121

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: March 03, 2022, 04:48:37 AM »

- Mathematically there's no edge in my model. Latitude goes from [0 to π] and is undefined beyond.

So how are things transported back to 0?  that is physics that does not exist in the globe model so its not just different math.

- If light curves as in my model, the disc looks like a globe from space (the light curvature was so designed it exactly counteracts the missing curvature)

Light does not curve.  If it did, solidstate lasers would not function identically regardless of how they are oriented with respect to teh surface of the earth, but they do.  So light is not bending.  I explained that in this forum but some mod for some unstated reason moved it here https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19173.0  .

- Plotting cities will work in lat/long coordinates. (they won't line up visually though, only mathematically)

But traveling between them will not be the same, would not take the same time nor use the same fuel nor have the same angular separation when viewed from a 3rd city.  Guess's Theorema Egregium proves you can not do this without distortion as has been pointed out to you many times. 

- We can't know what the earth looks like when observed from outside the universe

There is no "outside" of the universe.  So your statement amounts to "We can't know what the earth looks like when observed from a non existent location".  Even if you consider that to be true its certainly meaningless.   You often conflate the shape of the universe (which might not even have a meaning and certainly not one that I understand) with the shape of the earth, which we know well.   We can measure the shape of the earth and even the shape of space around the earth (Gravity Probe B}, but that is not the shape of the universe.

- If someone needs a model of earth, there's nothing wrong if she draws a flat disc. All calculations can be done with it.

How would the physics of orbital mechanics work with a flat disk?  How does physics in the flat model explain what keeps an orbiting object in that orbit?  That is not just globe earth orbital mechanics with math transformations, that is extremely different physics with all sorts of discontinuities.  Physics is not just about surfaces.

122

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Found a fully working flat earth model?

« on: February 27, 2022, 08:24:47 PM »

I believe to have found a fully working flat earth model. Anything that can be proven by physics can also be proven in it.
It's very similar to the bendy light/electromagnetic acceleration theory.
All details are on my website including animations of day/night/seasons: https://troolon.com.
But yes, i believe a working flat earth model has finally been developed.

Feel free to have a look.
Troolon

The term "flat earth" as used in your posts is not the same as the that same term as used by FE claimants on this site (i.e. a observable flat earth in the environment in which the earth and we exist).  Thus you do NOT have a working flat earth model.

Physics is not math.  The relationships between dimension, space, mass, energy, etc that are found in physics can (so far) be represented in math.  That in no way implies that any math (especially just for the surface of objects) represents a potential physical reality.

123

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE

« on: February 26, 2022, 10:04:09 PM »

Yeah, after the said they tried it many times with a variety of different techniques because they weren't getting the results they expected. 

If they could not find a flaw in their setup that would be different but the DID find flaws.  This is a standard method of scientific experimentation.  If the results are not as expected you look for flaws in your technique. In this case that might be that the wire used is untwisting, or that there is air flow, or the release mechanism applies a torque. If you do NOT find any such flaws then you need to accept the results but if there ARE flaws then you need to correct them and rerun the experiment.  This is especially true if the results are not just unexpected but inconsistent or variable as they were in this case before the flaws were corrected.

124

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE

« on: February 26, 2022, 09:39:59 PM »

Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?

No. Please see the TFES Wiki on that topic - https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

I did before I posted and it doesn't invalidate this at all.   Your references are often from unrefereed papers, are very old (like 1851) or simply false.  Certainly there  are often difficulties with building such a device.  I tired to build one myself in high school but had to do it outside and the occasionally slight breeze despite he sheltered location  invalidated the effort.  From the south pole paper (emphasis mine) in contrast to your picking and choosing quotes:

"Calculations and conclusions:

If the period of the pendulum was 24 hours then it should subtend an angle of 15º every hour. Intermediate measurements and calculations were made to verify this. By measuring the lengths of 3 sides of an equilateral triangle formed by the swinging pendulum over a 20 minute period and using the Law of Cosines to calculate the angle subtended in that time period it was determined that the earth rotated in a clockwise direction, relative to looking down at the South Pole, 5º every 20 minutes as expected."

125

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Experiment to Distinguish FE from RE

« on: February 26, 2022, 09:10:57 PM »

The Foucault Pendulum seems like an obvious choice.

The original was built in 1851 to show that it is the earth that is rotating not the stars.  The spherical nature of the earth was not in question any more in 1851 than it is today. But the pendulum's rate and direction of rotation clearly confirms the spherical nature of the earth as well.  The pendulum rotates once per day clockwise at the north pole (i.e. the earth rotating counterclockwise under it), slows down as the sin of the angle of latitude as you go south until it stops at the equator then picks up again but counterclockwise as you continue south until its again once per day at the south pole.  The rotation rate  formula of 24h56m/sin lat or about 31h50m for London was fully expected for the original device but is further confirmed (including the reversal in the southern hemisphere) by the many devices built all over the planet including at the south pole.

The rotation direction is from the perspective of a person standing by the device. Clearly the direction of the rotation of the earth can not reverse at the equator since its a solid object whatever shape it is. So the only explanation for the reversal is that the orientation of the device and observer reverses relative to the rotation of the earth between north and south hemispheres.  All perfectly explained by a rotating sphere but not explained at all by even a rotating disk let alone a stationary one.

Does that not fully refute the claim of a flat earth?  Of course the same could be said of many other things but the Foucault pendulum being simple, self contained and purely mechanical seems harder to wave away with some unknown magic technology or vast conspiracy.

126

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Problems with the FE sun

« on: February 26, 2022, 08:48:59 PM »

The sun ... is observed to be larger than it is for the bulk of its trek across the sky and likewise for sunset.  The perception of a large disk size at sunrise or sunset is due to atmospheric distortion ...

Just FYI, this isn't true, according to the commonly accepted theory (RET, not FET -- I have no idea what FET says about this.)  There is slight atmospheric distortion, especially just where the sun touches the horizon.  Actually, it's just an optical illusion; things close to the ground seem bigger because there's a frame of reference. Cf. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=3153

Indeed that was sloppy of me.  Thanks for pointing it out.

127

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 12, 2022, 12:40:18 AM »

Assuming you meant "the vaccines only last a few weeks", you are still wrong.  We may indeed need a new jab every year, or maybe every 6 months, but not monthly.

Well I can take your word for it or a doctor's word for it. Imma choose the doctor.

I hate to break it to you but often medical Doctors know little outside of their speciality and are notorious egomaniacs, thinking they know everything.  This one in particular mentions that he likely has better immunity from Covid from getting it than he would have had he been vaccinated.  This is false.  First the two types of immunity are different, and the vaccine induced one has been shown to be  stronger.  From https://healthcare.utah.edu/healthfeed/postings/2021/10/covid-immunity-vs-vaccine.php

A recent CDC study shows that those who have had COVID-19 and are not vaccinated, are more than twice as likely than those who are fully vaccinated to contract COVID-19 for a second time.

You of course should not have to take my word for it, but look for good sources, not just ones that agree with your point of view.  Here are a couple
https://www.medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2021/05/how-long-will-my-vaccine-protect-me
https://www.verywellhealth.com/length-of-covid-19-vaccine-immunity-5094857

The vaccines don't actually stop you getting the disease. So it can still mutate away inside me once vaccinated and I can still pass it on.

As I said, if you are vaccinated you beat it down faster so there is less chance of passing it on (but not zero chance of course).

And as I said, there is no 'beating it down'. Even with the jab you can still contract and spread the virus.

You are (intentionally?) missing the point.  Of course you must "get" the virus for the vaccines to do anything.  But the point of the vaccines is that they prime your immune system so you can kill it off faster, so it never builds up as much (so you will spread if less) and do so for a (potentially much) shorter time. Not zero possibility of spread, just much less likely.

Eradicate coronaviruses, no of course not.  But eradicate this strain that is causing problems in humans, yes I think that is possible.  And we do not have evidence of it jumping from animals to humans as a common event.

You can't eradicate something that spreads regardless of whether you vaccinated people or not. These are vaccines ... not cures.

See above.  Or see https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/infectious-diseases-that-have-been-globally-eradicated.html, about how we have eradicated the SmallPox virus and are on the verge of doing so for some others as well.

128

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 11, 2022, 11:02:23 PM »

The way to stop new variants is to vaccinated the world.

How would that stop new variants?

Variants are a natural outcome of (random mistakes during) replication of the virus.  The less replication, the fewer variants.  The more people that are vaccinated thus beating down the virus faster, the less replication there is.  The closer we can get to eradicating the virus the less chances there will be of new variants.  Do you disagree with that?

No. The virus only lasts a few weeks and then the effectiveness plummets rather quickly. So you'd need a jab once a month.

Assuming you meant "the vaccines only last a few weeks", you are still wrong.  We may indeed need a new jab every year, or maybe every 6 months, but not monthly.

The vaccines don't actually stop you getting the disease. So it can still mutate away inside me once vaccinated and I can still pass it on.

As I said, if you are vaccinated you beat it down faster so there is less chance of passing it on (but not zero chance of course).

It's a coronavirus. It lives in wild animals. Indeed they've found it in everything from Lions in the zoo to people's pet dogs. Vaccinating people wouldn't be enough. you'd have to vaccinate every creature on earth.
The fact that even with vaccines billions of people will still get the disease, you can't eradicate the disease as you mention.

Eradicate coronaviruses, no of course not.  But eradicate this strain that is causing problems in humans, yes I think that is possible.  And we do not have evidence of it jumping from animals to humans as a common event.

129

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 11, 2022, 09:54:47 PM »

The way to stop new variants is to vaccinated the world.

How would that stop new variants?

Variants are a natural outcome of (random mistakes during) replication of the virus.  The less replication, the fewer variants.  The more people that are vaccinated thus beating down the virus faster, the less replication there is.  The closer we can get to eradicating the virus the less chances there will be of new variants.  Do you disagree with that?

130

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Coronavirus Vaccine and You

« on: January 11, 2022, 06:47:21 PM »

Why should people feel ashamed if it was always known that the vaccines wouldn't actually provide immunity?

There is a clear answer to this. It wasn't "always known". It simply didn't work. Hence the shame for believing one thing and experiencing another. Cope.

The vaccines DO work even against Omicron.   No vaccine is 100% effective.  The vaccines are less effective against Omicron than the are against Delta but cases, hospitalizations, and death rates are all much lower for the vaccinated and lower still for the vaccinated and boosted (Growing gap).  The way to stop new variants is to vaccinated the world.  Had we done so when the vaccines were first available Omicron might well not have emerged.

So of course no one should feel ashamed for getting vaccinated, everyone TODAY should get vaccinated.  We have to cope with the reality that this is not over yet (as it could have been) thanks to the UNvaccinated.

131

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 10, 2022, 07:00:27 PM »

Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.

Observational science is defined as pseudoscience. Science must follow the scientific method.

The only reference to "observational science" on that wiki page is the U of Madison statement that astronomy is an observational science, sure that's obvious.
You completely ignored my quote from Maxim Sukharev's paper on the scientific method (he is your FIRST quote on the wiki here about the scientific method).  Here is the key part

4. Predict – this is where it gets really interesting! In order to test our hypothesis, however mystical and crazy it may look, we need to make an experimentally testable prediction: in
10 hours it is going to be dark again.
5. Test predictions – well, is it dark? It is vital in this method that a given test must be done
objectively and could be independently repeated. This is where the scientific method truly distinguishes between what is real (objective) and what is just a figure of our imagination (or fraudulent attempt).

Note that the key part is to make a prediction and test that prediction against observation.  That observation can of course be of a controled experiment where you can modify numerous conditions but it need not be (as it was not in Sukharev's example).

Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.

• FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
• FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
• FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.

Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

Some elements in FE are pseudoscience, and some of it is not. Anything astronomy is pseudoscience, like in RE astronomy is largely pseudoscience, since it cannot be directly tested.

My question was not whether FE claims are pseudoscience (that's obvious), but whether FETheory is FALSE according to Sukharev's outline of the scientific method. 

Travel in the South can be tested, and there are various anomalies which are of interest: https://wiki.tfes.org/Flight_Anomalies

We have traveled extensively around the planet and the times/distance match the RE model and are not close to matching the FE model.  Grasping at straws of "well they are not non-stop flights" and "there are storms and unusual winds" does not get you out of this. Such things are not remotely of sufficient scale to account for the extreme distances around the edge of FET claimed disk not to mention no one ever observing this claimed edge despite global travel (much of which should be impossible with the FE model).

Plus of course you completely ignored the atmospheric containment mechanism that FET predicts but has never been observed.

Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

Scientific American has a problem with the cosmology professed on websites like that:

(link to Jeranism reading a Scientific American article deleted).  If you would like to hold Scientific American up as a source of truth, then show us an article there claiming the earth is flat?
Of course you can not do so.  Further it is not one published paper which makes the case, that is only the first step.  The work must be repeated and verified and stand the test of time.

I agree that cosmology is highly speculative (so do many, maybe even most, cosmologists).  We were not talking about cosmology, if my reference to the astrophysics work at Stanford where they clearly delineate observation vs experiment (clearly finding scientific value in both) side tracked that conversation then my bad  The point of the article is that even in their experimental work, it is often about making a special tool to observe.  e.g. we can not generate gravity waves but the project to detect them is clearly classified as experimental.

This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.

Refusal to appropriately address the argument provided means that you lost it.

No Tom, your insistence to pluck quotes from random self published papers means you never really made the argument.  The whole point of peer review is that lay folks like you and I and likely everyone on this site, do not have the expertise to know what is being left out, what should the author have addressed, how was the analysis performed etc. 

Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

Actually it's easy to find that the Scientific Method is still the standard for science, and has nothing to do with only applying to Roger Bacon's time.

The Scientific Method does not require experiments where all conditions can be controlled but predictions which can be tested by observation (potentially of an experiment, but that is not required).  My reference to Bacon who lived 700 years ago was that he could not comment about modern astronomy.

I am not questioning the scientific method, I am asserting that those pushing FET are NOT using it.

132

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 07, 2022, 06:52:48 PM »

Even under those claims, the spacecraft are still just observing, and not experimenting, on the stars to know their true nature.

Experiments are of course good, but observations alone are very useful as at least those tell us what exists and whether or not they match predictions.   Gravity probe B was designed specifically to directly observe the curvature of space and it was successful and confirmed General Relativey on this point as well as Frame Dragging (which I would likely not try to explain even if I understood it, which I do not).

The actual paper by Maxim Sukharev about pseudoscience does not insist on an experiment where all conditions can be controlled but only experimentally testable (i.e. observable) results as to whether or not they match prediction (in his example that our cave got dark at the predicted time or in a more modern example that Gravity Probe B would detect a particular curvature, which it did).

1. Observe – sometimes it is dark in our cave and sometimes we see the light.
2. Question – we then question these observations as to why we see periodic changes.
3. Hypothesis – we need a possible explanation based on our previously acquired knowledge.
At early stage any hypothesis would work (but remember that it is better to propose simple
and logical hypotheses because they are easier to verify experimentally).
4. Predict – this is where it gets really interesting! In order to test our hypothesis, however mystical and crazy it may look, we need to make an experimentally testable prediction: in
10 hours it is going to be dark again.
5. Test predictions – well, is it dark? It is vital in this method that a given test must be done
objectively and could be independently repeated. This is where the scientific method truly distinguishes between what is real (objective) and what is just a figure of our imagination (or fraudulent attempt).
6. Draw a conclusion – if our prediction was successfully verified, we keep our hypothesis for now and come up with another possible test until we either disprove it or promote it to the level of theory.

Clearly FE theory falls very flat (pun intended) on this score.

• FET predicts some sort of atmospheric containment mechanism (all encompassing dome, 70 mile high ice wall, infinite plane, or ...) at the rim of the claimed flat disk yet despite centuries of travel no such thing has ever been observed.
• FET predicts distances and hence travel times that are significantly different from RET times particularly from the equator to the "rim" (which ever hemisphere your favored FE model uses), yet again after centuries of travel the FET times are not observed while RET times and distances fit perfectly.
• FET can not deal with sunrise and sunset (or star rise and set) without "bendy light" which is not even specified sufficiently to make a testable prediction.

Does not the methodology laid out by Sukharev clearly show FET to be false?

It's also not only his claim that experimentation is required for quality science. See: The Scientific Method, The Scientific Renaissance, Roger Bacon, the Astronomy is a Pseudoscience page

Interesting that none of these references call out modern astronomy as a pseudoscience.  Stanford University doesn't seem to have an issue with the observational nature of astronomy https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-and-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology.

The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs.

This appears to be self published.  Further it is about the claim that stellar parallax proves the earth orbits the sun, which is not at issue here.  This is a classic technique of the FE crowed.  Find some snippet in some paper that you think supports your case.  But its the scientific consensus that we lay folks need to pay attention too.

In many cases the Wiki does not provide content of its own, and its pages are references of sources. I could simply just spam it all here; but I am kind enough to allow you to go there to organized pages with organized sections and see that you are incorrect.

Avoiding addressing the content linked to you is a very weak debate tactic.

Offering quotes from people who died centuries ago (Bacon for example) as support for your claims (particularly around things like modern astronomy that Bacon could not have dreamed of) is hardly a strong debate tactic.

133

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 07, 2022, 04:14:52 AM »

The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said

Apparently the sizes of the galaxies are also an illusion.

If something is causing the stars and galaxies to enlarge, and the perspective rules don't apply to them, the argument that the Sun would shrink becomes less powerful. Since it is difficult to conduct controlled experimentation on the celestial bodies this argument of what "should" happen exists as an exercise of assumptions.

Recall the quote on this page by Edgar Zilsel - "Natural events are usually compounds of numerous effects produced by different causes, and these can hardly be separately investigated until most of them are eliminated by artificial means. There is, therefore, in all empirical sciences a distinct trend toward experimentation."

Since it is difficult to do experimental work with the stars, and astronomy exists nearly entirely of fallible human assumption and attempt at logic, we can see that we don't know much.

I'd say that the consensus of astronomers/cosmologists is that in the last 20-30 years we have seen the birth of a new era of astronomy clearly departing from the era of assumptions and grounded in observations.  Not merely Hubble and Gaia but the vast number of space telescopes has revolutionized our understanding of the cosmos and that will continue with Kepler.   Since Zilsel died in 1944 we don't know his view.

The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

This is contradicted by the negative parallax that occurs.

Referencing your own wiki as authoritative  come on.

134

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Asking some friendly questions :)

« on: January 06, 2022, 10:11:14 PM »

A perfect cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator would create output that is indistinguishable from the background noise of our universe.

False, see https://ethw.org/Cosmic_Background_Radiation

Even if it were true, so what?  This would not be evidence for being in the matrix but merely of the lack of our understanding of the earliest stages of the universe.

Excellent link, well played.

However a map is a static image of the background radiation. If we just listen to the sound of the cosmos as it washes over us or convert it to stream of digits, it would be random. ( we have to move far enough away from the stars planets and galaxies so we don't detect their cyclical movements.)

Note "would be", and over what time period?  Such "listening" as you describe is observation in a fixed direction that would if you were listening early enough, over time, display the small changes the map depicts.  Once enough time has elapsed such ripples tend to flatten out and become more homogenous.  But again so what?

There is an argument that says if we are in a matrix, there would be no way for us to prove it or know it because we could get nothing from an external frame of reference.

That seems quite reasonable.  I can think of no way to detect such other than inconsistencies so extreme as to be deemed impossible.  Then again if Haldane's 1927 quote "the universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose." is correct then that method is fundamentally flawed.

135

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Asking some friendly questions :)

« on: January 06, 2022, 08:58:53 PM »

A perfect cryptographically secure pseudo-random number generator would create output that is indistinguishable from the background noise of our universe.

False, see https://ethw.org/Cosmic_Background_Radiation

Even if it were true, so what?  This would not be evidence for being in the matrix but merely of the lack of our understanding of the earliest stages of the universe.

136

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 08:43:16 PM »

So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.

The author of the cited articles is clearly indicating that the diameter of the stars we see are spurious and illusions:

https://web.archive.org/web/20200402225228/https://www.vofoundation.org/blog/strange-tales-galileo-proving-splitting-stars/

You see, the disk-like appearance of stars that Galileo saw through his telescope was completely spurious. Telescopes have limitations, brought on by the fact that light is a wave. They cannot concentrate light waves down into a small enough spot to show a star truly (the scientific term for this issue is diffraction). Very small telescopes are particularly limited in this regard. That disk-like appearance of 5 arc seconds in diameter that Galileo writes about is entirely a product of his telescope. That disk is formed inside the telescope. It does not exist outside the telescope. And since it does not exist outside the telescope, it cannot be cut in half by anything outside the telescope. But Galileo did not know this.

This is, in fact, how astronomers first began to figure out that the star disks were spurious. They watched the moon pass in front of stars. They noticed (to their surprise) that the moon did not cut into a star and gradually cover up the star’s disk. Rather, the moon had no effect on the star at all for a while, and then suddenly the star winked out all at once (when the moon finally covered the true body of the star, which is just a vanishingly small point as measured from Earth). But at the time of Galileo and the Dialogue, no one had realized this.

The Scientific American articles that is referenced from the fe wiki page you offered DOES specially deal with stellar angular sizes, but no matter.
So we are all agreed that the method of estimating the size of a distant star by measuring the size of the disk one sees in a telescope is spurious.  I thought you were arguing FOR this technique when you said

The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false and that the angular diameter of Sirius is over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon, for example.

apologies if I got that wrong.

The distance to "nearby" stars like Proxima Centauri (4.24 ly == 4.88 trillion miles) that appear to move (as the earth orbits the sun) against the background of stars that do not appear to move can be estimated via parallax from opposed sides of the earth's orbit (see https://www.britannica.com/story/how-do-we-know-how-far-away-the-stars-are).  Much more distant stars present much more of a challenge, but even Proxima Centauri is vastly further away that allowed for in the FE model, isn't it?

137

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Asking some friendly questions :)

« on: January 06, 2022, 06:53:25 PM »

3. Do you believe the earth or reality is real? I've stated my case we live in a simulation. Do you believe that too? Why or why not?

As Sean Carol states in his excellent book The Big Picture (available on Audible and which I highly recommend for anyone wanting an up to date view of what science says about our univese) we can not be 100% positive (maybe 99.9999...%) we are not all "brains in jars".  But he (nor I) see any evidence of that.
What is yours?

138

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 06:03:37 PM »

Stars are so distant that they are pretty much a point light source, so no.

The article quoted on the page I linked says that this is false and that the angular diameter of Sirius is over one-tenth the visible diameter of the Moon, for example.

I see two referenced articles and neither say that.
The Scientific American article explores the thinking in the early 1600's, when Kepler made this claim, but ends with:
"By Hooke’s time [1674] a growing majority of scientists accepted Copernicanism, although, to a degree, they still did so in the face of scientific difficulties. Nobody convincingly recorded the annual stellar parallax until Friedrich Bessel did it in 1838. Around that same time, George Airy produced the first full theoretical explanation for why stars appear to be wider than they are, and Ferdinand Reich first successfully detected the deflection of falling bodies induced by Earth’s rotation. Also, of course, Isaac Newton’s physics—which did not work with Brahe’s system—had long since provided an explanation of how Brahe’s “hulking, lazy” Earth could move."

Likewise the Natuilus article ends with
"But the story of the Copernican Revolution shows that science was, from its birth, a dynamic process, with good points and bad points on both sides of the debate. Not until decades after Kepler’s On the New Star and Locher and Scheiner’s Mathematical Disquisitions did astronomers begin to come upon evidence suggesting that the star sizes they were measuring, either with the eye or with early telescopes, were a spurious optical effect, and that stars did not need to be so large in a Copernican universe."

So unless you want to rely on 1600's thinking as your authoritative source, the claim that angular measurement of stars supports FE is simply wrong.  We well understand this issue today and the stars are indeed very very far away and not vastly bigger than our sun.

139

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 05:41:21 PM »

Signal based navigation which gives your coordinates is also based on the stars. Whatever the signal is coming from gets its coordinates from land based stations, which themselves have a known coordinate which was based on a survey of the sky at some point. The LORAN broadcasting towers had to know their own coordinates to be able to provide ships their coordinates via radio wave, which was ultimately derived in the traditional manner from celestial bodies.

I specifically stated GPS as the navigation system.

Also, the stars get dimmer near the horizon as the atmosphere builds up. The assertion that they don't get dim is incorrect.

But then why do they wink out at/past the horizon rather then just continue to get dimmer?  (I'm guessing it will be "bendy light" to the rescue).

140

Flat Earth Community / Re: Flat Earth maps?

« on: January 06, 2022, 01:06:06 AM »

...In the North the coordinates are based on the altitude of Polaris (which latitude is based on, which is why 90 degrees N is the North Pole) and timezones (which longitude is based on). With that you can travel between any two points in the North.

That may well have been how latitude and longitude emerged, but today you find your position via gps, not looking at constellations.  The distances between at least some places in the southern hemisphere on a flat earth would have to be much further apart than we experience in travel.  How can that be?

And since you brought up the north star.  As you travel south it does not get dimmer but only lower.  As you get to the equator it is near the horizon but still the same brightness.  Then a bit further south and it is quite suddenly no longer visible (drops below the horizon).  FE theory claims its just further away, right?  Why the non-linearity in brightness going bright, bright, ..... bright, gone.  Why can't you see it from the southern hemisphere with a telescope?

oh wait, I forgot, its "bendy light" right?  that aspect of light that can not be precisely stated nor demonstrated in the lab but dominates our observations of the cosmos.  right.  ok, forget that just answer the travel distance question.