AR planetarium on your phone
« on: July 15, 2018, 05:05:17 AM »
I was out at this event tonight: http://www.cityofastronomy.org/astronomy-week-2018/
There were amateur astronomy clubs there with several telescopes set up right in an outdoor mall. They were viewing Venus, Jupiter, and Saturn. Cool stuff.
I realize that we don't all live close to Pasadena, but these astronomy clubs are all over. Look for their events... just don't mention that you're a FE. Go and look and keep an open mind. Awesome stuff no matter how you think it all works.

Anyway... As we were out there, I opened up the little planetarium app on my phone, and I got to thinking. How does this app work?
1) It uses GPS to know where the phone is on the Earth. (Even if you believe in FE, you know that GPS works somehow or other.)
2) It uses an internal magnetic compass to figure out which way is North
3) It uses an internal accelerometer to measure gravity and calculates the phone's orientation from that. (Whatever you think gravity is, your phone knows which way is up.)
4) Based on all that info, your phone knows where it is and where it's looking. It then projects a spherical map of the stars and planets that should be in front of it - based on the assumption that the Earth is a globe.

So whether you think the Earth is round or flat, these apps work. They work every time of every day anywhere on Earth. (Ok, I've only ever tested it in various parts of the US, but it has always worked in those so far.) There are lots of them, and many free options. I use this one: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.t11.skyviewfree&hl=en_US

What that tells us is that the globe model of the stars and planets does work to predict where the stars and planets are at any time and any place. So maybe the Earth isn't a globe, but whether it is or it isn't, the globe model works. Take a pause and reflect on that the next time you start to point out something that "doesn't make sense on a globe Earth." The globe model works. Get an app on your phone and check.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #1 on: July 15, 2018, 09:07:56 AM »
You seem to argue that since one aspect of RET works, all aspects of RET must necessarily work. I hope you agree that we can (and should) dismiss this line of argumentation immediately

Also, it is unlikely that your app has actually used GPS. As explained many times before, modern phones' location services have much more accurate and reliable ways of establishing your location
« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 09:11:11 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Tom Bishop

  • Zetetic Council Member
  • **
  • Posts: 10637
  • Flat Earth Believer
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #2 on: July 15, 2018, 10:00:05 AM »
Those apps aren't even based on RET. They are based on regular patterns that occur in the sky. Prediction in astronomy is based on patterns. They are equations that predict future occurrences of an event or trend based on historic tables.

There is a book called Astronomical Algorithms which describes how things are predicted in astronomy. I am writing about it here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/NOAA_Solar_Calculator

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #3 on: July 15, 2018, 10:20:44 AM »
Those apps aren't even based on RET. They are based on regular patterns that occur in the sky. Prediction in astronomy is based on patterns. They are equations that predict future occurrences of an event or trend based on historic tables.

There is a book called Astronomical Algorithms which describes how things are predicted in astronomy. I am writing about it here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/NOAA_Solar_Calculator
This point is a very powerful objection to astronomical theory in general, as opposed to observations. If all the movements of celestial bodies are simply predicted by tables based on observations of patterns, and if there is no simpler model available that explains these patterns, then there is no theory at all. We only have the observations.

This certainly deserves a separate thread. The whole project of science is based on taking complex observations, then elucidating a simpler theory or model that explains the observations. This is crucial.

Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #4 on: July 15, 2018, 04:03:49 PM »
Those apps aren't even based on RET. They are based on regular patterns that occur in the sky. Prediction in astronomy is based on patterns. They are equations that predict future occurrences of an event or trend based on historic tables.

There is a book called Astronomical Algorithms which describes how things are predicted in astronomy. I am writing about it here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/NOAA_Solar_Calculator
I really wish you would stop taking single sections out of context and ignoring anything else in these materials that disagrees with your pov. What's the best location to discuss a wiki page? I don't want to take over this thread with a discussion about what you've ignored in that book and other problems on that page.

BillO

Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #5 on: July 15, 2018, 04:12:38 PM »
Those apps aren't even based on RET. They are based on regular patterns that occur in the sky. Prediction in astronomy is based on patterns. They are equations that predict future occurrences of an event or trend based on historic tables.

There is a book called Astronomical Algorithms which describes how things are predicted in astronomy. I am writing about it here:

https://wiki.tfes.org/NOAA_Solar_Calculator
Your analysis of the NOAA calculator shows an egregious lack of understanding of basic astronomy.

First you say:
Quote
See Column O with the title "Sun Rad Vector (AUs)"

The worksheet default is 1.000001018.

AU is short for 'Astronomical Unit', the distance between the sun and the earth in the Heliocentric Round Earth Theory, and Rad is short for 'Radius'.

Put 0 into that column and see what happens. It doesn't affect the predictions at all. Also try 9.5 AUs. No effect. The same results are seen result whether the calculator is operating under the assumption of 0 Astronomical Units or 9.5 Astronomical Units. Looking closer at the equations for this field, the AU field appears to be an output variable, not an input variable. The data of the sun's position in the sky and the simple trending seen in the formulas is not being created from this element. The data is deriving slight adjustments to the default 1.000001018.
1.000001018 is not a 'default' - it is the actual semi-major axis distance of the earth's orbit about the sun.   Why is it not 1.000000000?  Because the formula they are using to predict the 'Sun Rad Vector' requires the length of the semi-major axis and not the average distance (1 AU).   Further, column 'O' (Sun Rad Vector) is a prediction and is not used as and not required as an input to the other predicted values.  So, no, changing the value of the semi-major axis of the earths orbit is not going affect any other other predicted amounts - and one (an educated one, that is) would not expect it to.  The very fact that you do is quite telling and it tells me you don't have much knowledge about this.  You really should take that page down.

You further go on to say:
Quote
Other elements such as Right Ascension, Declination, Azimuth, and Altitude are merely terms coined by astronomers to describe where things are in the sky.
Merely?  No, your not quite telling the whole story, are you?  Altitude and Azimuth are rather arbitrary and depend heavily on time and where you are on the surface of the earth, and would even be useful in an FE model (although the values would not be the same as predicted by the NOAA tool).  However,  right ascension and declination are part of a complex system of astronomical coordinates called the Equatorial Coordinate System that is fully dependent on a rotating spherical earth with an tilt of precisely 23.439281° and an angular velocity of exactly 7.2921159 x 10^-5 Radians/second.  They would not work otherwise, and ... they do work.

Wikipedea has a simplistic explanation of right ascension and declination, but pleas don't stop there.  Get yourself a good textbook on celestial mechanics to further help you understand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_ascension
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declination
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_coordinate_system

Then, repeating yourself somewhat you say:
Quote
However, as we can even delete the AU column entirely from the previously mentioned NOAA Solar Calculator Excel worksheet, and see that the worksheet still gives the same results for the sun, even when the year and day is changed to a future date after the column is removed, shows us that the element is useless in prediction of the sun's location.
Rhetorically, I have to ask, why would expect any of the other values in that calculator to depend so heavily on the distance from the earth to the sun?  Are you expecting that value to change drastically?   So, I am guessing you'd like the authors to work out everything from first principles.  Is that it?  I'm further supposing you think that, even though using the unvarying measurement of the semi-major axis of the earths orbit provides more than sufficient accuracy for the purposes of this calculator, it would be reasonable to employ general relativity calculations in every cell of that spreadsheet, or in the on-line calculator where such values could be determined that way.  I'm looking for a palm plant emoticon, but I can't find one.  You do realize scientists don't work everything out from first principles every time, don't you?  I mean, after we do the calculations a few thousand times and keep getting the same value, we just tend to use the value knowing we can always go back and do the math if we want to.  You do get that, don't you?

Most of the rest of your presentation is just basically complaining that you think the authors should have used some more rigorous methods.  Like I said, this is not how things are done.  Not everything is worked out from first principles every time.  Your not getting that is again very telling, and again it tells me you don't understand what you a writing about.

Then, the hilarious icing on the cake ...  you write:
Quote
The sun positions given by the NOAA calculator cannot be used to triangulate the distance or position of the sun in the Heliocentric system.

And you present this ... video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9puRZH0i6Sc in support of your claim.

You know, I was drinking my morning coffee when I viewed that video.  It is so hilarious I ended up spitting coffee all over my keyboard!  Wow, you could not pick a worse method of triangulating the distance to the sun if you asked a chipmunk for advice.  Where is that palm plant emoticon when you need it ???

That calculator is not designed to provide information that can be used to calculate the distance to the sun.  Just as a can opener is not designed to provide information on the volume of the can.

Here is good method if you want to use geometry: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/41-our-solar-system/the-earth/orbit/87-how-do-you-measure-the-distance-between-earth-and-the-sun-intermediate

However, if you want to use first principles of heliocentric celestial mechanics, you would not use geometry at all, you would use the period of the earth's orbit.



Where:
a= semi-major axis of earth's orbit
GM = standard gravitational parameter
T = earth's orbital period (in seconds)








« Last Edit: July 15, 2018, 04:20:54 PM by BillO »

Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #6 on: July 15, 2018, 05:03:06 PM »
You seem to argue that since one aspect of RET works, all aspects of RET must necessarily work. I hope you agree that we can (and should) dismiss this line of argumentation immediately

Also, it is unlikely that your app has actually used GPS. As explained many times before, modern phones' location services have much more accurate and reliable ways of establishing your location

I think Tom's comments are addressed already.

For Pete, I think it's fair to point out that just because one aspect of RET works, we must not assume that all aspects work. However, that absolutely in no way means we dismiss this line of argumentation.

First of all, I didn't intended to "argue" anything with my post. The arguments begin when people read text while looking through the lenses of their past experience. I urge you to set aside those lenses and try to judge the material for what it is. I pointed out that a particular feature of RET that works. The prediction of the location of the sun, moon, planets, and stars works according to RET.

Finally I did suggest that we think about this before the next time you try to pick apart RET. If you're about to pick apart anything to do with the location of the stars as predicted by RET, just don't bother.

If you are about to try to pick apart some other aspect of RET, I think you should pause for just a moment and reflect upon this example together with your past experiences of this.

Does this mean every aspect of RET is infallible? No of course not. But it means this aspect is at least. So no, we don't throw this line of reasoning out.

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #7 on: July 15, 2018, 05:52:39 PM »
If you're about to pick apart anything to do with the location of the stars as predicted by RET, just don't bother.
That doesn't work. Regarding the location of the stars as predicted by astronomy, these are pretty much fixed with respect to one another. This means the stars must form a celestial sphere, not a dome, which rotates round the earth approx. every 24 hours. If the earth is flat, everyone will be in light or darkness at the same time, which we agree is not the case.

But if the heavens are always above the (flat) earth, we need to explain the relative location of the stars differently. Hence FE is not indifferent to astronomy.

Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #8 on: July 15, 2018, 06:56:53 PM »
If you're about to pick apart anything to do with the location of the stars as predicted by RET, just don't bother.
That doesn't work. Regarding the location of the stars as predicted by astronomy, these are pretty much fixed with respect to one another. This means the stars must form a celestial sphere, not a dome, which rotates round the earth approx. every 24 hours. If the earth is flat, everyone will be in light or darkness at the same time, which we agree is not the case.

But if the heavens are always above the (flat) earth, we need to explain the relative location of the stars differently. Hence FE is not indifferent to astronomy.

Yeah I know, but I am currently trying to approach things a little differently. Instead of attacking FE hypotheses, my current thrust is simply to defend RE hypotheses. I've been doing a lot of explaining how everything people think is wrong about RE actually works exactly right in RE. So my personal take on this and the point I was trying to make can be summed up as, "You don't have to give up your belief in FE. Just please understand that these RE theories all work really well. Here's an example of one."

I think people cannot help but to see that as an attack on FE beliefs because they have experienced so many attacks before. But I didn't want to attack anyone's beliefs. I just want to ask people to open their eyes to the fact that these RE ideas do a really good job. If you ever find yourself thinking, "This cannot work under RE," just rephrase that as, "I don't understand how this works under RE." Someone will be happy to explain.

*

Offline AppleXiao

  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • Flat earth researcher
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #9 on: July 15, 2018, 11:57:47 PM »
If both parties (RE and FE) agree that AR planetarium does work, I'm wondering if someone could use an established knowledge set from RE or FE to explain how it works in detail. Though there are many ways to say "it is not", there should be one way to say "it is" if truth stands there.

For example, what is the star and planet map for FE / RE model? If we generate a star and planet map with the app, does if fit into the current FE / RE model?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2018, 06:54:45 AM »
I think it's fair to point out that just because one aspect of RET works, we must not assume that all aspects work. However, that absolutely in no way means we dismiss this line of argumentation.
How can we agree that the line of reasoning of "one aspect works therefore RE works" is bunk, and yet simultaneously have you disagree that the reasoning of "one aspect works therefore RE works" should be dismissed? No amount of rationalisation can clear this contradiction.

The conclusion of the OP simply doesn't follow from its premise.

That said, it's not in any way controversial that the RE model mostly works (kinda, sorta, except when it doesn't). You don't need to convince anyone of that. It should be obvious that the model wouldn't have such a widespread following if it was fundamentally broken.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2018, 07:15:32 AM »
I think it's fair to point out that just because one aspect of RET works, we must not assume that all aspects work. However, that absolutely in no way means we dismiss this line of argumentation.
How can we agree that the line of reasoning of "one aspect works therefore RE works" is bunk, and yet simultaneously have you disagree that the reasoning of "one aspect works therefore RE works" should be dismissed? No amount of rationalisation can clear this contradiction.

The conclusion of the OP simply doesn't follow from its premise.
Never did I say that because one aspect works, that means all aspects work. I'll quote myself here:

What that tells us is that the globe model of the stars and planets does work to predict where the stars and planets are at any time and any place. So maybe the Earth isn't a globe, but whether it is or it isn't, the globe model works. Take a pause and reflect on that the next time you start to point out something that "doesn't make sense on a globe Earth." The globe model works. Get an app on your phone and check.

I can see how you'd read that to mean that I'm saying that all aspects must work. But that is not the context of the statements at all. The globe model works ON THE PHONE. Clearly we're talking about the phone app with the stars and planets. Those work.

But since you bring it up, yeah all aspects of RE work just fine. The phone thing is an example of one, but you can feel free to pick some more if you want to. This post was about the phone thing.

That said, it's not in any way controversial that the RE model mostly works (kinda, sorta, except when it doesn't). You don't need to convince anyone of that. It should be obvious that the model wouldn't have such a widespread following if it was fundamentally broken.

Yeah you'd think that. Yet there seem to be a lot of people here on FES with a lot of ideas about different ways they think RE doesn't work. In fact, based on your post above, you seem to be included in that. This week I remember answering on the 2 FES boards the following topics:
a) Water should fly off the spinning globe
b) The tilt of the moon is wrong
c) NASA's photos of the globe don't match
d) The star trails in the sky are wrong
e) The moon and the sun shouldn't be in the sky at the same time
f) The constellations should change during the year

That's what I remember. There may be others, and I'm sure there will be lots more next week.

So Pete, if you have questions about the RE model, let me know. I can usually help explain these things.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2018, 07:20:43 AM »
Nope, there it is still. You say that "the globe model works" and that we can establish that with our phones. We can't. We can merely conclude that the night sky in both FET and RET matches some app you found on the Internet. They could all be incorrect, or one of the models could be correct. Coincidentally arriving at an agreement is no proof of anything, nor does it provide reassurance.  The conclusion of "the globe model works" does not follow from your proposal.

So Pete, if you have questions about the RE model, let me know. I can usually help explain these things.
The moment your defence turns into patronising personal remarks is the moment you lose your conversation partner.

Your condescension is doubly inappropriate given that mainstream science concedes that there are aspects of your model which don't work. That's normal and expected - we shouldn't have to know everything at any given time - but to deny that it happens is a beautiful reveal of your motivation here.
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 07:27:47 AM by Pete Svarrior »
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2018, 07:33:57 AM »
... given that mainstream science concedes that there are aspects of your model which don't work.

Which aspects are these? Who said they didn't work?
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2018, 09:31:25 AM »
Which aspects are these?
Interesting to see that this blind denial goes further than one person. My personal favourite is your gravitational model.

Who said they didn't work?
It's an overwhelming consensus within the scientific community that current understanding of gravitation is, at the very least, incomplete. I doubt you'll take my word for it, but perhaps a few references will at least send you in the right direction.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126990.400-gravity-may-venture-where-matter-fears-to-tread/
https://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/bitstream/handle/2014/20322/98-1237.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.38.4256&rep=rep1&type=pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyby_anomaly

There are also the fascinating discrepancies between observed and predicted positions of stars in spiral galaxies.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2018, 10:16:36 AM »
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.38.4256&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Perhaps someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but this craft was travelling at 13.738 km per second at perigee. That's 13,738,000 millimetres per second. The observed errors for this and other flybys are about 4 millimetres per second. I.e. 0.000029%. A skim of the literature suggests uncertainty about how significant the discrepancy actually is.

Apologies if I am wrong, not an expert etc.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2018, 10:36:00 AM »
The significance of the flyby anomaly (which has been observed at up to 13mm/s, see http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29609) is not disputed within the scientific community. It's amazing how quickly you'll rush to attack the pioneers of your own model when a Flat Earther brings it to the table.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

Offline edby

  • *
  • Posts: 1214
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2018, 10:57:53 AM »
The significance of the flyby anomaly (which has been observed at up to 13mm/s, see http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=29609) is not disputed within the scientific community. It's amazing how quickly you'll rush to attack the pioneers of your own model when a Flat Earther brings it to the table.
The article you linked to was from November 2009, just before the Rosetta III flyby. No anomaly was observed, correct?
« Last Edit: July 16, 2018, 11:03:03 AM by edby »

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 16073
  • (◕˽ ◕ ✿)
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2018, 11:03:30 AM »
The article you linked to was in 2009, just before the Rosetta III flyby. No anomaly was observed, correct?
Indeed, meaning that we still don't understand what might have happened, or why. The unpredictability of these anomalies makes the gravitational model even worse - after all, predictions are king, and apparently we can't make those here.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

If we are not speculating then we must assume

*

Offline Tumeni

  • *
  • Posts: 3179
    • View Profile
Re: AR planetarium on your phone
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2018, 12:24:25 PM »
The significance of the flyby anomaly (which has been observed at up to 13mm/s

.. which is still only 0.000094628% of the craft's speed, assuming the previous poster's quoted speed is correct.
=============================
Not Flat. Happy to prove this, if you ask me.
=============================

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Nearly?