Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - douglips

Pages: < Back  1 ... 20 21 [22]
421
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Star tracks in the southern hemisphere
« on: October 01, 2017, 08:32:01 AM »
I found a reference to "celestial gears" here:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1358.msg22975#msg22975

Quote
The Coriolis effect, at least as far as wind currents are concerned, is most likely caused by celestial gears, the same mechanism that leads to stars rotating in opposite directions across the hemidiscs.

Searching for celestial gears I found this:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=18122.msg319759#msg319759

I then searched the wiki and found this:
https://wiki.tfes.org/Stars
I don't see anything in there about celestial gears or the southern sky, but  in that "theflatearthsociety.org" post it seems that Tom Bishop has an idea for why you see southern "poles" in the stars motions:

Quote
The stars spin in opposite directions over certain areas because that is what is observed. That's simply how the stars move. The turning of the "gears" keep each other generally moving in opposite directions. Not literal gears, but celestial systems rubbing against each other, affecting each other gravometrically.

Over the Flat Earth exists a number of stellar multiple systems. One is over Australia, one is over South America, and another is over the North Pole. Each have unique properties and keep each other in motion via gravitational gears. Formation was caused by a conglomerate of stellar interactions and the influence of the sun which makes a path through the teeth of these gears.

Here is an animation for visual effect:



The movement of these stars is what is attributed to the Focault Pendulum, Corolis Effect, gyroscopes, and other spinning phenomena. Bodies will be captured geometrically and propelled in the direction and apogee of the close stars overhead, which make one rotation around the hub per twenty four hours. The South Celestial Systems over the Southern Hemisphere are spinning in the opposite direction and so bodies will be deflected in the opposite direction.

As for why the stars spin in different directions over different parts of the earth; that's more of a hypothetical question. No true answer will ever be given because astronomy is completely observational. There is no experimentation in Astronomy. Any number of stellar models could be created to explain the movements of such intricate multiple systems.

Is anybody interested in updating the wiki to contain such information? It's really interesting to think about having multiple celestial poles, one over each major continent. Questions arising from that include:
- Is there another system over Africa?
- Why do all the southern systems look identical but the northern system is different? Why aren't the multiple southern systems unique so you have different stars in South America than in Australia?
- Is there a separate system over all the other places we can go such as Tahiti, or are we still just seeing the ones over the major continents?
- If we can see the discontinuity between south and north over such a large portion of the earth, why can't we see the discontinuities between the multiple southern stellar multiple systems?

422
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why doesn't the sun get smaller with perspective?
« on: October 01, 2017, 07:56:07 AM »
Also: I have an ENTIRE THREAD on star tracks that doesn't seem to be getting anywhere:
https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=6818.0

Even in the photo Tom posted, you can see the curvature of the star tracks stop as you get to the celestial equator. In flat earth theory, the star tracks should all form circles around the north celestial pole, right? Eagerly awaiting flat earth hypotheses for the southern stars.

423
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why doesn't the sun get smaller with perspective?
« on: October 01, 2017, 07:52:39 AM »
3DGeek I have to also point out that the eclipse photo is clearly a picture of an annular eclipse. This is not the same thing as a total eclipse, the photosphere of the sun is still visible and is quite bright.

That being said, the "video of headlights" explanation on the wiki page does conflict with the annular eclipse photo.

People looking at the video of headlights and saying that the headlights don't get any bigger are ignoring two really important things:
- The sun, if it is 3000 miles away as in some FE theories, is approximately 30 miles wide. Headlights are 3 inches wide, and would appear to be smaller than the sun even at only 30 feet away from us.
- the DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HEADLIGHTS does change as you would expect.

The annular eclipse photo is essentially a ring of headlights. Why does the annular eclipse ring not shrink at the horizon when the distance between headlights does shrink in all the videos that are supposed to explain how perspective doesn't work for bright objects?

424
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth Map Should Be Easy
« on: October 01, 2017, 07:31:51 AM »
I wish I got anywhere with my question about longitude in  the Q&A forum, but nothing seems to come of the threads I post.

If you want to figure the distance from New York to Paris, can you use time and the motion of the sun or stars to figure it? That is, if you can measure distances in North America (e.g. by driving), and you can measure distances in Europe (again, by driving), and you can observe that the sun moves a certain number of degrees across the sky in a certain amount of time (15 degrees), then can you use a clock and just observe the angle of the sun to get a value for east/west distance across oceans?

425
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Tide?
« on: September 25, 2017, 08:18:56 AM »

What this does is to cause a SMALL amount of centrifugal force that tugs at the side of the Earth that's furthest from the Moon...and THAT force creates the second tide.

This is interesting because there is NO force in Flat Earth theory that can explain that second tide.

Check out this page - scroll down to "HIGH TIDES AND LOW TIDES" and you'll see a graph of the water depth - with two minimums and two maximums:

    http://www.tides4fishing.com/uk/england/southwold#_tides

I rather like this proof because anyone who lives on some open ocean beach can easily see the double tides for themselves.

In rivers, lakes and other confined areas, the results are less clear because the water is much delayed by the constrictions in flow - but the effect is very clear on open ocean beaches.

It's not centrifugal force that causes it, it's the differential between the gravitational force on the water vs. the solid part of the earth. In other words, the second high tide is caused by there being LESS gravity on that part of the ocean.

This may seem like a silly distinction, but it has implications, for example if the mass of the moon were much greater, both the high tides would be much greater, not just the one closest to the moon. If it were due to the centrifugal force of the orbit, that should only vary as the orbital period/velocity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_force

426
Flat Earth Theory / Flat Earth view of longitude?
« on: September 25, 2017, 01:00:11 AM »
I'm hoping to understand how flat earth theory treats longitude and latitude. I'm not looking for a debate, just an understanding of what flat earth theorists think of these concepts.

In round earth theory, latitude is the angle from vertical the sun is at local noon on the equinox. At the equator (latitude 0) the sun is directly overhead at noon. At the tropic, the sun is 23.5 degrees from overhead, and at the arctic circle its 66.5 degrees from overhead. Do flat earth theorists agree that you could measure these angles with a protractor or a sextant and agree with these figures?

Longitude is the angle from overhead that the sun is at noon GMT. If you are on the prime meridian, the sun is overhead at noon, if you are 15 degrees west, the sun is 15 degrees from overhead at noon GMT. Do flat earth theorists agree with this to any extent? In Europe at least, it should be possible to measure the angle of the sun exactly at noon GMT.

427
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Summer solstice in southern vs. northern hemisphere
« on: September 25, 2017, 12:48:14 AM »
Is this just going to be ignored by flat earth theorists?

428
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Star tracks in the southern hemisphere
« on: September 25, 2017, 12:45:16 AM »
I don't understand how this isn't an interesting topic of conversation for flat earth proponents.

What do you expect the motion of stars in the southern hemisphere to be?

429
Flat Earth Theory / Constant angular speed of the sun
« on: September 25, 2017, 12:08:15 AM »
Using an equatorial sundial you can demonstrate that the sun moves through 15 degrees every hour, no matter what time of day it is.
Example construction of such a sundial:


This has several implications, all of which are problematic for flat earth theory.

A) DISTANCE TO THE SUN
If you know the distance between two points at any given latitude between the two tropics (e.g, between say Ziguinchor, Senegal, and Gondar, Ethiopia at 12.6 degrees N - at most about 7400 km), you can calculate the exact distance to the sun. If you believe in longitude, you can just go by the angle difference in longitude. If you don't believe in longitude, you could send a team of two people, one to each location, and measure the exact time the sun passes over head as well as the angle the sun makes at the time the sun passes overhead the other location. Since that is exactly what longitude is, it will work out to the same value.

For this particular example, Google thinks you can drive from one to the other in about 7400km, and the longitude difference is 53.7 degrees. This means that at noon at Gondar the day the sun is directly overhead, the sun is at a 53.7 degree angle in Ziguinchor, and vice versa.

On a flat earth, this means you can draw a triangle where one leg is the line on the flat earth between the two locations, one leg is vertical from the location where the sun is directly overhead, and one leg is from the sun to the other location. This triangle would have angles of 53.7, 90, and 36.3 degrees. The length of the earth leg is at most the driving distance between the two cities, and the vertical distance from the earth to the sun at the location is the tangent of 36.3 degrees * at most 7400km, or about 3400 miles.

B) ANGULAR SIZE OF THE SUN
Because you now know how far the sun is from the earth, you can determine how much farther away the sun is at a time other than noon. In the above example, the sun would be 7400km/cos(36.3 degrees) at the location that is not directly under the sun, or about 5700 miles away. This is 1.7 times farther away than the sun is at noon, meaning that the angular size of the sun should be significantly smaller at the location where it is not noon.

However, the angular size of the sun is always about 1/2 of a degree, this means the sun's distance from you does not change significantly during the day, or the shape of the sun is weirdly shaped such that from different angles it appears larger. Such a weirdly shaped sun would be impossible to eclipse, for example.

C) PERSPECTIVE
Since the angular velocity of the sun is constant, in flat earth theory this means that the sun must be moving faster when it is farther away from you. However, if that were the case, people in different areas of the earth would see the sun moving more quickly overhead, because while it is 4 PM where you are, it's noon somewhere. Either the person where it is noon would see the sun moving faster, or you would see the sun moving slower.


431
On Wednesday, September 20, 2017, I flew on Southwest Airlines flight 1293 from SJC to DAL. It happened to be flying over Texas right at local sunset. In addition, to the northwest of Dallas was a beautiful tall thunderstorm. I was able to take pictures of the following phenomena:

- The aircraft clearly illuminated by direct sunlight after local sunset
- A tall wall of clouds illustrating direct sunlight at the top, darkness at the bottom, and twilight illumination in between
- A high layer of clouds illuminated from beneath, and the shadow of a lower cloud cast upon the higher layer

Some of the photos were taken just a few minutes before local sunset (as seen from the ground at the location directly under the aircraft) and some just a few minutes after. The last two photos were taken approximately 5 minutes after local sunset and clearly show that the aircraft is illuminated by direct sunlight.

I view these photos as supporting Round Earth Theory and would be interested in other possible interpretations.

432
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Star tracks in the southern hemisphere
« on: August 29, 2017, 07:20:06 PM »
Explain to me how you get either of these images in an axis rotating globe around a sun circling the milky way candy bar, by Mars of course.


I'm not sure if you mean
a) these images aren't real
or
b) these images can't be explained by round earth theory.

a) you can go outside after dark and if you watch the night sky with your eyeballs for an hour or two you can perceive the motion of the stars.
b) I don't understand your comment. If the earth is a globe spinning, how else would you expect stars that are light years away to appear?

I guess a follow up question is: What do you expect star tracks to look like in the northern hemisphere? Doesn't FET expect them to match exactly what they look like?
What do you expect star trails to look like in the southern hemisphere?

433
Flat Earth Theory / Summer solstice in southern vs. northern hemisphere
« on: August 28, 2017, 05:19:49 AM »
If you go north of the Arctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the summer solstice. This seems consistent with both round and flat earth models.

If you go south of the Antarctic circle, you can see the sun 24 hours a day near the (southern) summer solstice. This seems inconsistent with a flat earth model. How can you see the sun 24/7 in the south, when the sun is so much farther away on any of the flat earth maps?

434
Flat Earth Theory / Star tracks in the southern hemisphere
« on: August 28, 2017, 05:16:01 AM »
If you take a time exposure photo at night, you see star tracks. In the northern hemisphere, these seem consistent with both flat earth and round earth models.
e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/65685660@N07/6779850168

But in the southern hemisphere, the star tracks appear to be circling a south celestial pole. In the flat earth model, shouldn't star tracks in the southern hemisphere be on an ever increasing radius?
http://oldweb.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat006.html

What's the mechanism for southern hemisphere star tracks appearing to circle a pole?

Pages: < Back  1 ... 20 21 [22]