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 - IronHorse

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: August 10, 2020, 09:24:00 PM »
but the very simplest theory to explain that observation is that the earth is (approximately) spherical.

I agree.  And generally speaking since the simplest is also likely to be the most obvious, then best go with that as an explanation until someone comes up with something better (or more simple) wouldn't you say? 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The North Star
« on: August 10, 2020, 06:54:54 PM »
That's fine during the day but you also need to navigate at night.  How do you navigate in the southern hemisphere at night when the Sun ain't visible and being south of the equator there is no Polaris?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Erathosnes on Diameter (from the Wiki)
« on: August 09, 2020, 09:04:55 PM »
Why do you find it necessary to question something which is so blatantly obvious to 99.9% of the population?  Do you just like to argue about things for the sake of it?  Or it is just a case of you like to think you are right and everyone else is wrong?

Honestly Tom there are bigger problems to solve in the world than why the Sun rises and sets.  We solved that one a LONG time ago. It doesn't take a genius to work it out.

The fact is that you are insisting on your assumption

No I am not.  I am simply watching something happen in the sky (on a daily basis) and coming to a logical conclusion as to why it happens.  Why don't you try it sometime rather than trying to re-invent how science explains the simplest of observations.   

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Erathosnes on Diameter (from the Wiki)
« on: August 09, 2020, 07:12:22 PM »
We observe that the sun sets, therefore there must be a mechanism which makes this happen.

We do indeed. Seeing the Sun setting in the west and rising in the east must be among the most observed sky phenomenon out there.  I think most people the world over understand why the Sun rises and sets.  As did the ancient Greeks (and probably civilisations before them).  However it seems that understanding hasn't manifested itself on Tom Bishop yet.  He prefers to call it a 'mechanism'.

I guess this is the result of refusing to accept that the Earth is anything else but flat.  In other words it is a self-created problem.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spotlight Sun
« on: June 17, 2020, 08:15:45 PM »
Please remember that you're expected to familiarise yourself with the basics before posting here. If you can't do that, do not post here.

What is the purpose of forums Pete?  The idea is that people who don't know things - even the 'basics' - can ask others with more experience and knowledge and get the answers.  Basic is also a relative term based on an individuals prior knowledge. Things that are basic in astronomy to me I realise are not to others.  We learn by sharing knowledge don't we?

If anyone wants to gain knowledge about FE theory then their research is unavoidably limited to FE websites and forums. I could ask on a mainstream physics forum instead but I am likely to be told where to go in no uncertain terms.

There doesn't seem to be any basic information about EA to help me 'familiarise' myself with those basics.  hence I ask the question.  For someone who has obviously got a very good knowledge of all the 'basics' you seem remarkably unwilling to share your knowledge with those less experienced.  You don't hold back though at all with your condescending and patronising comments. If you are not willing to answer questions yourself then at least point us to where that information is so we can follow your invitation to educate ourselves.

If the information was there in the first place people wouldn't need to ask the questions.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spotlight Sun
« on: June 17, 2020, 07:00:39 PM »
So what property of EA causes light to bend as FE claims then?  It certainly seems quite magical to me.   It is certainly not conventional as per the normal laws of refraction that I know. Hence my use of the word magical. My use of the term was more metaphorical rather than literal.

Starlight is certainly affected by atmospheric refraction. No question about that. But that amounts to minutes of arc at best rather than the extensive bending that EA seems to manage according to the Wiki.  I can find plenty of detailed descriptions about how refraction causes a deflection of the direction of a light ray along with equations which tell me by how much in mediums of different density.  But I cannot find any similarly detailed information about how EA bends light in the way that FE asserts it does. A Google search does present links to information that talks about acceleration of charged particles in an electromagnetic field but there is a big difference between a photon which isn't a particle and hence cannot be charged and a charged particle such as a proton or electron.  None of the information I have found provides an explicit description of how EA causes us to see the phases of the Moon or the Sun to rise or set? 

So is it case of you've just made that up because it sounds good or have you any actual evidence to back up the claimed connection between EA and the Sun and Moon?

And as far as gaps in my knowledge of FE is concerned I hardly consider myself alone in that.  Well sorry Pete but like anyone else in the world I don't claim to know everything and that is the purpose of asking questions and indeed these forums isn't it.  Whether those questions ever get answered or not seems to depend on who reads them.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spotlight Sun
« on: June 17, 2020, 04:22:48 PM »
So EA gives this magical bending ability to light from the Sun such that it can curve around just enough to illuminate the Moon and yet starlight seems to be quite unaffected by it.

If light from the stars was affected by EA as well then I can only imagine what the night sky would look like.

Flat Earth Theory / Spotlight Sun
« on: June 17, 2020, 09:42:09 AM »
Reading Toms post under FE Projects about updating the entry for the Sun under the FAQ page it reminded me of a question I wanted to ask in relation to the Sun. I didn't feel it was right to post this question as a reply to that so created this separately.

On the FAQ page of the Wiki, we see an animated GIF showing the Sun and Moon revolving around the NP.  From the impression given by the animation it seems that sunlight only shines down on the Earth (to create day time). 

If the Sun is casting light only downwards on the Earth but only to a specific region, then what is illuminating the Moon?  If you compare the size of area of the Earth surface covered by sunlight with the distance between the Sun and the Moon then it is clear that the Moon lies beyond the range of sunlight.

If sunlight is not being cast downwards only (illuminating the Moon as well as it is) then it will illuminate the whole of the Earths surface according to the diagram as there is nothing to prevent it from doing so.  Hence there could be no night time.

Let's be clear.  We don't make the laws of nature or the laws of the Universe ourselves.  Our existence in the Universe is very, very recent. Science represents mans efforts to understand how the Universe works and I think in the very short period of time we've had to work it all out, we are not doing a bad job at all.

FE have their own version of 'science' which seems to based on 'seeing is believing' and nothing more than that.  But not everything in nature is as it seems to us visually so you cannot rely on your senses alone.  It would be so much easier if you could! To my mind FE theory is based on nothing more than what some people want to believe. If you want to believe in something then to you it will seem to be true. It certainly creates a relationship between eye and mind within the individual so that it makes what you believe in seem to be true and real. Call it selective mind filtering.

This is why flat Earthers have an objection to mainstream science. It conflicts with their beliefs. For that reason alone it must be wrong. Science never claims to know all the answers or to be right about stuff all the time every time. It would be boring if it was. The difference is that scientists don't restrict what they accept as true to what they want to believe.  If new evidence comes to light which shows that a theory or hypothesis needs to be changed or updated then that is taken on board, tested and re-tested. If the new data turns out to be true the hypothesis is modifed and we move forward.  That's how we learn.   Gravity is the classic example. Under normal, everyday conditions Newtonian gravity is quite adequate but under relativistic conditions, Einstein provided a better explanation.

If a star can orbit the Galactic centre at 858,000km/h then what is to say 8 planets and countless asteroids and comets bound by gravity to that star cannot as well?  Perfectly acceptable to science.

You couldn't be more wrong as you fail to understand the point made by somerled.

I'm so sorry.... perhaps you could point out the bit that you think I misunderstand?

If the sun is moving at a speed of 828,000 kmh, that means the planets are somehow locked in a plane at the same constant rate, with the amazing Pluto keeping its 17 degree angle...

Speed is really irrelevant in space because there is no air to cause any resistance.  So there is nothing remarkable about 828,000 km/h to me. I'm glad you find a few scientific facts amusing. I'm sure I will probably react in the same way towards whatever your explanation is.

Your screen name seems to be quite appropriate to what you obvious know (nor don't) about how things work in space. 

In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

There is nothing strange about it.  All the planets orbit the Sun in very nearly the same plane.  The most out of line is Pluto with an orbital inclination of 17 degrees.  Solar systems develop from accretion disks which form around the equatorial planes of stars.  The Sun isn't the only case of that..we can see such disks around other stars too.

The plane of the solar system is then inclined at 63 degrees relative to the galactic centre and so as the Sun orbits the Galaxy and carries with the planets along with it (the Sun being the closest and most significant mass in the proximity so no surprise there) and so if you take the path through space of the planets yes they would take the form of a corkscrew.

The Sun takes 230 odd million years to orbit the Galaxy so within the timescale of a human life that is barely detectable.  But the Earth only takes one year to orbit the Sun and that most certainly is noticeable and in my opinion the heliocentric model explains all that very nicely thank you.

The link I gave you, you will notice provides the same account for stellar aberration as a lot of websites do.  So I hardly think they are all wrong.

Yes of course the light from stars gets 'jiggled around' as your link says. But that has nothing to do with the cyclical movement or aberration of starlight and that article doesn't suggest it does. The word aberration doesn't appear once in that article.

If you'd care to look up Stellar aberration yourself you will discover that there are many websites which describe it as the same thing. It is caused by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

It isn't unusual for FE to try and twist or misconstrue the information contained in science based websites to try and make it seem to fall more in line with what they want to believe.

Here is a description of what aberration of starlight is and how it is caused.

Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

How does the geocentric model explain things better in your opinion then? 

I would be interested to know then for example how you would account for the widely observed and measured annual aberration of starlight if the Earth is not orbiting the Sun as you will obviously claim.  No doubt you will just say that has just been fabricated or made up somehow. The FE account for the nature of the stars (vague as it is) would make the RE account for what causes the aberration impossible. But then the amount of aberration of stars varies with their location on the sky. Exactly in line with predictions based on the heliocentric model.

you don't measure things with videos or photographs

Isn't that just your opinion?

The internet has undoubtedly made it a lot easier for flat Earthers to connect with each other and exchange ideas and claims. However as AATW points out as long as ideas and theories are only exchanged mainly within the flat Earth community through forums like this, how is that going to help you if you have aspirations to seriously try and compete with the mainstream, popular stage of science? 

Do you want to try and widen the size of the audience that is accepting about your flat Earth beliefs or are you happy to simply carry on running of each other as you currently are?  In which case I can't see things ever changing for you. Talking to the converted is all well and good but it won't get you anywhere.

Of course broadcasting what you believe alone is no guarantee of acceptance. If you are to target the mainstream science stage then you need to present evidence that works to back up your claims. That I think is going to be much harder because so far flat Earthers are much better at claiming than they are at showing. Relying on weak examples about canals, flags and flat horizons is not going to get you anywhere on the main stage.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 10, 2020, 12:06:33 PM »
All celestial bodies (that we know) share UA, but UA is not the only contributing factor to their motion.

So what are these other contributing factors to their motion?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Doubt in Universal Acceleration
« on: June 09, 2020, 11:06:44 PM »
Compared to a laboratory spectrum Tom.  In lab we can measure and observe a spectral line at its natural wavelength. If a light source is moving away from Earth the light waves will be stretched and therefore a spectral line will appear at a redder (longer) wavelength that it actually is, and the reverse is true for a light source travelling towards us.

It's just doppler effect except at the wavelengths of light rather than sound.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 06, 2020, 06:28:27 PM »
The only way in which the path of a light ray can be bent is by the process of refraction.  The amount of refraction (deviation from its original path) is a function of both the wavelength of light involved and the difference in densities of the mediums involved. This gives us a ratio known as the refractive index.

Note that even refraction does not cause a light ray to follow a curved path (as seems to be implied by the diagrams of FE electromagnetic acceleration) but rather it changes instantaneously the direction of an otherwise straight path.

As I pointed out earlier the atmosphere causes a slight refraction effect because air is denser than the vacuum of space beyond and the density of the atmosphere decreases with height above the surface.  I also mentioned how this refraction effect is very small compared to the amount of bending that the FE Wiki seems imply takes place as per

Rather it is in the order of arc minutes which would be barely noticeable to the naked eye.  Here's a graph to show how the amount of refraction (in arc minutes) varies with altitude in degrees.

Videos have been posted before by FE'ers claiming to provide evidence the 'bending' of light such as this one

But of course that is not the light bending but an example of light undergoing total internal reflection within the flow of water coming out of the bottle.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 06, 2020, 11:27:30 AM »
Does it matter who you were responding to? 

You are the one who said it is extremely unlikely that light travels in straight lines so I am asking you to explain why you consider it to be so unlikely. There is a lot of evidence out there that suggests it does travel in straight lines.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 06, 2020, 10:50:50 AM »
I don't think my asking you to explain your claim that it is 'extremely unlikely' that light travels in straight lines comes under the definition of burden of proof.  So why then Pete do you consider that it is not just unlikely but extremely unlikely that light travels in straight lines when there is a lot of evidence our there that show us it does. The use of lasers in architecture and construction for example relies on the basis that light travels in straight lines.

Light rays can be made to bend by travelling through mediums of different densities. That is called refraction. If a light ray were to travel through a vacuum over whatever distance where the density within that vacuum is constant then the ray would continue to travel in a straight line. Why wouldn't it?

The software that I use to build an all sky pointing model for my telescope mount takes into account the amount of light refraction caused by the atmosphere at different altitudes above the horizon and makes a correction for it.  Here is a description of how it works... note the references to refraction.

It amounts to a few minutes of arc at most which is less than the size of the FOV and decreases with distance from the horizon.  But even for a star at say 10-20 degrees altitude the amount of refraction is much, much less than the amount of light bending apparently proposed by your EA hypothesis to explain the rising and setting of the Sun or the phases of the Moon. 

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Occams razor according to Flat Earth
« on: June 06, 2020, 08:30:14 AM »
Pete, could you give us your reasons why you think it is 'extremely unlikely' that light travels in straight lines please?

Pages: [1] 2  Next >