The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: manicminer on February 22, 2019, 12:32:33 PM
-
Under the 'Distance to the Sun' section of FEW, one of the answers given includes the statement...
The celestial bodies must be close because if the shape of the earth changes, the distance to the celestial bodies must change as well
How then does the shape of the Earth change? Is the Earth made of jelly or blamange then?!? I know the Earth wobbles over time but not like that!
-
It changes between models, not in one model. All that means is that one shouldn't expect the same distances in FET that get defended in RET.
-
If that is the case then perhaps they should make that a bit clearer. Leads me to ask then how many versions of the FE model are there? Inconsistency is never a good sign when it comes to getting acceptance for a hypothesis.
-
If that is the case then perhaps they should make that a bit clearer. Leads me to ask then how many versions of the FE model are there? Inconsistency is never a good sign when it comes to getting acceptance for a hypothesis.
It's perfectly clear if you're not actively looking for dumb misinterpretations. In RET the distance to the celestial bodies is huge. If the shape of the Earth changes to flat, that is if you change models to FET, it's not as huge.
-
That is basically what I don't understand about the whole flat Earth hypothesis. When there is so much evidence stacked against them I can't help but be curious about why they continue to insist that their flat Earth idea is right. Dismissing all evidence that happens to discredit what you want to believe in as fake (I'm taking mostly about images taken from space that SHOW the Earth is round) is a classic 'stick your head in the sand' case but it won't change what is true.
There are loads of ways of proving that the stars and galaxies are all very remote but why should I waste my time explaining why when I know the FE brigade will simply dismiss it.
-
There are loads of ways of proving that the stars and galaxies are all very remote but why should I waste my time explaining why when I know the FE brigade will simply dismiss it.
I could say the same. Why should we take the time to explain why we dismiss it, if the RE brigade's just going to view it as "Dismissing all evidence that happens to discredit what you want to believe in as fake."
-
There are loads of ways of proving that the stars and galaxies are all very remote but why should I waste my time explaining why when I know the FE brigade will simply dismiss it.
I could say the same. Why should we take the time to explain why we dismiss it, if the RE brigade's just going to view it as "Dismissing all evidence that happens to discredit what you want to believe in as fake."
There are loads of ways of proving that the stars and galaxies are all very remote but why should I waste my time explaining why when I know the FE brigade will simply dismiss it.
I could say the same. Why should we take the time to explain why we dismiss it, if the RE brigade's just going to view it as "Dismissing all evidence that happens to discredit what you want to believe in as fake."
Because people who claim something then dismiss evidence to the contrary, who then walk away from the argument/debate feeling like they won makes those people look like drunken children. Take Tom Bishop for example, when he loses a debate, instead of conceding and becoming a better, more educated person he just stops replying, then continues elsewhere in a different topic with different people spouting the same old stuff, like he was never proven wrong before.
You get nowhere by dismissing everything that disagrees with you and I do understand that the average "round earthers" can be similar (because lets face it the general public are morons who've also never researched anything to do with the globe), at least there are some people who are educated and willing to accept evidence that goes against their ideas. No flat earth seems to concede. Every flat earther I've come across *always* puts their head in the sand when faced with evidence of a globe.
FE'ers can keep claiming "fake" and CGI" or dismiss every scientific paper because "scientists are in on it" (then cherry pick from those same papers to try prove flat earth) but it doesn't make the evidence go away. Denying facts doesn't make it fiction.
-
You get nowhere by dismissing everything that disagrees with you and I do understand that the average "round earthers" can be similar (because lets face it the general public are morons who've also never researched anything to do with the globe), at least there are some people who are educated and willing to accept evidence that goes against their ideas. No flat earth seems to concede. Every flat earther I've come across *always* puts their head in the sand when faced with evidence of a globe.
FE'ers can keep claiming "fake" and CGI" or dismiss every scientific paper because "scientists are in on it" (then cherry pick from those same papers to try prove flat earth) but it doesn't make the evidence go away. Denying facts doesn't make it fiction.
As far as I'm concerned every REer does that too. REers love to caricature our answers the way you put it, and then twist any actual FE explanation to fit that narrative with no regard for what they actually said.
-
As far as I'm concerned every REer does that too. REers love to caricature our answers the way you put it, and then twist any actual FE explanation to fit that narrative with no regard for what they actually said.
Every? I mean, I'm not denying some do, but I don't think I've done that.
The description of Tom above is exactly what he does. I have never, not once, cede any ground in any discussion.
But I've seen him walk away from discussions a bunch of times when he's lost the argument, only to pop up again in the next thread about the same topics with the exact same arguments. Just recently he questioned why objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. I did the maths for him to explain him and I used to result to calculate the value of g fairly accurately. He didn't respond, he just walked away from the thread.
The original post in this thread is nit-picking. I think what the Wiki is saying is pretty clear. Were the earth flat then you'd get a different result for the distance to the sun and it would be close (compared with the accepted 93 million mile value). But a close sun doesn't work for other reasons - if the earth were that close then its angular speed and size would vary over the course of the day but that isn't what we observe. FE uses some fudge about lights magnifying but the examples given in the Wiki show glare, filtered images of the sun eliminate this and show a consistent angular size and that means a consistent distance. RE doesn't need any of these fudges, the earth rotating and a distant sun explain all this perfectly.
-
OK JRowe, you seem to be on the FE side so how do you account for Cepheid variables and Type1a supernovae as standard candles in distance measurement of stars? FET seems to go by the belief that they are just a few thousand miles above the plane of a flat Earth. Interesting idea to say the least.
And AllAroundTheWorld I would disagree with your claim that I am 'nit-picking'. I think a lot of Wiki claims are a bit ambiguous and hardly clear in their wording. Probably deliberately vague just like the wording of horoscopes.
-
Every? I mean, I'm not denying some do, but I don't think I've done that.
The description of Tom above is exactly what he does. I have never, not once, cede any ground in any discussion.
But I've seen him walk away from discussions a bunch of times when he's lost the argument, only to pop up again in the next thread about the same topics with the exact same arguments. Just recently he questioned why objects fall at the same rate regardless of their mass. I did the maths for him to explain him and I used to result to calculate the value of g fairly accurately. He didn't respond, he just walked away from the thread.
Maybe, maybe he gets tired of explaining the same things and the RE responses which you take as victory were already responded to in his post. I can't tell you how many times I've had to deal with that. Of course he'd give the same arguments if nothing new's being offered, and REers rarely have anything new to offer, just a handful of stock arguments they repeat with minimal understanding and so cannot develop.
OK JRowe, you seem to be on the FE side so how do you account for Cepheid variables and Type1a supernovae as standard candles in distance measurement of stars? FET seems to go by the belief that they are just a few thousand miles above the plane of a flat Earth. Interesting idea to say the least.
Case in point. What is there to account for? They're not going to be standard candles in FET, stars are not going to function the same way. Just like the wiki, there's no ambiguity if you actually engage your brain.
-
No, it is true of what is being said about Tom. I debated him about the use of phosphorus as a cure for diseases. I gave mounds of evidence that phosphorus is just a nerve tonic, similar in use as a pain reliever such as Tylenol or Advil. He cited 100 year old sources the he claimed proved it was a cure for diseases of neuralgia. I cited sources in modern medical references that state neuralgia is just nerve pain. It is not a disease. Yet, he refused to back down from his claim.
-
OK JRowe, you seem to be on the FE side so how do you account for Cepheid variables and Type1a supernovae as standard candles in distance measurement of stars? FET seems to go by the belief that they are just a few thousand miles above the plane of a flat Earth. Interesting idea to say the least.
And AllAroundTheWorld I would disagree with your claim that I am 'nit-picking'. I think a lot of Wiki claims are a bit ambiguous and hardly clear in their wording. Probably deliberately vague just like the wording of horoscopes.
I can give you several rebuttals.
1. The star measurement systems are created by round earth systems which will, by default, only provide evidence which supports a round earth.
2. There is no flat earth star measurement system. There has not been millions of dollars of research and testing to build and test a flat earth start distance measuring system.
3. You are talking about a flat earth model which claims they are thousands of miles away. That's just one of many models. There are models which claim they are billions of light years away which is corroborated by measurements you are talking about.
4. The measurements you are discussing are funded by NASA or part of the round earth system and are incorrect, inaccurate, or misleading.
5. If the stars are a thousand miles away or ten thousand miles away the earth is still flat.
-
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
-
Case in point. What is there to account for? They're not going to be standard candles in FET, stars are not going to function the same way. Just like the wiki, there's no ambiguity if you actually engage your brain.
There is nothing wrong with my brain but thank you for your concern.
The accounts and descriptions of the stars and other factors of FET are just based on an ideology perceived by a minority. You might even call it a fantasy of sorts. Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae are real and their descriptions as standard candles are based on real data obtained through real observations. In other words hard fact. FET cannot offer any of that becuase of the reasons stated above.
You can imagine whatever you like and believe whatever you like but FET cannot compete with reality because it cannot provide real data and real evidence to support its claims.
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
ChrisTP, FE people will use the good old perspective trick to explain this one. You know.... the planes disappearing into the horizon thing. I know it doesn't quite add up but that seems to be the best they can come up with.
-
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
Why on earth would they be visible? I can't see down my street on some days, you can never see from NY to Paris on any day, you can't see the Sun 24/7, you can only see stars within a certain distance of you.
Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae are real and their descriptions as standard candles are based on real data obtained through real observations.
And false assumptions. It's all speculation based on the assumption of RET.
-
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
Why on earth would they be visible? I can't see down my street on some days, you can never see from NY to Paris on any day, you can't see the Sun 24/7, you can only see stars within a certain distance of you.
They should be visible. I can see much farther than just NY to Paris. Because on a flat earth, at sunrise, I can see a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun just above the horizon when it's directly overhead the eastern tip of Brazil, some 6000+ miles away.
-
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
Why on earth would they be visible? I can't see down my street on some days, you can never see from NY to Paris on any day, you can't see the Sun 24/7, you can only see stars within a certain distance of you.
They should be visible. I can see much farther than just NY to Paris. Because on a flat earth, at sunrise, I can see a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun just above the horizon when it's directly overhead the eastern tip of Brazil, some 6000+ miles away.
Does night just not exist for you?
-
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
Why on earth would they be visible? I can't see down my street on some days, you can never see from NY to Paris on any day, you can't see the Sun 24/7, you can only see stars within a certain distance of you.
They should be visible. I can see much farther than just NY to Paris. Because on a flat earth, at sunrise, I can see a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun just above the horizon when it's directly overhead the eastern tip of Brazil, some 6000+ miles away.
Does night just not exist for you?
Sure it does. So you're saying that I could see Paris from New York during the day?
-
And false assumptions. It's all speculation based on the assumption of RET
Variable star observations have got nothing whatsoever to do with RET. Why should they?
We are simply observing the brightness variation in certain stars and linking those with their intrinsic brightness. It was discovered that there was a link between the intrinsic brightness and the period or cycle duration of their variability. Since we can measure the observed brightness from Earth we have all the data we need to determine their distance. Anyone could do that with the right equipment. The fact is that all Cepheid variables are intrinsically very luminous, much more than the Sun is. In the order of 10,000 times more luminous in some cases. That means we can see them across very large distances. So we have been able to measure very accurately the distances to globular clusters and other galaxies.
From those observations we are able to determine that the stars are a lot further away than any FE model has suggested. So that leaves me to ask what data or measurements FE models are using to estimate the stated distance of the stars.
-
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
Why on earth would they be visible? I can't see down my street on some days, you can never see from NY to Paris on any day, you can't see the Sun 24/7, you can only see stars within a certain distance of you.
They should be visible. I can see much farther than just NY to Paris. Because on a flat earth, at sunrise, I can see a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun just above the horizon when it's directly overhead the eastern tip of Brazil, some 6000+ miles away.
Does night just not exist for you?
Sure it does. So you're saying that I could see Paris from New York during the day?
Um, no. Stop darting between topics, this started with you making a false claim about the stars easily shwon to be false by a myriad observations, including that of the Sun. When it comes to New York and Paris, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
Variable star observations have got nothing whatsoever to do with RET. Why should they?
Read the quote you objected to way back at the start. Actually think about it. Variable star observations have everything to do with what RET believes them to be. Without that supporting assumption, the observations cannot be used the way you claim. You are using the assumption that the stars are gaseous, huge etc etc to support the claim that they are gaseous, huge etc etc.
-
You are using the assumption that the stars are gaseous, huge etc etc to support the claim that they are gaseous, huge etc etc.
I am not assuming anything. I know they are and I can go into as much detail as you like about how it is known that stars are gaseous. As I type this I am actually looking at the Sun in the wavelength of Hydrogen Alpha which is showing me a lot of detail associated with an active region. By that I mean a region of heightened magnetic activity in the solar chromosphere. It also proves that there is a lot of hydrogen emission coming from the chromosphere at the wavelength of 656.28nm. So if the Sun was not gaseous in nature I wouldn't be able to see it right now.
The Suns spectrum is criss-crossed by many dark lines. These lines are caused by the absorption of light from the Sun at very specific or discrete wavelengths. The Hydrogen Alpha line is the most prominent line in the spectrum of Hydrogen gas. You can check this using a hydrogen gas tube and spectroscope. In that case you will see bright emission lines at the very same place as the dark lines in the Suns spectrum. That's how we know that Hydrogen exists in the atmosphere of the Sun. I can observe the H alpha light emitted by the Chromosphere using a filter that is specifically designed to all just that single wavelength through while blocking all other wavelengths.
If you are not interested to know this or believe it to be irrelevant then please let me know and I won't waste any more time explaining.
I don't know what assumptions you are making to convince yourself that the stars are anything other than gaseous. But if you want to believe that then that's entirely up to you.
What mechanisms in FET do you know of that explains what makes the stars visible?
-
I am not assuming anything. I know they are and I can go into as much detail as you like about how it is known that stars are gaseous. As I type this I am actually looking at the Sun in the wavelength of Hydrogen Alpha which is showing me a lot of detail associated with an active region. By that I mean a region of heightened magnetic activity in the solar chromosphere. It also proves that there is a lot of hydrogen emission coming from the chromosphere at the wavelength of 656.28nm. So if the Sun was not gaseous in nature I wouldn't be able to see it right now.
The Suns spectrum is criss-crossed by many dark lines. These lines are caused by the absorption of light from the Sun at very specific or discrete wavelengths. The Hydrogen Alpha line is the most prominent line in the spectrum of Hydrogen gas. You can check this using a hydrogen gas tube and spectroscope. In that case you will see bright emission lines at the very same place as the dark lines in the Suns spectrum. That's how we know that Hydrogen exists in the atmosphere of the Sun. I can observe the H alpha light emitted by the Chromosphere using a filter that is specifically designed to all just that single wavelength through while blocking all other wavelengths.
If you are not interested to know this or believe it to be irrelevant then please let me know and I won't waste any more time explaining.
I don't know what assumptions you are making to convince yourself that the stars are anything other than gaseous. But if you want to believe that then that's entirely up to you.
What mechanisms in FET do you know of that explains what makes the stars visible?
That's not how spectroscopy works. Again, you are assuming a gaseous sun. Spectroscopy can only reveal the composition of a gaseous Sun, anything solid and it only says what is between us and it.
https://fet.fandom.com/wiki/Spectroscopy_(Stars)
Personally I favour superheated metal, it's well known that causes illumination.
-
You can favour what you like my friend. I favour things I know are true and I don't need you to tell me how spectroscopy works.
I completely understand that you dismiss any evidence or proof that has a scientific base but thats your problem not mine.
-
Because people who claim something then dismiss evidence to the contrary, who then walk away from the argument/debate feeling like they won makes those people look like drunken children. Take Tom Bishop for example, when he loses a debate, instead of conceding and becoming a better, more educated person he just stops replying, then continues elsewhere in a different topic with different people spouting the same old stuff, like he was never proven wrong before.
Uh, you guys NEVER prove anything on this forum to contradict the sources given to you. It's like arguing with children who can't grasp the concept of evidence and the need to contradict it with equal or greater power.
-
Because people who claim something then dismiss evidence to the contrary, who then walk away from the argument/debate feeling like they won makes those people look like drunken children. Take Tom Bishop for example, when he loses a debate, instead of conceding and becoming a better, more educated person he just stops replying, then continues elsewhere in a different topic with different people spouting the same old stuff, like he was never proven wrong before.
Uh, you guys NEVER prove anything on this forum to contradict the sources given to you. It's like arguing with children who can't grasp the concept of evidence and the need to contradict it with equal or greater power.
Your confirmation bias is showing Tom. Neither side is going to believe the other easily, but you take it to a new level in your disbelief towards anything that contradicts FE. You not comprehending how something works is also not a reason for it to be incorrect. In addition, you have no concept of '..equal or greater power' when it comes to FE. You frequently require far higher standards of evidence for anything involving RE, regardless of if you recognize this fact. But this isn't a very conduce 'discussion' to attempt to have. It never goes anywhere because neither side is willing to give ground in most cases.
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
Why on earth would they be visible?
Why *wouldn't* they be visible? What breaks trigonometry such that the sun can set? I know some FEers subscribe to some curious form of perspective. I apologize for not having dug enough into your DE to know offhand how the sun manages to set upon it. But maybe a tl;dr?
-
I don't need to stand any ground because I know what I am taking about. Even if no one else here does even if perhaps they think they do. I wondered when Tom would suddenly appear out of the closet again and when he did the comments were exactly as I might expect from him.
I believe I have stated my position and provided evidence to support it.
-
How would you go about measuring the Southern Hemisphere skies stars from the northern hemisphere? Since the earth is flat it should be visible.
Why on earth would they be visible? I can't see down my street on some days, you can never see from NY to Paris on any day, you can't see the Sun 24/7, you can only see stars within a certain distance of you.
They should be visible. I can see much farther than just NY to Paris. Because on a flat earth, at sunrise, I can see a 3000 mile high, 32 mile wide sun just above the horizon when it's directly overhead the eastern tip of Brazil, some 6000+ miles away.
Does night just not exist for you?
Sure it does. So you're saying that I could see Paris from New York during the day?
Um, no. Stop darting between topics, this started with you making a false claim about the stars easily shwon to be false by a myriad observations, including that of the Sun. When it comes to New York and Paris, the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.
I'm not darting between topics. The question is how come I can see the sun when it's 6000 miles away (or the moon at night when it's 6000 miles away) yet I never can see the southern cross? No matter how hard I try with even any sort of a telescope. Just can't be done.
-
Fully understand what you are getting at Stack but just for the record, a telescope would not be ideal for spotting an entire constellation. Crux is the smallest of the 88 constellations but it still covers an area of sky too large to see in a telescope. A region within it yes but not the whole constellation. Binoculars would be better as larger FOV.
However I know what you are getting at so I will leave it there for a FEer to reply.
-
You can favour what you like my friend. I favour things I know are true and I don't need you to tell me how spectroscopy works.
I completely understand that you dismiss any evidence or proof that has a scientific base but thats your problem not mine.
You literally just ignored the scientific basis. You just want it to prove your conclusion because you heard someone use it in an argument, you don't actually understand it. How about you tell me specifically what part you disagree with, rather than this blatant evasion?
I'm not darting between topics. The question is how come I can see the sun when it's 6000 miles away (or the moon at night when it's 6000 miles away) yet I never can see the southern cross? No matter how hard I try with even any sort of a telescope. Just can't be done.
You can't see the Sun when it's that far away either. You can't see any spotlight when it's pointed down at a sufficient horizontal distance away. I don't know what you expect to see.
-
I'm not darting between topics. The question is how come I can see the sun when it's 6000 miles away (or the moon at night when it's 6000 miles away) yet I never can see the southern cross? No matter how hard I try with even any sort of a telescope. Just can't be done.
You can't see the Sun when it's that far away either. You can't see any spotlight when it's pointed down at a sufficient horizontal distance away. I don't know what you expect to see.
Sure I can. This time of year, from my location, the sunrise is over eastern Brazil, 6000 miles away from me.
And as far as spotlights go (didn't know that was part of your belief system) sure you can. Just like any spotlight that is not pointed at you.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eYJFCpW2kuE/WUV2fyqKdcI/AAAAAAAAAh4/3IjndAAgouQ0ooxqcGNRnLbOhWV5qwYzACLcBGAs/s1600/Spotlight.jpg)
(https://i0.wp.com/www.rtrproductions.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/search-light-hire.jpg?w=610)
-
You literally just ignored the scientific basis. You just want it to prove your conclusion because you heard someone use it in an argument, you don't actually understand it. How about you tell me specifically what part you disagree with, rather than this blatant evasion?
Comments clearly intended to provoke a reaction. Well I have said all I am going to or need to say on the subject so no more reactions from me.
-
Because people who claim something then dismiss evidence to the contrary, who then walk away from the argument/debate feeling like they won makes those people look like drunken children. Take Tom Bishop for example, when he loses a debate, instead of conceding and becoming a better, more educated person he just stops replying, then continues elsewhere in a different topic with different people spouting the same old stuff, like he was never proven wrong before.
Uh, you guys NEVER prove anything on this forum to contradict the sources given to you. It's like arguing with children who can't grasp the concept of evidence and the need to contradict it with equal or greater power.
The shape of the earth is proven.
-
Sure I can. This time of year, from my location, the sunrise is over eastern Brazil, 6000 miles away from me.
And as far as spotlights go (didn't know that was part of your belief system) sure you can. Just like any spotlight that is not pointed at you.
Spotlights are a general FE principle. Try looking at one when perspective has made it seem as close to the Earth as we observe near sunset.
You literally just ignored the scientific basis. You just want it to prove your conclusion because you heard someone use it in an argument, you don't actually understand it. How about you tell me specifically what part you disagree with, rather than this blatant evasion?
Comments clearly intended to provoke a reaction. Well I have said all I am going to or need to say on the subject so no more reactions from me.
This is childish. If you don't have a response just say so. Like your blatant evasion of my point wasn't meant to get precisely this reaction, you people always love that handy "I provoked you, but you got mad so you're wrong!" shtick.
For readers, the argument on spectroscopy you refused to justify:
https://fet.fandom.com/wiki/Spectroscopy_(Stars)
-
Uh, you guys NEVER prove anything on this forum to contradict the sources given to you. It's like arguing with children who can't grasp the concept of evidence and the need to contradict it with equal or greater power.
Dude. In this thread:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=13592.msg183526#msg183519
You asked why if gravity were a thing objects would accelerate at the same rate due to gravity regardless of mass. Your question shows your ignorance of physics. I replied explaining exactly why. Yes, objects of greater mass require greater force to accelerate them but the force of gravity exerted on an object is proportional to its mass
I proved that using classical mechanics the acceleration due to gravity is agnostic of mass and I even then plugged in the figures to derive the value of ‘g’. And that was the last we saw of you in that thread...
This is where real science wins. You can use it to explain observations and make predictions. It works.
Nothing can be proven to the level you demand simply because outside of the world of mathematics rigorous proof of anything is impossible. But it’s notable that you demand an impossible to meet standard of proof of anything which contradicts your world view and take on faith unquestioningly anything which confirms it.
-
Sure I can. This time of year, from my location, the sunrise is over eastern Brazil, 6000 miles away from me.
And as far as spotlights go (didn't know that was part of your belief system) sure you can. Just like any spotlight that is not pointed at you.
Spotlights are a general FE principle. Try looking at one when perspective has made it seem as close to the Earth as we observe near sunset.
Still doesn't explain why I can see the sun (or moon) when it's 6000 miles away. As well, 'perspective' doesn't explain it.
(https://i.imgur.com/119VIDR.gif)
-
Sure I can. This time of year, from my location, the sunrise is over eastern Brazil, 6000 miles away from me.
And as far as spotlights go (didn't know that was part of your belief system) sure you can. Just like any spotlight that is not pointed at you.
Spotlights are a general FE principle. Try looking at one when perspective has made it seem as close to the Earth as we observe near sunset.
Still doesn't explain why I can see the sun (or moon) when it's 6000 miles away. As well, 'perspective' doesn't explain it.
What part do you object to, that viewing a spotlight from the side means you can only see the light it casts rather than the lit surface itself, or that distant objects appear closer together meaning there's no visible light cast?
-
All this talk about the Sun and 6000 miles. Where does that figure come from?
-
Sure I can. This time of year, from my location, the sunrise is over eastern Brazil, 6000 miles away from me.
And as far as spotlights go (didn't know that was part of your belief system) sure you can. Just like any spotlight that is not pointed at you.
Spotlights are a general FE principle. Try looking at one when perspective has made it seem as close to the Earth as we observe near sunset.
Still doesn't explain why I can see the sun (or moon) when it's 6000 miles away. As well, 'perspective' doesn't explain it.
(https://i.imgur.com/119VIDR.gif)
The celestial bodies are projections on the atmosphere and don't change size. It appears that the author of that image did not read Earth Not a Globe or our Wiki on the matter, and is therefore invalid. The atmosphere isn't 3000 miles high. It is much closer. Looks like you need to find better sources that have actually researched what is being asserted.
-
The celestial bodies are projections on the atmosphere and don't change size.
Has this projection of celestial bodies on the atmoplane been experimentally verified? A link to such an experiment would be greatly appreciated.
-
The celestial bodies are projections on the atmosphere and don't change size.
Has this projection of celestial bodies on the atmoplane been experimentally verified? A link to such an experiment would be greatly appreciated.
Light beams have been verified to project onto the atmolayer.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Projection_of_Lasers
-
The celestial bodies are projections on the atmosphere and don't change size.
Has this projection of celestial bodies on the atmoplane been experimentally verified? A link to such an experiment would be greatly appreciated.
Light beams have been verified to project onto the atmolayer.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Projection_of_Lasers
The laser beams projecting those guide stars are clearly visible. No such beams are seen when observing the celestial bodies.
(https://www.eso.org/public/archives/images/potwmedium/potw1225a.jpg)
-
The celestial bodies are projections on the atmosphere and don't change size.
Has this projection of celestial bodies on the atmoplane been experimentally verified? A link to such an experiment would be greatly appreciated.
Light beams have been verified to project onto the atmolayer.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Projection_of_Lasers
Are the celestial bodies laser beams pointing down on to the atmolayer?
-
Light beams have been verified to project onto the atmolayer.
You can't just use 'evidence' from your own FW Wiki to claim that qualifies as verification. Independent sources needed.
The image of a laserbeam being emitted upwards from a telescope is how astronomers create an 'artifical star' to test for atmospheric turbulence. It has nothing to do with the natural night time stars. using the data from the artificial star astronomers can then program the active optics system to effectively shape the mirror so that it counteracts the turbulence.
The celestial bodies are projections on the atmosphere and don't change size.
Sorry Tom I have never heard anything quite so absurd. Do you really believe that?
The atmosphere starts off at sea level and the mesosphere eventually peters off at an altitude of about 100km where the vacuum of space takes over.
-
The celestial bodies are projections on the atmosphere and don't change size.
Some do. The planets do because as they orbit and we do the distance between us and them changes which means their apparent size does vary:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_diameter
Note again that there's a difference between what we can perceive and what we can measure...
-
Some do. The planets do because as they orbit and we do the distance between us and them changes which means their apparent size does vary:
Absolutely. Venus is possibly the best example here with its apparent size varying according to the orbital arrangement between itself and Earth.
http://astrobiker.de/astronomie/galerie/venusphasen.jpg