[JRowe]

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.

[manicminer]

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?

[JRowe]

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.

[manicminer]

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.

[Tom Bishop]

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.

[Curious Squirrel]

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?

[manicminer]

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. 

[stack]

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.

[manicminer]

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.

[JRowe]

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.

[stack]

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.

[manicminer]

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.

[inquisitive]

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.

[JRowe]

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)

[AATW]

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.

[stack]

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.

[JRowe]

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?

[manicminer]

All this talk about the Sun and 6000 miles.  Where does that figure come from?

[Tom Bishop]

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.

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.

[markjo]

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.