rise or set at accelerated rates like in the simulation, nor does either sun or moon elongate as seen rising and setting in the simulation, so that won’t wash. Quoting a video on refraction showing refractive effects within a degree or so of the horizon doesn’t prove your case for the whole sky either.

The OP’s question is still unanswered, why do stars which supposedly circle above earth set?

33
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 28, 2021, 09:57:22 AM »
I haven't seen much evidence that the stars move in concentric circles.

From the pic in the OP, using a symmetrical circle tool:


Another pic:



Your “symmetrical circle tool” isn’t drawing circles from the same centre each time, nor is it centered on the rotation centre of the sky in either image.

While we’re discussing photos of the stars, have you made sure these images were made with a perfectly rectilinear lens, one that was distortion-free? It would help your case to know.

34
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?
« on: January 26, 2021, 07:34:45 PM »
Not sure where this video was taken but you can see Ursa Major any time of the year and time of the night in all of the US. I live in southeast US around 30 latitude and I know this to be true. This shouldn’t be possible on RE.

First of all, by Ursa Major, do you mean all of the constellation or just the Big Dipper? The Dipper, also known as the Plough, although part of Ursa Major, is not the whole constellation.

Second, from a SE USA location like Albany, Ga (picked at random for its 31deg N latitude) most of Ursa Major dips below the horizon for a few hours in each 24, Dubhe skimming the northern horizon. At this time of year it’s mostly above the horizon by 8pm local time and doesn’t dip below the horizon at all before sunrise.

Lastly, from Miami (about 25deg N), Ursa Major disappears entirely below the northern horizon during part of each day.

On what grounds should any of this be impossible??

35
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 23, 2021, 08:18:54 PM »
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis

'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.

The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.

I am trying to think what possible explanation the FE proponents can come up with but honestly nothing short of magic comes to me. I wouldn't want to be in their spot  8)

I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge  ;)

I don’t think it’s possible in real life.  What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross.

Cut the stargazers a little slack: the False Cross is dimmer and has four stars, not five like Crux (Southern Cross). There are no Pointer stars like Alpha and Hadar/Beta Centauri (third and eleventh brightest stars in the sky) to guide the observer to the False Cross, instead of the small, very bright constellation of Crux. Furthermore, Crux is much nearer the Pointers already mentioned than Canopus, the second brightest star of all: the False Cross is much closer to Canopus than the Pointers.

Maybe you or I would pick the wrong constellation otherwise, but to assume people in the south don't know their own night sky is presumptious.



https://www.constellation-guide.com/false-cross/

36
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal
« on: January 22, 2021, 08:33:39 PM »
If the beam starts off low in the tube and ends up high in the tube at the other end it would be the same result if they angled the beam slightly upwards at the receiver on a flat earth or the earth curved downwards on a round one.
..........
The components had to be aligned at some point to get it to work. The point is that on an FE there is no physical obstruction preventing a path regarding how they accounted for 'earth curvature'.

The beams actually bounce back and forth a lot in each arm before the measurement, each travelling 1120km before final merge and detection, so the necessary precision is a lot higher than you seem to think. Aligned “at some point” indeed!

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/ligo-technology

37
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 21, 2021, 10:19:39 PM »
Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America is going to be in twilight, allegedly. You can't see stars in times of twilight.

The claim that these cities you listed are going to see the same stars at the same time is tenuous at best.

Actually you can, and the daylight charts you supplied give part of the answer, if you read the article on the different types of twilight:–

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/different-types-twilight.html

you'll read there that most stars are visible in astronomical twilight. Both horizon and the brighter stars are visible in nautical twilight - which is why it's called nautical twilight - and can be used by sailors for navigation. Civil twilight completes the picture. All three types and their extents are shown on the daylight charts:–




Ushaia and Cape Town at the time shown in the chart above are both on the transition from nautical to astronomical twilight so stars will be visible at both locations at the same time.


I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis, it's quite useless for navigation, being on the limits of naked eye visibility even in full darkness. Sailors and other navigators used brighter stars for navigation, such as those of the Southern Cross (Crux) which has two very bright stars: Acrux, the 13th brightest in the sky, and Mimosa, the 20th brightest. Crux is visible from Ushaia and Cape Town simultaneously, and in June is visible from Ushaia and Perth, Western Australia simultaneously.

38
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 17, 2021, 01:23:00 PM »
None of the older civilizations that navigated by the stars used the Southern Cross.  It wasn’t used until the 16th century and wasn’t named till the 19th century. And they mapped the constellations in a circle around Polaris. And months of the year you can see them. Shouldn’t most of Southern Hemisphere always see year round the constellations that are close to the South Pole? Like the small/Big Dipper?

And there are a lot of stars that make up a cross that points opposite of the North Pole.
I tried to add a photo showing multiple crosses that point south but I still haven’t figured out how to post a picture.  :'(

Are you quite sure about the star-navigating nations? Perhaps the Polynesians don’t count, but they had colonised as far east as Fiji by around 2,000 years ago and as far as Easter Island by about 700AD. They also colonised Aotearoa (New Zealand) by 1000AD. All of these south of the Equator and Polaris invisible below the horizon. Captain Cook records a Polynesian navigator who had a mental image of thousands of miles of the South Pacific in his head which Cook wrote down to aid his own explorations and found remarkably accurate.

The Polynesians certainly knew the Southern Cross: the Hawaiians called it Hanaiakamalama.

39
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The moon illuminated oddly?
« on: January 17, 2021, 08:37:14 AM »
The temperature of the ground is cooler in moonlight than it is the shade. I’ve tested this several times in several different places with an infrared thermometer.  My test always 4-5f degrees cooler in the light of a full moon.

I’ve noticed something similar recently - in recent frost the ground was frozen hard in the open but not frozen under the pines. Only problem is there was no moon that night, so that effect is seen whether there is moonlight or not.

40
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 16, 2021, 10:42:56 PM »
...You would be arguing why someone can see the southern stars at the same time in South America and Africa in the Monopole model. Usually when it's day in one location it's night in the other...

You should check your facts: at this moment it is dark in Cape Town, South Africa and will be for another five hours. Sunset in Ushaia, Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America is in less than half an hour and it will be another seven hours plus before sunrise there tomorrow. That's about five hours' overlap of darkness for the two locations and in their summer when their nights are shorter.

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/south-africa/cape-town
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia

Pages: < Back  1 [2] 3 4 ... 9  Next >