81

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are lines of latitude longer south of the equator than north?

« on: February 05, 2021, 06:49:29 PM »

Raza, if the helicopter hovered over the earth for 10 hours i bet it would still move east (opposite the earths rotation) even with normal wind conditions because the atmosphere still must trail the earth because it is a gas after all.

Do you think so? If you put a mixing rotor like a food mixer’s paddle in a bowl of water and start it going for 5 hours, does the water still spin slower than the paddle by the end? It does, because the bowl isn’t turning and that drag of the bowl slows the water down.

But with a round earth there’s nothing containing the air, so what apart from the earth drags on the air? What is to slow the air from turning with the earth, at the same turning rate as the earth?

82

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are lines of latitude longer south of the equator than north?

« on: February 05, 2021, 04:36:11 PM »

Hi, the distance is the same.  I dont like to question well documented distance measurements on earth.

That’s probably wise, thank you.

83

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why are lines of latitude longer south of the equator than north?

« on: February 05, 2021, 10:50:44 AM »

All the usual talk of flights is all very well, but to bring the discussion down to earth I’d like to ask MetaTron what the distance on this new map is from Moscow to Vladivostock, as taken by the Trans Siberian Railway, overland. The route passes through Kirov, Yekaterinberg, Novosibirsk, Krasnoyarsk, Irkutsk, Ulan-Ude, Svobodny and Khabarovsk to name a few places along the way.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Siberian_Railway

The actual distance is going to be a little longer than the direct measurement because the train route isn’t perfectly straight, but what sort of distance do you make it on your new map?

84

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 05, 2021, 09:43:47 AM »

There is also no accounting for Tom arguing star trails are oval or elliptical, while the wiki article AATW quoted, which Tom created in 2019 and has subsequently edited on several occasions, insists star trails are circles. It’s difficult to take him seriously here.

85

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 04, 2021, 07:43:52 PM »

I finally got a clear night and managed to capture some star trails.  I couldn't get to a really good location for a full sky view that wasn't blocked in some way, that will have to wait for spring.

I made sure that Polaris was centered in the frame so there would be no barrel distortion.

Tom never said how long the star trails need to be for his procedure, but hopefully these are long enough.

As you can see, these are circular.  They are not oval, they are not massively distorted, they do not look anything like the bridge pictures that were shown.

I made no distortion corrections to this image. It's not warped in any way. I did crop it and removed the horizon.

Overall I'm pretty happy with this, it shows what I wanted and is just in general, pretty to look at. I never took star trails perfectly centered before, I always tried to frame the picture to be interesting. So this was fun.

This experiment proves (if only to myself) that star trails are indeed circular. I know the camera, lens, setting and everything done to this image so there can be no doubt in my mind.  If anyone has questions, feel free to ask.

Yep, nice job.   I make the angle of rotation around 63 degrees, so using Bob Knodel's handy aide-memoire that makes an exposure of around 4 hrs 12 minutes?  That image would illustrate the wiki article quite nicely.

86

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: February 03, 2021, 07:15:05 AM »

See the red arrows as I would expect the beams to be:

No. Vertical structures tilt if the camera is crooked and not parallel with the surface.

Whereas the star paths are unaffected? You see what you just said? Wow.

87

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 29, 2021, 07:54:56 AM »

Tom, you haven’t made a convincing case. The star trail simulation isn’t convincing either; I have never seen the sun or moon rise or set at accelerated rates like in the simulation, nor does either sun or moon elongate as seen rising and setting in the simulation, so that won’t wash. Quoting a video on refraction showing refractive effects within a degree or so of the horizon doesn’t prove your case for the whole sky either.

The OP’s question is still unanswered, why do stars which supposedly circle above earth set?

88

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 28, 2021, 09:57:22 AM »

I haven't seen much evidence that the stars move in concentric circles.

From the pic in the OP, using a symmetrical circle tool:


Another pic:

Your “symmetrical circle tool” isn’t drawing circles from the same centre each time, nor is it centered on the rotation centre of the sky in either image.

While we’re discussing photos of the stars, have you made sure these images were made with a perfectly rectilinear lens, one that was distortion-free? It would help your case to know.

89

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: How does FE explain star trails?

« on: January 26, 2021, 07:34:45 PM »

Not sure where this video was taken but you can see Ursa Major any time of the year and time of the night in all of the US. I live in southeast US around 30 latitude and I know this to be true. This shouldn’t be possible on RE.

First of all, by Ursa Major, do you mean all of the constellation or just the Big Dipper? The Dipper, also known as the Plough, although part of Ursa Major, is not the whole constellation.

Second, from a SE USA location like Albany, Ga (picked at random for its 31deg N latitude) most of Ursa Major dips below the horizon for a few hours in each 24, Dubhe skimming the northern horizon. At this time of year it’s mostly above the horizon by 8pm local time and doesn’t dip below the horizon at all before sunrise.

Lastly, from Miami (about 25deg N), Ursa Major disappears entirely below the northern horizon during part of each day.

On what grounds should any of this be impossible??

90

Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole

« on: January 23, 2021, 08:18:54 PM »

I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis

'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.

The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.

I am trying to think what possible explanation the FE proponents can come up with but honestly nothing short of magic comes to me. I wouldn't want to be in their spot 

I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge 

I don’t think it’s possible in real life.  What you shown is a drawing. Maybe people are confused and one country is looking at the southern cross and the other country is looking at the false cross.

Cut the stargazers a little slack: the False Cross is dimmer and has four stars, not five like Crux (Southern Cross). There are no Pointer stars like Alpha and Hadar/Beta Centauri (third and eleventh brightest stars in the sky) to guide the observer to the False Cross, instead of the small, very bright constellation of Crux. Furthermore, Crux is much nearer the Pointers already mentioned than Canopus, the second brightest star of all: the False Cross is much closer to Canopus than the Pointers.

Maybe you or I would pick the wrong constellation otherwise, but to assume people in the south don't know their own night sky is presumptious.



https://www.constellation-guide.com/false-cross/

91

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Experiment proposal

« on: January 22, 2021, 08:33:39 PM »

If the beam starts off low in the tube and ends up high in the tube at the other end it would be the same result if they angled the beam slightly upwards at the receiver on a flat earth or the earth curved downwards on a round one.
..........
The components had to be aligned at some point to get it to work. The point is that on an FE there is no physical obstruction preventing a path regarding how they accounted for 'earth curvature'.

The beams actually bounce back and forth a lot in each arm before the measurement, each travelling 1120km before final merge and detection, so the necessary precision is a lot higher than you seem to think. Aligned “at some point” indeed!

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/LA/page/ligo-technology

92

Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole

« on: January 21, 2021, 10:19:39 PM »

Tierra del Fuego at the tip of South America is going to be in twilight, allegedly. You can't see stars in times of twilight.

The claim that these cities you listed are going to see the same stars at the same time is tenuous at best.

Actually you can, and the daylight charts you supplied give part of the answer, if you read the article on the different types of twilight:–

https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/different-types-twilight.html

you'll read there that most stars are visible in astronomical twilight. Both horizon and the brighter stars are visible in nautical twilight - which is why it's called nautical twilight - and can be used by sailors for navigation. Civil twilight completes the picture. All three types and their extents are shown on the daylight charts:–




Ushaia and Cape Town at the time shown in the chart above are both on the transition from nautical to astronomical twilight so stars will be visible at both locations at the same time.


I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis, it's quite useless for navigation, being on the limits of naked eye visibility even in full darkness. Sailors and other navigators used brighter stars for navigation, such as those of the Southern Cross (Crux) which has two very bright stars: Acrux, the 13th brightest in the sky, and Mimosa, the 20th brightest. Crux is visible from Ushaia and Cape Town simultaneously, and in June is visible from Ushaia and Perth, Western Australia simultaneously.

93

Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole

« on: January 17, 2021, 01:23:00 PM »

None of the older civilizations that navigated by the stars used the Southern Cross.  It wasn’t used until the 16th century and wasn’t named till the 19th century. And they mapped the constellations in a circle around Polaris. And months of the year you can see them. Shouldn’t most of Southern Hemisphere always see year round the constellations that are close to the South Pole? Like the small/Big Dipper?

And there are a lot of stars that make up a cross that points opposite of the North Pole.
I tried to add a photo showing multiple crosses that point south but I still haven’t figured out how to post a picture. 

Are you quite sure about the star-navigating nations? Perhaps the Polynesians don’t count, but they had colonised as far east as Fiji by around 2,000 years ago and as far as Easter Island by about 700AD. They also colonised Aotearoa (New Zealand) by 1000AD. All of these south of the Equator and Polaris invisible below the horizon. Captain Cook records a Polynesian navigator who had a mental image of thousands of miles of the South Pacific in his head which Cook wrote down to aid his own explorations and found remarkably accurate.

The Polynesians certainly knew the Southern Cross: the Hawaiians called it Hanaiakamalama.

94

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: The moon illuminated oddly?

« on: January 17, 2021, 08:37:14 AM »

The temperature of the ground is cooler in moonlight than it is the shade. I’ve tested this several times in several different places with an infrared thermometer.  My test always 4-5f degrees cooler in the light of a full moon.

I’ve noticed something similar recently - in recent frost the ground was frozen hard in the open but not frozen under the pines. Only problem is there was no moon that night, so that effect is seen whether there is moonlight or not.

95

Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole

« on: January 16, 2021, 10:42:56 PM »

...You would be arguing why someone can see the southern stars at the same time in South America and Africa in the Monopole model. Usually when it's day in one location it's night in the other...

You should check your facts: at this moment it is dark in Cape Town, South Africa and will be for another five hours. Sunset in Ushaia, Tierra del Fuego at the southern tip of South America is in less than half an hour and it will be another seven hours plus before sunrise there tomorrow. That's about five hours' overlap of darkness for the two locations and in their summer when their nights are shorter.

https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/south-africa/cape-town
https://www.timeanddate.com/sun/argentina/ushuaia

96

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Have a video for you guys

« on: December 23, 2020, 08:37:15 PM »

... The separation between a straight line of points would decrease with distance regardless of the angle between the horizon and the line in question (in other words: the angle between stars *does* appear to decrease ...

My apologies: I assumed you meant something by the above quoted statement. I'm trying to imagine how the sky as described in the wiki would look with stars a few thousand miles above us moving over our heads, how they would look as they move in the course of a night. It doesn't square with what we see in the actual sky. Constellations a few thousand miles above would most certainly change in size and the angle between these stars change as they passed from horizon to horizon, only in the real night sky they don't.

97

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Have a video for you guys

« on: December 23, 2020, 04:44:44 PM »

I do wonder if Pete has ever watched the stars much. Has he witnessed Orion's belt become Orion's watchstrap as it sets in the west? Has he seen Castor and Pollux in Gemini increase their social distancing as they rise from the east? Did he notice Cygnus become a Sparrow as it drops in the northwest from the UK or Draco shrink to a Gecko?

The stars don't become further apart as they rise from the eastern horizon, nor do they come closer together as they vanish over the west. Anyone familiar with astronomy and stellar navigation understands that from observation and common experience, and quoting Rowbotham (as the wiki does) won't change the night sky.

98

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Let's start with "Burden of Proof"

« on: December 18, 2020, 12:50:58 PM »

I never avoid supplying sources / validation for obfuscation.  If I know of a good source that can help explain more adequately than the detail I include - I am most happy to include it.  ...

Presumably you meant something else. Elucidation is always welcome, elaboration can be useful, but obfuscation is no help to anyone.

99

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why the round earth hoax?

« on: December 17, 2020, 10:12:47 AM »

I’m not questioning your calculations or the results, but it would help understanding if you also mention the apparent height of Polaris above the North Pole as calculated from these positions. At 60 degrees north, Polaris is apparently 3,118 miles above the pole and at 30 degrees north it’s apparently 2,078 miles above a flat earth pole. So Polaris goes up and down in height as an observer on a flat earth travels towards and away from the pole. Similar problems beset calculations of the sun’s height above a flat earth, but Samuel Whirling Roundbottom didn’t mention these in ENAG.

100

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Does the Earth rest on a solid foundation or does it float in space?

« on: December 17, 2020, 06:55:29 AM »

I have to admit my mistake when I misread "hours" for "years" so apologies. 8503.4 hours, you said.

I suspected as much, don’t worry about it.

I understand the boat changing direction at 1g as experienced by its passenger, also length dilation and redshift for an outside observer not being seen by those on a fast-moving Earth. So please go on, what’s next?