[Tom Bishop]

Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation

Where is your proof?

[Round fact]

Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation

Where is your proof?

Math and geometry.http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttri.gif  The North Pole angle C and Polaris, angle B form side a of a triangle. The FE is at a Right Angle to that side, which gives you the second side, side b. The line of sight gives the third side, side c. The furthest possible point for side c and b to meet is 12,000 miles from side a at Angle A. The angle of side a  is ALWAYS higher that side b. This means that Polaris, at night is always visible, as the SMALLEST possible angle for side c is 7 degrees ABOVE side c.

The link shows how it works and it provides a calculator to give the proper value for the angles

[Tom Bishop]

Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation

Where is your proof?

Math and geometry.http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttri.gif  The North Pole angle C and Polaris, angle B form side a of a triangle. The FE is at a Right Angle to that side, which gives you the second side, side b. The line of sight gives the third side, side c. The furthest possible point for side c and b to meet is 12,000 miles from side a at Angle A. The angle of side a  is ALWAYS higher that side b. This means that Polaris, at night is always visible, as the SMALLEST possible angle for side c is 7 degrees ABOVE side c.

The link shows how it works and it provides a calculator to give the proper value for the angles

Math alone doesn't prove anything about how the world works. Where are the experiments which prove that Polaris disappears at the equator?

[TotesNotReptilian]

Math alone doesn't prove anything about how the world works. Where are the experiments which prove that Polaris disappears at the equator?

Fair enough.

The positions of the stars, and their visibility based on latitude is well documented. Stellarium is an excellent tool for visualizing the location and movement of the stars. You can personally verify that it is correct at your location. If you think it is lying about the Southern Hemisphere, all you have to do is travel there and look up!

Edit: I have personally been in the southern hemisphere, and can confirm that the stars circle a point due south, instead of north. Polaris is no longer visible. But I know you won't take my word for it. So go there and see for yourself!

[Tom Bishop]

Stellarium

Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?

[Round fact]

Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation

Where is your proof?

Math and geometry.http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttri.gif  The North Pole angle C and Polaris, angle B form side a of a triangle. The FE is at a Right Angle to that side, which gives you the second side, side b. The line of sight gives the third side, side c. The furthest possible point for side c and b to meet is 12,000 miles from side a at Angle A. The angle of side a  is ALWAYS higher that side b. This means that Polaris, at night is always visible, as the SMALLEST possible angle for side c is 7 degrees ABOVE side c.

The link shows how it works and it provides a calculator to give the proper value for the angles

Math alone doesn't prove anything about how the world works. Where are the experiments which prove that Polaris disappears at the equator?

Again with blanket statement. One that is beyond senseless, its like going to the bank and saying they have your balance wrong, it is not $500 but $5,000,000 and the bank taking your word for it. The math proves the angles and angles prove that Polaris WOULD be seen, at night from as far south as the "Ice Wall" in the FET. Now if you really believe that to be an error, the burden is upon you to prove 4,000 years of proofs in geometry wrong.

So where, exactly, in the linked calculation is it wrong?


Prove the math wrong.

[Jura-Glenlivet]

Stellarium

Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?

Okay! I live in England. I watch the skies, I have this and it is 100% accurate here, anybody else from around the world?

[Tom Bishop]

Stellarium

Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?

Okay! I live in England. I watch the skies, I have this and it is 100% accurate here, anybody else from around the world?

Did you chart every star in the night sky in the last 2 hours since I last posted to prove that Stellarium is 100% accurate? 

[Jura-Glenlivet]

I tell you how I use it Tom, I walk my dogs at night across relatively dark fields, and I look up, I know most of the constelations but sometimes there are things I don't know or have forgot. I use this program or skyview on my phone, (the skyview is a bit glitchy) so I often sit down and review what I have seen as you can dial back the time to see it as it was, it even includes satellites that have gone over.
Or if it's clear I can look at what is out there before I go so I can specifically look for objects that should be there, it's accurate Tom, try it, I doubt the powers have designed it for just your sky, try a bit of zeteticism rather than obfuscation, you just might be amazed.

[Round fact]

Stellarium

Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?

Okay! I live in England. I watch the skies, I have this and it is 100% accurate here, anybody else from around the world?

Did you chart every star in the night sky in the last 2 hours since I last posted to prove that Stellarium is 100% accurate? 

Interesting. You demand RE provide proof, proof that you out of hand question or outright dismiss, all the while you provide nothing but blanket statements by people with at best questionable education. I searched for Dr. Rowbotham, and could find no sourced higher education, let alone the awarding of a Ph.D.

Once again I ask for you to detail the error in the geometry.

[TotesNotReptilian]

Stellarium

Did the open source programmers who made Stellarium really travel the world to chart which stars can and cannot be seen, or are they making it how they were taught in school?

Of course not. According to the FAQ, Stellarium plots data from the Hipparcos Catalog. Of course I have not personally verified every star position is accurate. That is ridiculous. However, I have never personally found an inaccuracy. If you think it is inaccurate, you need to provide some evidence.

[rabinoz]

Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation

Where is your proof?

You are just amazing!

• You claim UA causes what we call gravity. Where is your proof? I have evidence against it!
  
• "The Wiki" claims "In FET the planets are revolving around the sun, while the sun itself revolves around the Northern Hub." Where is your proof?
  
• "The Wiki" claims  "The Wind Currents are put into gradual motion by the attraction of the Northern and Southern Celestial Systems, which are grinding against each other as gears at the equator line."  Where is your proof?
  
• "The Wiki" claims "Retrograde motion occurs from the fact that the planets are revolving around the sun while the sun itself moves around the hub of the earth. This particular path the planets take makes it appear as if several of them make a loop along their journeys across the night sky."  Where is your proof?
  
• "The Wiki" claims "A Lunar Eclipse occurs about twice a year when a satellite of the sun passes between the sun and moon. This satellite is called the Shadow Object." Where is your proof?
  
• ]"The Wiki" claims "Knowing that as you recede North or South from the equator at equinox, the sun will descend at a pace of one degree per 69.5 miles."  Where is your proof that this actually occurs on the flat earth?

And nono, I would not think that observations by astronomers and other globe "scientists" acceptable as their celestial object measurements are based on the globe and lack of parallax of extreme distant objects. So their observations might be meaningless on a Flat stationary Earth.

The whole Flat Earth Hypothesis is riddled with statements about the Flat Earth with absolutely no proof offered.
Yet you demand proof of each detail we mention, even when they are "well accepted" and in many cases demonstrably true everywhere observations have been made.

Please observe a little consistency!

 

[Round fact]

The math proves the observation. The math disproves FET.

[Venus]

ONE degree south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris !!

Proof?

You are on the internet ... hook up with someone who lives just south of the equator in Brazil or Indonesia and ASK them !!! Or contact the Bosscha Observatory which is located 6.8 degrees south of the equator in Lembang, Java in Indonesia. I'm sure they will tell you whether they can see Polaris or not. http://bosscha.itb.ac.id/id/ is their website ... or you can contact them via their facebook page https://www.facebook.com/observatorium.bosscha

I have been to Jakarta which is 6 degrees south of the equator and you cannot see Polaris ... head for the country where the city lights don't impede your view and you can see stars ... but you CANNOT see Polaris. I know because I am an amateur stargazer - have been since childhood ... ahhh but that was decades before people stopped believing 2500 years of astronomy research and started to think that after a couple of hours spent watching FE videos on YouTube they knew more about the shape of the earth than hundreds of thousands of professional and amateur astronomers over 2500 years who have each spent thousands of hours every year closely observing our night skies and recording those observations.

Honestly ALL you have to do is buy a telescope and USE IT !! For a few hours every night for a few months !! You cannot learn anything from YouTube FE videos or this website !!
I'll tell you something else that happens when you are near the equator ... no twilight... one minute it is daylight and a few minutes later it is night ... boom !! The sun just falls into the sea and it is dark !!
I wonder how the FE Model explains that

Why don't you people travel??? Why don't you get off your computer and look at the night sky?? The ISS is even visible without a telescope !!

[Venus]

Making the claim is not proof. Proof requires independent conformation

Where is your proof?

Math and geometry.http://www.csgnetwork.com/righttri.gif  The North Pole angle C and Polaris, angle B form side a of a triangle. The FE is at a Right Angle to that side, which gives you the second side, side b. The line of sight gives the third side, side c. The furthest possible point for side c and b to meet is 12,000 miles from side a at Angle A. The angle of side a  is ALWAYS higher that side b. This means that Polaris, at night is always visible, as the SMALLEST possible angle for side c is 7 degrees ABOVE side c.

The link shows how it works and it provides a calculator to give the proper value for the angles

Math alone doesn't prove anything about how the world works. Where are the experiments which prove that Polaris disappears at the equator?

You don't need any experiments to prove that Polaris disappears just south of the equator ... all you need to do is travel to 1 degree south of the equator and open your eyes and look up at the night sky !!!
Observations... what astronomers have been doing for over 2500 years!!
Just like all you need to do to prove there isn't a damn wall around Antarctica is TRAVEL there !!!
That's another problem with you flat earthers ... I have yet to find any of you who have ever travelled ... ??
Are you scared of finding out the truth?