[juner]

This is a panoramic shot. If you don't understand what that means, then you can't use it to prove your point.

Do you know what a panoramic shot is?

[Novarus]

This is a panoramic shot. If you don't understand what that means, then you can't use it to prove your point.

Do you know what a panoramic shot is?

Yes, and since the camera here is at a fixed point taking a wide angle shot, it is expressing a curved view on a flat surface - the edges of the image experience more distortion than the centre - you can see this by the slight bump in the land at the bottom of the picture.
It's the same tactic he tried to use when posting pictures of soligraphs claiming they were conventional photos - it didn't work then and it won't work now.

Would you like to step in and defend the theory?

[Rounder]

Look at star trails from the equator:

Your photo was not taken at the equator.  If it had been, the star trails would be perpendicular to the horizon.

[Rounder]

Here is another startrail:

Fine, lets compare your two star-trail photos.  Notice that the stars in both photos appear to converge as they move toward a certain place in the frame, and diverge as they move away?  Notice where that spot is in both photos?  Center of frame.  Did your two photos point at the same place in the sky?  The changing scenery says NO.  That means the phenomena you claim is happening in the sky is actually happening in the camera.  Which everyone knows.  If it were happening in the sky, constellations would distort as they crossed the sky, but that doesn't happen.

Honestly, I wonder sometimes if you've ever even seen the sky.

[Novarus]

This perspective matches what you would see of you were inside a ball with stripes on it.
These pictures support the spherical model, not the Flat Earth theory.

[Tom Bishop]

This perspective matches what you would see of you were inside a ball with stripes on it.
These pictures support the spherical model, not the Flat Earth theory.

Are you proposing that there is an invisible pane of glass around the round earth with the stars painted on it?

[Novarus]

This perspective matches what you would see of you were inside a ball with stripes on it.
These pictures support the spherical model, not the Flat Earth theory.

Are you proposing that there is an invisible pane of glass around the round earth with the stars painted on it?

It's a visualisation called the celestial sphere - it's not meant to be taken literally, but from our frame of reference the effect is much the same.

What I am proposing is that you need to defend your theory that is still disintegrating while you leap on the slightest thing you think you can take as a victory.

Explain yourself.

[Nirmala]

There is another equally difficult to explain problem with the bipolar map which I present here in a new thread: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6083.0

In short, there are times when the areas of daylight on the bipolar map form a complete circle surrounding the area of nighttime darkness on the bipolar map. There is no path the sun can take over the flat earth represented in the bipolar map that would leave an area of darkness in the center of the earth while simultaneously lighting up the entire perimeter.

[Nirmala]

On another thread Tom Bishop says:

"Without experiments on the universe to tell us whether the underlying theories are true, you are just observing and interpreting. Astronomy is not a real science. Anyone can look at something and imagine up an explanation. The practice is a disgrace and really no better than Astrology."

and:

"Astronomers were certainly not putting the universe under controlled conditions when coming up with their theories. Chemists can put their subject matter under controlled experimentation to come to the truth of a matter. Astronomers cannot. That is why Chemistry is a science and why Astronomy is not.

It is said that Astronomy is an "observing science," but an observing science is not really a science at all. We need actual experiments that demonstrate theories to be true. Otherwise they are just stories, no different than the stories African tribes have for the nature of the stars above them."

So Tom, why then are you posting astronomical observations in this thread to support the flat earth theory? How are your astronomical observations of the sun and stars, and your interpretations of those observations in this thread different from the observations and interpretations that astronomers report? How are they different from the stories African tribes have to explain what they see in the sky? Do your demanding standards for what qualifies as proper scientific methods and evidence only apply to evidence presented by those who believe in a round earth? And therefore, are you exempt from your own standards for what makes evidence trustworthy?

[andruszkow]

And to add to that, observation = fact. Interpretation and theory = explanation, the "why" and "how" if you will. Experimentation = Confirming/refuting the explanation of "why" and "how".

I don't see how your methodology is any different than those utilized by the different scientific fields. The difference is how easy all of the flat earth theories are to refute at their current state.

[Baraccafuu]

yeah. no models for flat Earth (that i have seen) hold water to scrutiny...

I would think you need to focus on integrating a workable model before you dismiss the working model that we have in the globe.

the bipolar model has a point on the equator circling the flat Earth (the equatorial point at 180 longitude)
the unipolar model has what would be the point of the south pole circling the Flat Earth

neither works because they create the need for the sun to circle the perimeter whilst not giving light in the middle at certain times of year..

[Nirmala]

I look at the bipolar map as shown in the attachment below, and if I imagine the sun making a circle around the south pole as it is proposed that it does in the winter in the bipolar model described further up in this thread, there is a point on Dec. 21st when the sun is on the opposite side of the south pole from all of the continents in the northern hemisphere. At that distance, and again according to this model where the sun's light only reaches a certain distance on the flat earth (as described by Tom Bishop: "There is another mechanism which pushes the sun lower than it actually is, and limits its total visibility, and is a separate topic from this thread, and which there is evidence for. If this mechanism did not exist day and night could not exist, and the sun would be at all times above the surface of the earth."), then it would seem that none of the light would reach the northern hemisphere. Again in circling the south pole, the sun would be on the other side of the pole from all of the continents in the north, as shown in position B for at least part of every 24 hour day/night cycle.

This would result in the entire northern hemisphere being dark at the same time. That never happens even in the dead of winter. It is dark at the north pole for months at a time, but if you plot the positions of the sun as it circles the south pole, then at its closest position to the north pole, it would be at point A in the version of the map that is attached below. At its furthest position from the north pole it would be at position B, again in the attached image.

If at point A, the north pole is in total darkness, then at point B, all of the northern hemisphere (and even actually most of the land masses in the southern hemisphere would all be in darkness at the same time. This does not ever happen. It is never nighttime in the entire northern hemisphere at the same time.

To check this compare the distance from point A to the north pole, with the distances from all of the continents to point B. If the sun at point A does not light up the north pole, then the sun at point B would not light up most of the land masses on earth with the exception of the southern tips of South America, Africa and Australia. Everything else would be dark at that time of the day.

When has it ever been dark at the same time of the day in every city of North America, Europe, Asia and northern Africa and northern South America? Really? Nighttime in Honolulu, Los Angeles, New York, London, Paris, Cairo, New Delhi, Bangkok, Beijing, Tokyo and everywhere in between all at the same moment in time? That simply does not happen, ever. These cities span 18 time zones! When is it ever dark across 18 time zones at the temperate latitudes and also at the equator?

There is no path of the sun over a bipolar flat earth that can match the simplest patterns of daylight we observe every day in the winter in the northern hemisphere, where it is always daylight somewhere in the northern hemisphere, and is never simultaneously dark everywhere above the equator.

[Nirmala]

The flip side is also true. All of these same problems appear in the Southern Hemisphere when the sun circles the north pole in the bipolar model on June 21st.

And to top it all off, if the sun does not light up the north pole on Dec.21st at position A, then most of the west coast of America, and Japan and the Koreas would all be in a constant 24 hours of darkness on Dec. 21st. Again if the sunlight does not reach the north pole, then the same north/south dimensions of sunlight would mean these areas never receive daylight in the depth of winter as the sun moves along the path of the tropic of Capricorn as represented in the bipolar map. After all, Alaska is farther from the equator on this map than the north pole!

Now it has been said that the bipolar map is just an approximation and does not really represent the surface of the earth. But in order for the problem with all areas north of the equator receiving no light at position B to not occur, there would need to be areas of the northern hemisphere on the opposite side of Antarctica along with the sun at position B, so that as the sun reached position B it would still light up some areas of the northern hemisphere (it is always daylight somewhere in the northern hemisphere during the entire day on Dec. 21st...Anchorage, Reykjavik, Stockholm, Moscow and the Kamchatka Peninsula in northeast Russia all receive several hours of daylight on Dec. 21st, just at different times of the day.). Conversely, you would also need to put some land masses in the Southern Hemisphere on the opposite side of the north pole to take care of the daylight patterns in the south in June. There is no way to have the land masses in the north be located on both sides of the south pole and the land masses in the south be on both sides of the north pole, and still have all of the northern hemisphere continents be in the northern hemisphere, and also still have all of the southern hemisphere continents be in the south.....at least not on a bipolar flat earth map.

If you disagree, just show us how the map would look so that some areas in the north were in daylight when the sun is in position B. If you claim the area lit up by the sun in position B changes enough to light up some areas in the north due to changes in the height of the sun or the properties of the atmosphere, then those changes would mean that the area of daylight would have to also be lighting up the entire southern hemisphere, and also many of the areas in the north that are illuminated when the sun is at position A. Neither of those could be true, as it is never daylight simultaneously in the entire southern hemisphere. Also position B is 12 hours or so ahead or behind of position A and there are no areas in the north where daylight lasts more than 12 hours on Dec. 21st, and no areas in the north receive two separate periods of daylight in a single day.

It is easy to arrange the continents on a globe to account for observed patterns of daylight, which is why the areas of daylight on the globe appear just as they are predicted to and there are none of these insurmountable discrepancies in how daylight comes and goes that the flat earth model creates, no matter what flat earth map is referenced.

[Nirmala]

Another question arose on a different thread. If the sun is circling the north pole in the northern summer, then location B on the map would be in perpetual darkness just like the south pole, and in fact would be in darkness for even longer each year. The reverse would be true in the northern winter: the area above the north pole would be in perpetual darkness.

If this was true, then it would seem that those areas would experience the formation of sea ice during the respective periods of total darkness lasting 6 months or more. Since when has there been any sea ice along the Tropic of Cancer or the Tropic of Capricorn? This is another unexplained flaw in the bipolar map that would still be a flaw no matter where you place the continents on the map.