1

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 30, 2023, 03:33:08 PM »

Regardless of reasoning, the point is that according to the official theory of Astronomy the stars we see are illusions. They do not follow the perspective laws:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion



The same applies to the planets and the galaxies. They defy the perspective laws. This nullifies the complaints that the celestial bodies should follow the laws of perspective, and nullifies your past repeated spams with animations of things shrinking with distance.

And I still don't understand this: "The projection is made on a section of atmosphere between your eyes and the Sun. It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle"
What does It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle mean?

You were asking why the projection couldn't be viewed from another angle other than straight on and gave an example of people sitting at different positions in a movie theater. The projection that appears to you is a personal projection.  It is made on a section of the atmolayer between your eyes and the Sun/the Sun's light.

For some things, only your particular eyes or position can see. Reflections are also positional and personal to the person or thing observing it. Not everyone from all positions will see this long reflection on the water:



Someone positioned from above the water looking down at the surface from above will not see a line of light on the water. The light is personal to you. Likewise, people positioned at various points along the shore looking towards the Sun will see the line of light on the water appearing to point and lead directly towards each of them.

In a sense, the light is "projected" onto the water surface by the sun, and this "projection" is something only you can see from that particular position.

2

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 30, 2023, 03:53:59 AM »

Oddly, the Galaxies do not follow the laws of perspective either -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Problems_of_the_Galaxies#Angular_Size_of_Galaxies

Angular Size of Galaxies

One would expect that a distant galaxy should be smaller in apparent size than a closer galaxy, in a linear manner according to the laws of perspective. However, the sizes of the galaxies do not decrease linearly with distance.

Astronomers Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Wesley Richards write in The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, on p.191:

  “ Of course Earth’s atmosphere does blur the images of astronomical bodies, but an interesting cosmic coincidence reduces its negative impact on our observations of distant galaxies. The angular sizes of distant galaxies do not just decrease linearly with increasing distance, as nearby objects do. Paradoxically, angular size declines until a redshift of about one and then increases for larger redshifts. The minimum angular size of a Milky Way-like galaxy is just about the same size as the blurring effect of our atmosphere.³⁸ Our atmosphere is not nearly the impediment for viewing the most distant galaxies that one might expect. ”

3

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 30, 2023, 03:52:05 AM »

You will be surprised to learn that neither the stars or planets shrink according to the laws of perspective.

See this history and lesson on Astronomy by Prof. Graney. The size of the stars were deemed to be illusions -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion

Another section by Prof. Graney also implies that the effect also applies to the planets -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Star_Size_Illusion#Planet_Size_Contradictions

Horrocks’s comments are intriguing, and a clear record of an astronomer discovering that the telescope was producing spurious information as regards the stars. His report is an accurate reflection of how stars are seen to behave when the Moon passes in front of them. However, he gives this report while seeking to justify the small size of Venus that he recorded during its transit across the Sun. He goes on to discuss planetary sizes as though the planets increase in size in proportion to their distance from the Sun, so that if they were observed from the Sun, they would all have the same apparent size. This seems clearly counter to telescopic observations (especially considering he cites Galileo’s star size measurements). Thus his remarks on the sizes of stars and planets are a mixture both of excellent observations and of nonsense obvious to any careful observer.

4

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 29, 2023, 03:26:08 AM »

In several of those images the lights are not shrinking in a linear manner. The first few lights in the set appear to shrink faster than the last few lights at the end of the row. The cause for this is described at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

5

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 28, 2023, 07:34:26 PM »

See bolded:

So what is the light source? The sun? Yes
Then what is projecting the sun image on to the atmoplane? The Sun does. The Sun "projects" light like the fire in the cave example.

Then take the moon projection. With your shadow puppet in a cave analogy, the Sun (which we don't know how it is projected The Sun projects it light upon the atmolayer) is the fire. Some sort of image of the Moon is the shadow puppet hands. And the shadow puppet hands/moon image is then cast on the cave wall/atmoplane.

- So where is the shadow puppet hands/moon image source located? The source is the physical body of the Moon, which also projects (reflected) light rays from it like the Sun
- And how does the projection create the moon wobble? Unrelated
- And how does the projection create the solar flares? Unrelated
- And depending upon where I'm standing on the plane, wouldn't these projected images look distorted in different ways. Much like if I'm way to the left in the front row of a movie theater as opposed to being in the middle of the back row? The projection is made on a section of atmosphere between your eyes and the Sun. It's personal to you. You therefore cannot look at it from another angle.

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

Oops, sorry, I missed the Q & A at the end.

Yes, solar filters block a lot of light. Yes. Polarizing filters aren't just light blockers, per se. Polarized Filters are different than Solar Filters. They work by diffusing light waves in specific directions, like horizontally and vertically. That's why when you rotate one you get a different effect. This is referring to Polarized Filters, not Solar Filters. Polarized lenses are discussed at https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Polarized_Lens_Example

There are basically two kinds of Solar Filters, White Light and Hydrogen alpha (Ha). The former blocks like 99% of the light so you can see the sun surface and Ha filters block everything except for the wavelength created by hydrogen atoms. So you can see flares and such.

Even from the Answer in the Q & A, I still don't see how it's addressing the fact that with a solar filter the sun does not observably change size. In your analogy if the projection of the sun on the side of a car and that car is 20 meters away and there's another car with the same projection 2 meters away, the projected image will be smaller on the far away car than on the close car. That's not what we observe with the celestial bodies. The projected celestial bodies should get smaller as they move away from us. They don't. A Solar Filter cannot remove a projection or reflection of light, only dim it. If the projection is magnified it's not going to reveal the true size of the source light, just like a pair of sunglasses can't remove a projection of a movie projection. If the movie screen were a semi-transparent sheet, standing on the other side of the sheet with a pair of sunglasses would not reveal the true size of the light source. The projection could be of various sizes upon the semi-transparent sheet, and the sunglasses will not reveal the true size of the light source.

6

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 27, 2023, 07:39:26 PM »

I read the wiki. I didn't see where it explained where the projector is and how it operates. Where is the mechanism located that projects an image of a celestial body on the atmoplane and how does it work?

A projection does not need a directional "projector". Consider a shadow puppet show in a cave by the light of a fire. The fire in the middle of the cave allows its occupants to project shadow puppets on the cave walls around them. The fire projects light, and is the "projector".

The sun does not appear to change in size. Does FE address solar filter images/video as opposed to polarizing filter images/video?

Yes, solar filters are discussed on the Wiki page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Questions_and_Answers

Q: Shouldn't a Solar Filter restore the sun to its actual state?

A: The principle behind a Solar Filter is the same as the principle behind a pair of sunglasses. It dims the scene for eye safety. The effect is a projection of light upon the atmolayer. Neither sunglasses or solar filters eliminate projections or reflections of light. Would wearing a pair of sunglasses eliminate the reflection of the sun off of the side of a car? Would a pair of sunglasses eliminate or shrink the projection on a movie screen inside of a movie theater?

If they are an attempt to “create problems to get government money” they have utterly failed - Congress doesn’t really care about barren moons of Saturn.

Counter argument:

https://americansforprosperity.org/five-outrageous-ways-the-federal-government-has-wasted-your-money-pt-ii/

$1.5 Million Spent Studying Fish on Treadmills

University of California – San Diego study spent a $1.5 million grant from the National Science Foundation to measure the endurance of mudskipper and bluegill fish on a treadmill. . . .

$1.7 Million Spent on a Comedy Club Featuring Dead Comedian Holograms

The U.S. Department of Commerce spent $1.7 million to help construct a comedy museum in Jamestown, New York that will “resurrect” dead comedians – from Lucille Ball to George Carlin – in the form of holograms. . . .

$3 Million Spent Studying the Jaws Theme and People’s Perception of Sharks

In 2016, taxpayers funded a $3 million National Science Foundation grant to study the public’s fear of sharks in relation to the Jaws theme song and music played during documentaries. . . .

The Department of Defense Spent $2.4 Million to Learn How to Get More “Likes” on Social Media

The Department of Defense funded a $2.4 million study to “counter misinformation or deception campaigns with truthful information,” as part of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Social Media in Strategic Communications program. . . .

$3.4 Million Spent on Hamster Cage Matches

Over the past twenty years, the National Institutes of Health has spent $3.4 million studying aggression and anxiety in more than 1,000 male hamsters. . . .

https://commonplacefacts.com/2020/09/09/doggie-hamlet-brought-to-you-by-your-tax-dollars/

Doggie Hamlet Brought to You By Your Tax Dollars



In 2017, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) awarded a $30,000 grant for the purpose of staging an outdoor production of “Hamlet,” with animals as cast members. As is often the case with anything involving federal funding, this requires more explanation. Although it is classified as a production of “Hamlet,” there aren’t actually any lines from Shakespeare’s immortal play.

The 70-minute production by performance artist Ann Carlson includes five performers, three herding dogs, a dog handler, a dog trainer, and a flock of sheep. Carlson was inspired by David Wroblewski’s The Story of Edgar Sawtelle, which tells the story of a boy who can hear but not speak. He learns American Sign Language to communicate with people, but he also uses a gestural language with the dogs he raises. Carlson, however, does not retell that story, but instead, it explores what it means to be a citizen of the world, with nature included.

7

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 27, 2023, 05:34:01 PM »

So where is this projector and how does it operate? That, as well, remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in FET.

It's a projection of a body upon a medium. It's explained in the Wiki - https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

In FET, how does the projected corona get so hot?

It's not necessarily as hot in FE. The temperatures of the sun would need to be recalculated under the assumption of a close sun.

This raises the question of why they would claim they have no explanation. Either that‘s them being honest or it’s actually just really complicated coverup 4D chess.

They could easily say they have an absolute indisputable explanation for the different temperatures at each layer of the sun, but they don’t.

You're right. This may be funding related. NASA needs problems to exist to convince Congress to give them money.

8

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 25, 2023, 04:57:08 PM »

That doesn't explain why the Sun has layers with radically different temperatures, or why the photosphere is so much cooler than the sun's atmosphere.

You can find various articles which get published every so often which claim to have solved it like any other major problem, but those are not the consensus that it is a mystery in Astronomy. There are "we solved it!" papers published practically every few years, but sometime later something will be published suggesting that it's a mystery. The official stance is generally that it's a mystery.

Even NASA's standard educational materials admit that it's a historic mystery that still persists:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/12903

Discovering the Sun’s Mysteriously Hot Atmosphere

Something mysterious is going on at the Sun. In defiance of all logic, its atmosphere gets much, much hotter the farther it stretches from the Sun’s blazing surface.

Temperatures in the corona — the Sun’s outer atmosphere — spike to 3 million degrees Fahrenheit, while just 1,000 miles below, the underlying surface simmers at a balmy 10,000 F. How the Sun manages this feat is a mystery that dates back nearly 150 years, and remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics. Scientists call it the coronal heating problem.

See: "remains one of the greatest unanswered questions in astrophysics" and look up the definition of "remains".

From an infographic:

https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a004600/a004668/MM_FATS_Infographic_w_NASA_ID_print.jpg

9

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 25, 2023, 01:31:31 PM »

It is interesting that the hotspot in the Solar Eclipse photo above is off-center. That appears hard to describe with the theory that the darkening is a physical property of the sun's dim layers millions of miles behind the Moon.

Under the FE projection scenario, the hotspot being off center when something near the light source interferes with it does make some sense. Consider a wall projector. If you put your hand or object near the light source of a wall projector, it is more possible to change where the hotspot is on the wall due to close range light deflection.

According to RE the phenomenon of the dimmer rim of the Sun is called Limb Darkening, and is a physical property of the sun having different temperatures at different layers:

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/limb_darkening.html

Limb Darkening:

Limb darkening is the gradual decrease in brightness of the disk of the Sun or of another star as observed from its centre to its edge, or limb. This phenomenon is readily apparent in photographs of the Sun. The darkening is greatest for blue light, amounting to a drop of as much as 90 percent from the Sun's photosphere to its outer atmospheric regions. Such limb darkening occurs because the solar atmosphere increases in temperature with depth. At the centre of the solar disk, an observer sees the deepest and warmest layers that emit the most light. At the limb, only the upper, cooler layers that produce less light can be seen. Observations of solar limb darkening are used to determine the temperature structure of the Sun's atmosphere. Information derived from such observations is applied in studying other stars.

Excerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica without permission.

If this darkening is a physical property of the layers of the Sun, it interesting that the Moon can sometimes seem to cause the Sun to darken up, despite that the Sun is supposedly 92 million of miles behind the Moon.

Here is another Solar Eclipse photo of the Sun, from Joshua Tree Park on October 23, 2014:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/joshuatreenp/15609084861



Slight adjustments, see arrows:



The edge of the Moon caused the body of the Sun to darken to an luminosity similar to the Sun's edges.

It seems that this effect doesn't happen in an obvious manner all the time:

https://www.edgeonscience.com/annular_solar_eclipse/



In these cases, it might be that the hotspot is off center a bit like in the first eclipse photo in the previous post, but close enough to the center that it is difficult to tell. Different Sun-Moon distances or different mediums between the Sun and Moon in FE, can possibly cause different effects. In RE it's supposed to be a relative vacuum between the Moon and Sun.

From the above image the central hotspot is potentially slightly off-center, shifted slightly to the left of center of the sun disk:



Photos like this may be ambiguous. But that the Moon should ever seem to cause the Sun to obviously darken at all, or cause the hotspot to be obviously off-center, in some pictures, is certainly deserving of investigation.

10

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Appearance of the sun

« on: March 25, 2023, 07:30:27 AM »

The image is somewhat inaccurate. The Sun is not brighter near the edges. The Sun is actually darker near the edges: A long standing mystery in Astronomy.

FE postulates that the celestial bodies we see are projections upon the atmolayer. See this page and section of the Wiki which describes the magnification of the Sun's image upon the atmolayer -

https://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset#Sun_Brightness_Inconsistent

Sun Brightness Inconsistent

Additionally, it should be noted that the sun appears to be inconsistently bright. This is curious, since in the Round Earth model the sun is an object where every point from half of the spherical sun's surface is reaching the eye of the observer. One should expect to see all parts of the sun's body with equal intensity, or with increased intensity at the edges, as intensity is defined by accumulated photons, and the number of miles per square arcsecond increases in those regions.

Find a photo of a Solar Eclipse, which are often taken through a solar filter, and then modify the brightness and contrast settings in order to bring out the areas of the image which are the brightest:



Compare that to the hotspotting seen in a projector's image on a screen:



Source: Hotspotting or brightness inhomogeneity

The hotspot seen in the sun may suggest a projection upon the atmoplane. Projections, such as from a projector shining on a movie screen, tend to have hotspots in them.

Inconsistent Brightness: A Round Earth Mystery

The inconsistent brightness is a problem in RET, and it is well admitted. Astronomers find difficulty in explaining how it works to have outer layers of the sun significantly dimmer than other layers.

Astronomers had to make the surface of the sun, the photosphere, very cold—at only about 6000 degrees Kelvin, compared to the much hotter atmosphere of the sun called the Solar Corona that is about several million degrees Kelvin, which is seen as a wispy aura around the sun seen at Total Solar Eclipse or with a coronagraph; and also significantly different compared to 15 million degrees Kelvin for the Solar Core (Archive). In addition, astronomers had to make the outer cool photosphere layer transparent or semi-transparent so that the radiation from the core could pass through it to the observer.

Article: Solving the Mystery of the Sun's Hot Atmosphere:

  “ The Sun's surface, the photosphere, has a temperature of around 6000 degrees, but the outer atmosphere, the corona -- best seen from Earth during total solar eclipses -- is several hundred times hotter. How the corona is heated to millions of degrees is one of the most significant unsolved problems in astrophysics. ”

  “ Why the Sun's corona is so hot is a long-standing puzzle. It's as if a flame were coming out of an ice cube. It doesn't make any sense! ”
                  —Dr. David H. Brooks, George Mason University

A projection of light would have the effect of inconsistent brightness, with a hot spot at the center, like the hotspot projection example.

The dark edges of the sun can also be seen in this historical reference:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Sun#Sun_Spherical

The Story of the Stars
New Descriptive Astronomy
Joel Dorman Steele, Ph.D.,

The Solar System p.44

  “ Spots Apparently Change Their Speed and Form as They Pass Across the Disk — A spot is seen on the eastern limb; day by day it progresses, With a gradually-increasing rapidity, until it reaches the center; it then Slowly loses its rapidity, and f‌inally disappears on the western limb. The diagram illustrates the apparent change which takes place in the form. Suppose at f‌irst the spot is of an oval shape; as it approaches the center it apparently widens and becomes circular. Having passed that point, it becomes more and more oval until it disappears. ”

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 09:55:43 PM »

Trump said that Stormy Daniels was trying to extort him.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/991994433750142976

"The agreement was used to stop the false and extortionist accusations made by her about an affair"

Not sure why a Porn Star is credible here.

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 07:44:24 PM »

It's possible that there is a conspiracy there, but it brings your first hand witness count from 1 to 0.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 07:16:40 PM »

In the "Took me 30 seconds" in getting us the video did AllAroundTheWorld even bother watching the Jan 2018 Jimmy Kimmel interview?

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 07:01:57 PM »

Tom in “believing anything which backs up his world view” shock exclusive.

Took me 30 seconds

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Ntl5Da1vblI

She actually denied it:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/amid-publicity-tour-porn-star-stormy-daniels-denies-having-an-affair-with-trump.html



https://nypost.com/2018/01/30/stormy-daniels-now-denies-ever-having-an-affair-with-trump/

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: March 23, 2023, 06:34:55 PM »

Even Stormy Daniels denied the affair:

16

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 21, 2023, 08:11:15 PM »

Suggested changes to 'Horizon is always at eye level' in the Wiki

It looks like it was originally here: https://wiki.tfes.org/Horizon_always_at_Eye_Level

If you go to that redirect and read the content it says that the horizon is not always at eye level. So why are you claiming that the wiki says that the horizon is always at eye level or that it is the official stance?

17

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 19, 2023, 02:48:21 AM »

It's simply a weak argument. The photographer is clearly faking earth curvature in some of his works, and the image in which the curvature is clearly manipulated the photographer calls an "Air to Air Photograph" without disclaimer that the shape of the horizon in the scene was not as we would see it.

The two photos are also advertised exactly the same way without distinction.

https://www.chaucercollectables.co.uk/ishop/images/1099/p8.pdf



Both are called "photographic prints", both are called "photos" and both are by the same photographer. Elsewhere the photographer also calls them both "photographs".

Yet you somehow know what is real earth curvature and what is fake earth curvature. Your source on this is your own self and your personal opinion, which is a poor method of inquiry and creates a poor argument.

18

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 11:27:56 PM »

Oh, and look at the bottom of that ebay page listing at the Business Seller Information. It's Adrian Meredith himself calling it an "Air to Air Photograph":

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313236786053?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

Business seller information

Adrian Meredith Photography
Adrian Meredith
16 Golf Close
Woking
Surrey
GU22 8PE
United Kingdom

19

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 11:08:39 PM »

Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?

That image looks like some sort of promotional composite. Which has nothing to do with the validity of his many other photos. And the photo in question is extremely well documented as to how it was captured. Same for one of his other famous pics, the one of the 4 Concordes flying in formation. Here's just one of many accounts:

So you admit that pictures labeled as Adrian Meredith Photography is not actually pure "Photography" and concordephotos.com picture are not actually "Photos" and that an artistic license is applied to the images.

Considering that you are only showing us one image from someone who manipulates his photos it is hardly compelling evidence that your one image is not also manipulated.

Here is the description of the item you claim to be the fake/manipulated Adrian Meredith Photography image, sold by what appears to be concordephotos.com's official ebay account named concordephotos:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/313236786053?mkevt=1&mkcid=1&mkrid=710-53481-19255-0&campid=5338722076&customid=&toolid=10050

Sold by concordephotos, Surrey, United Kingdom

Concorde Flyiing Over The Curvature Of The Earth At 60,000 Feet Signed 16X12

This Air to Air Photograph 1998, of Concorde G-BOAF is flying at 60,000
feet, you can clearly see the curvature of the Earth, you are now in the
stratosphere, flying on the edge of space, and burning 5 gallons of fuel per
mile, Photo size 16x12 inches

Photograph Signed by Chief Concorde Captain Mike Bannister,  Photograph
signed by Adrian Meredith.

20

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Curvature of the Horizon

« on: March 18, 2023, 10:37:55 PM »

Here is another signed Adrian Meredith Concord photo from concordephotos.com. I bet you think the earth curvature is real in this one too. Who knew that the Concorde could achieve satellite altitudes?



Will you claim that this Adrian Meredith photo is fake/manipulated but your Adrian Meredith photo is super-real and accurate?