41

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Southern Sky. Need explanations

« on: June 02, 2018, 03:36:46 AM »

One other thing that would be observed is that if the observations are taken at the same time UTC, the long axis of the southern cross would be in the same orientation, for example,

If the observations were taken at 03:00 UTC, the the picture of the horizon to the south would look the same, with the long axis pointing at say 11 O’clock (i have not calculated this, just using it as a representative example) the axis would be the same orientation from both locations, which would be interesting to try to work out why that is on widely spaced locations on the earth.

Any FEers up for a bit of photography? Pretty cheap experiment to do i am sure....

42

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?

« on: June 02, 2018, 01:39:12 AM »

It’s a pity people do not actually read the commentary on the links that rate provided.

Rabinoz did. He provided a quote that one of the images was from fish-eye lens.

As does your link state "which look like ellipses on this distorting fish eye image." You should probably read your own links before accusing others of that.

Please read the captions on the website in the link before accusing me of hypocracy.

In fact let me quote the caption above the picture;

“Equirectangular projection of the all sky view. Southern celestial hemisphere is on the left and Northern celestial hemisphere on the right.
If you want to see the movie of the true sky rotation explained above (and showed in all these pictures) by moving the camera yourself, you MUST have a look at this "Virtual night Time Lapse Movie".”

Not sure where the words  “fish eye lens” appear in the above caption?

this is the link.
http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html#Picture3

The caption referring to “fish eye lens” was attributed to the equatorilm time lapse picture, and not the picture showing the 2 poles and the rectangular view.

So let me get this right,

You agree that there is lens distortion of the images?

Yet use this distortion as an argument that the constellations change relative positions?

Yet completely reject any pictures of the earth that are taken using a fish eye lens as being misrepresentative ? (Many times in other threads)

If the constellations change relative shape during the night, why are none of the lines crossing? In the you tube videos i linked earlier the representations show the stars converge and cross, which does not happen in the pics you show.

As for the pictures you have posted Did you take those pictures yourself? What camera and lense did you use, and the location of the pics will be needed to verify they are genuine.

43

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?

« on: June 02, 2018, 12:17:46 AM »

It’s a pity people do not actually read the commentary on the links that rate provided.

When clicking on the picture of the two polar rotations shots it calls it an “equirectangular projection” clearly not a standard viewe and distorted, so i find it hard to understand why this image is being touted as what one would actually see???

Try looking at the Equatorila view, and the polar rotation views and you will see there are no trails which diverge, or cross, or have any trail other than the same in relation to the other stars.

Maybe a little reading and scrutiny should be applied before claiming it as a slam dunk to show star divergence or similar.

I would also suggest that this is line of those things that should be subjected to the Zetetic process, i.e. go outside and look and see the stars. Record it if you wish. You will see the results your self, the star constellations DO NOT change shape, diverge or rotate differently in relation to each other.

http://sguisard.astrosurf.com/Pagim/From_pole_to_pole.html#Top

44

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 02:19:46 PM »

Sorry, I forgot to mention, that the Pac-Man effect is a necessity for the bipolar model... But, nothing is perfect...

Why is that?

[edit] Is it because to get from NW Aus to Japan, you have to go from bottom to top? Couldn't you roll it up like a cylinder?

That works, sort of, but then how does the sun get from the end of the equatorial on the left to the right ?

45

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison

« on: May 31, 2018, 02:05:08 PM »

Trying to dispute it is rather pointless and clutching at straws really. Saying things like no aircraft knows how fast it flies.....etc etc.

I can see that it is necessary for the flat earth era to believe it, as if they were to budge an inch then it would be pretty much proved that the earth could not be flat.

Also arguing that there is no known shape or layout of the oceans and continents  is also a desperate measure to prop up the FE theory.

As there is no one model or representation of a map, it is then possible to try to argue the indefensible, as any flat earth map produced will be discounted, or shown as a representation only.

In Enag there are a few diagrams showing the world, such as figure 54, so if there are no known maps, that means EnaG again is proved wrong.

46

Flat Earth Community / Re: Cool Hard Logic - Testing Flattards - Part 1

« on: May 31, 2018, 01:54:51 PM »

Yes the bipolar model is symmetric in the east-west and north-south direction. But the symmetry axis in the north-south direction is not fixed. If it  would go through Australia we would have a similar mapping of distances to longitudes/latitudes as on a globe. In general the bipolar map has less significant problems with distortions than the unipolar one.

Of course, it has other severe problems, but for discussions it is quite convenient to have it as backup to counter arguments.     

Is this the model (below)? How would it not have distortions of distance? The equatorial regions for example? [edit] Also the mapping below has curved lines of longitude.

That model wont work.

At present we are sailing from North west Australia to japan, and i am pretty certain we are not going PAC~Man off the edge of the world doing it.....

47

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison

« on: May 31, 2018, 12:49:01 PM »

And you seriously think they will accept this? Even if you would be able to walk over water and measure the distances by hand with a ruler they would not believe it, because how could you be sure that you are walking always directly in straight line? You know this kind of argumentation e.g. when you argue about size and shape and position of the South Pole?   

Yes i know, but of the more than 1/2 dozen times i have explained it in different threads there has been not a single objection or dispute to what i have written, so I am beginning to believe that what I have shown is accepted.......

I can provide distances from my ships logs, showing measured against calculated distances over a period of time, etc.

That along with flight times should be enough data to try to plot on a plane surface?

48

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Surface Area of Earth, a comparison

« on: May 31, 2018, 12:16:58 PM »

I have on a number of occasions shown that it is possible to measure distance across the ocean to within a few percent accuracy, therefore I would suggest that the calculated distances across oceans like the pacific and Atlantic, Indian oceans etc are pretty accurate, and are not in error by more that 2%

The distances we measure are not reliant on round earth or flat earth shape, as the equipment is calibrated and verified to the earth, whatever shape it is.

Therefore i can state with confit-Denver that the distances across the oceans as calculated are correct.

Now all that needs doing is to plot them on a planer surface, and we have a model of the flat earth..........

49

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: May 29, 2018, 12:46:31 PM »

I have not read most of the above, but it seems like there is missing the “solar gravitational potential” from GPS satellites.

Is me or is this ironic that the existence of GPS satellites is being used to prove that the earth is flat, where GPS satellites could then not exist?? Or am i missing something?

50

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?

« on: May 29, 2018, 08:22:11 AM »

I agree.

I have seen stars in the north and south hemisphere, and on the equator. They all look like they are rotating as though we are looking up on the inside of a sphere of infinite distance, who’s axis of rotation is very close to Polaris, and sigma Octantis....

Now there are dozens of weird alternative ideas out there but Occams Frazier should cut the lot of them out, and go with us rotating inside the celestial sphere.

51

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is being done to prove the flat earth?

« on: May 29, 2018, 07:30:00 AM »

As Popper noted, science often proceeds by disconfirmation or falsification, rather than by proof or verification. So, create a model of reality, say, the world we live on is a nearly flat plane, and see whether the observations match up.

Regarding the FE model, it soon became apparent, indeed more than two thousand years ago, that it was very difficult to model reality using the FE assumptions. You have to explain stuff like sunset and sunrise, longitude, the pole star etc etc.

The modern FE movement tries to deny this science, however it is incumbent upon them to show how the standard and well-known problems can be explained under the FE model. E.g. why is half the world in darkness at any one time? That’s really hard.

And while the theories might seem plausible (if flawed) taken individually, when put together they can in no way be taken seriously.

Take the earths magnetic field, which is mapped, and measured, and ask a FEer to explain how it can apply to a FE, and they will say that there is a South Pole all around=d the ice wall, as a way of explaining the field we know it there, but ask them about magnetic dip, and it is either never explained or fudged over, then ask them how it works with a bi pole model of the earth, and it really falls apart, and then how that all ties in with the aurora, and it becomes a complete shambles.

Such a model is not possible. In that case the density of magnetic field lines would be much higher in the north compared to the south which means a strong gradient in magnetic field strength going from the north to the south. Its basically the same problem as with the increasing distances in east-west direction if you go south on the mono-polar flat earth.

I know, which is why i keep on asking FEers to explain how on a flat earth the earths magnetic field works, because it cannot, and will never agree with what is measured and observed.

52

Flat Earth Theory / Re: 100% undebunkable

« on: May 29, 2018, 07:21:22 AM »

Well its been spinning for 6.5 billion years. That's as good as forever.

Take an apple and place it in a swimming pool. Then spin it. See how long your apple spins. Then imagine that apple spinning for 6.5 billion years. The water near the surface of your apple spins with your apple. But by the time you get a metre away from the apple, you aren't moving any water. That apple has a boundary layer. One nowhere near the depth of the ocean or the height of the atmosphere.

I want to see an apple spin in a swimming pool for just 24 hours. I'll then let you off the other 6.5 billion years.

Explain how the sun keeps moving for that amount of time then?

Or even better, how it accelerates, slows down, moves direction and reverses direction each year. Where is all that energy coming from? And the stars moving? How is that happening? What is moving them?

53

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 29, 2018, 07:16:22 AM »

If I found a flight time that covered too many miles you would just spout "jet streams" or some such. Too slow and you would spout low speeds or flight path. That prevents us from knowing if there is a true discrepancy.

How are kilometers gauged on the left hand side in that chart? Spherical coordinate distances from Longitude and Latitude systems? How do you measure that sort of large distance without using the standard Longitude and Latitude system?

That is the matter under question, yet that graph "knows" how many kilometers the planes flew.

And yet i have explained to you many times tom that i can verify those distances.

The same calculations used for aircraft flight distances are used for calculating distances steamed by ships.
We verify our speed log with observations taken over the sea bed, which will mean if the earth is flat, our distances are also “flat earth based” if it is Global our Distances STEAMED are global.

Our distance/speed logs give an accuracy of within 1.5% typically.

So the distances quoted by airlines are within about 1.5% of the calculated distances.

I will be generous and give you 5% variation on those distances.
Now try and put them on a flat earth model, just be prepared for what you will find, you wont like it......

54

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The Horizon is Always at Eye Level

« on: May 29, 2018, 07:09:14 AM »

Would also love to hear how the supposed "Electromagnetic Accelerator" makes light bend upwards beneath the clouds... in a U shape?

I dont want to give them ammunition, but i am sure they will say something daft like reflected off the ocean......

55

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Guide to Creating a Flat Earth Map

« on: May 29, 2018, 07:07:25 AM »

Didn't you guys just literally link us to a YouTube video to try to show something?

Sorry, is it only FEers who are allowed differing opinions on things? TFES hasn't set up any sort of "acceptable evidence" for the fora, so people are bound to disagree on what is. I'm personally with AATW, I'm game for anything, but the same level of scrutiny most be applied. No playing favorites, or confirmation bias.

Which will never happen, as out of the window goes EnaG straight away, and along with it all of his ridiculous hypotheses

56

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Do constellations remain the same shape?

« on: May 29, 2018, 04:56:52 AM »

I have seen P-Brane video below and it is pretty much a load of rubbish.



He tries to link the suns crepuscular rays with the stars, which is complete nonsense.

Crepuscular rays caused by the sun AppleCare as they do because the sun is either in front or behind you. So when you see a convergence with the sun on your back, (you will never see the rays meet) the light source is behind you. you will never see another point of light (another sun) at the point of convergence, that would just be silly.

The stars are their own light sources, so why he thinks they appear as pinpoints of light, that rotate in the same way as the suns rays do is just a complete load of hogwash. Unless he thinks the stars actually are actually projections and the light source is at Polaris??
That’s might work, in a fantasy world but not in reality..

Actually he could be proving the round earth in his video, and disproving the flat earth.

He says the reason crepuscular rays are converging towards the opposite horizon.

Now take his salad bowl and it clearly is a a bowl, or half a globe.
Crepuscular rays are rays of light that have been formed when the suns light is not shining out in all directions equally, but have been obscured by clouds, as shown in his video.

Now how can a cloud with a base of a few thousand feet obscure the sun, which is a few hundred (thousand, anyone’s guess will do here) above that?

Anyway say that is true somehow.
The rays emitted from the sun are reflected off dust/water/whatever particles in the atmosphere too cause the effect we see. Now PeaBrain says that is a bowl, but in reality the layer it is reflected off will be at a similar hieght off the ground, like a temperature inversion layer.
If that layer is a bowl (as is indicated in the video) then it follows the shape of the earth, ie at x metres above the surface, which in itself shows the surface of the earth is a globe....

Well done P-Brane!

As for the stars, unless the light source is behind you, reflecting all the stars onto a shiny mirror, it wont work.......

And if you want a really good laugh at a video, this one is a real side splitter, worth the watch for the comedic value, thankfully not too long, so you dont do yourself an injury! I have to thank Tom ( i think it was) for posting this up in another thread. Comedy gold.....

57

Flat Earth Community / Re: What is being done to prove the flat earth?

« on: May 29, 2018, 04:28:25 AM »

As Popper noted, science often proceeds by disconfirmation or falsification, rather than by proof or verification. So, create a model of reality, say, the world we live on is a nearly flat plane, and see whether the observations match up.

Regarding the FE model, it soon became apparent, indeed more than two thousand years ago, that it was very difficult to model reality using the FE assumptions. You have to explain stuff like sunset and sunrise, longitude, the pole star etc etc.

The modern FE movement tries to deny this science, however it is incumbent upon them to show how the standard and well-known problems can be explained under the FE model. E.g. why is half the world in darkness at any one time? That’s really hard.

And while the theories might seem plausible (if flawed) taken individually, when put together they can in no way be taken seriously.

Take the earths magnetic field, which is mapped, and measured, and ask a FEer to explain how it can apply to a FE, and they will say that there is a South Pole all around=d the ice wall, as a way of explaining the field we know it there, but ask them about magnetic dip, and it is either never explained or fudged over, then ask them how it works with a bi pole model of the earth, and it really falls apart, and then how that all ties in with the aurora, and it becomes a complete shambles.

58

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and Longitude

« on: May 29, 2018, 01:41:44 AM »

It's a bit of a problem that he always on the level of qualitative description regarding perspective. He never gives a formula or some numbers how far away or how large something should appear according to his concept of perspective. And one has to admit, that on this level the concept is quite compatible with daily life observations. If he would have tried (maybe he did, but never mentioned) and calculated this e.g. for person  on a very high mountain or for a distant object like the sun, moon or stars, he would by himself noticed the contradictions of his concept.

And there lies the main issue with EnaG. Any of the “experiments” he tries to do that involve measurements or accuracy are easily found to be either inaccurate or taken data from 2nd or 3rd hand reports, and none from himself. Or he uses instruments that are not accurate to the level required, or even discounts instruments as inherently in error!

The conclusions he draws regarding the motion of the stars is based on very few reports, and just plainly not true.

59

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 28, 2018, 06:28:26 AM »

Looks to be a point that edby is wrong then and other things do need to be taken into account.

No it looks to be a point that Edby is right, and you dont know the difference between Km and Miles!

You truly are trying to follow in EnaGs footsteps, claiming a result that disproves your point, as suggesting your point is valid, whilst all along you are in fact wrong.........

60

Flat Earth Community / Re: So everyone, I mean everyone – family and friends think I'm going insane

« on: May 28, 2018, 04:59:35 AM »

It is pretty small for me on mobile. If it is supposed to say km, that doesn't make much sense either with kmh. Look at the first point with 2000 miles.

High range jet kmh: 2000 / 900 = 2.2

Low range jet kmh: 2000 / 750 = 2.6

Yet the point is about 3+ hours. Hundreds of km unaccounted for?

Ok, expand the graph, and you will see the 1st point is at 3 hours, not 3+ as you suggest.

You provide figures for CRUISING speed, when the plane is up to speed, and not either accelerating or decelerating. The plane does not take off at 750 Km/Hr or land at that speed either. I dont know if you have ever been in a plane, but i do many times a year, and they dont tear along at cruising speed and just stop.
They slow down and take their time landing.

Your time difference of 0.4 of an hour (24 minutes) is easily covered by accelerating, and de accelerating upon take of and landing. You also choose the one point that will have the most error due to the necessary take of and landing cycle.

You really are stubborn, you think you got a slam dunk, but then it takes time to point out you are completely off track with units, but you persist in trying to prove your point, only to be told further you are not right.
It must be embarrassing to be wrong so often, and on so many silly, childish mistakes....