Why does the stars in the night sky in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris, while stars in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise?Easy: There is a curved mirror up there.
Shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?--- not if there is more than 1 reflective surface.
Why does the stars in the night sky in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris, while stars in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise? Shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?
We don't know whether it's a curved mirror; that is merely a theory. However, a spinning globe causing the same phenomenon is also theoretical.Except the scale of it. Let's assume this crazy is true how do you propose they could project on this scale, technically?
If the earth is indeed flat, then it is logical to assume that the sky might be an elaborate projection, displaying differing pictures around the world, depending on where one is viewing. This is no different than how man-made planetariums work.
xD omg you guys are willing to say things that make no sense just to back up a claim. Your telling me there is a giant mirror up there? What about our ancient ancestors who claimed they saw the same thing?Why does the stars in the night sky in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris, while stars in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise?Easy: There is a curved mirror up there.Shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?--- not if there is more than 1 reflective surface.
Your telling me there is a giant mirror up there?It sure looks that way to me.
You tell us. What about them?
What about our ancient ancestors who claimed they saw the same thing?
Why does the stars in the night sky in the North hemisphere rotate counter-clockwise around Polaris, while stars in the South hemisphere rotate clockwise?Easy: There is a curved mirror up there.Shouldn’t the stars rotate in the same direction no matter were you are on the flat Earth?--- not if there is more than 1 reflective surface.
We don't know whether it's a curved mirror; that is merely a theory. However, a spinning globe causing the same phenomenon is also theoretical.
If the earth is indeed flat, then it is logical to assume that the sky might be an elaborate projection, displaying differing pictures around the world, depending on where one is viewing. This is no different than how man-made planetariums work.
It's really simple. Because the earth is a globe and not flat. If the earth were flat as in the flat earth model the stars would spin in the same direction. You would also be able to see Polaris in the Southern Hemisphere. Which you cannot btw.
Lookup the bi-polar model.You are joking?
You did mean the one referred to here as the correct FET solar data? The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.Once a person purports to have the truth that no-one else knows my anti BS feelers go up! But, let's carry on. I have never seen any serious discussion on that! Do you really want to get into that can of worms! My immediate difficulties are: No Equator, Tropics, Arctic or Antarctic Circle and no lat-long lines shown. A very complicated (dual) sun path. No explanation of what stars or planets we might see. While or that "map", however would: a plane fly from Singapore to the USA? a plane fly non-stop from Sydney to Santiago, etc, etc. I don't really expect anyone to have any ideas about answers to these except Sandokhan. | Quote What does the Earth look like?(https://web.archive.org/web/20090831201231im_/http://geocities.com/levelwater/africabrazil.gif) |
oh, and how do solar and lunar eclipses work in this model? ::)You don't want to know! Or will be using more ::) :o ::).
Lookup the bi-polar model.
I would say no, but have you seen the Sandokhan model with 2 suns and lots of aether or ether or both?Lookup the bi-polar model.
I did, and the figure 8 movements of the sun and moon, don't come anywhere near explaining the seasons, or the 24 hour daylight at the south pole, and 24 hour night at the north pole.
Has anyone done a proper bipolar model that works?
The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.
Here is the correct FET solar data:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732
Lookup the bi-polar model.You are joking?
The Flat Earth Society can't figure out its own model so we have to decide which to use depending on the occasion.Though I guess it's one way of attempting to derail a post!
You did mean the one referred to here as the correct FET solar data?The other "opinions" were posted on youtube by well-intentioned users, who have never had to test their hypotheses in real time debates, as I have done. The data in the official faq has been proven to be wrong in regard to the sun's diameter, shape and orbiting altitude.Once a person purports to have the truth that no-one else knows my anti BS feelers go up! But, let's carry on.
Here is the correct FET solar data:
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4429.msg86732#msg86732
I have never seen any serious discussion on that! Do you really want to get into that can of worms!
My immediate difficulties are:
No Equator, Tropics, Arctic or Antarctic Circle and no lat-long lines shown.
A very complicated (dual) sun path.
No explanation of what stars or planets we might see.
While or that "map", however would:
a plane fly from Singapore to the USA?
a plane fly non-stop from Sydney to Santiago, etc, etc.
I don't really expect anyone to have any ideas about answers to these except Sandokhan.
The radius of the flat earth measures 6356.21 km.
This is the correct flat earth map:
Now, just what flat earth model should we be looking at?
The world’s two longest commercial flights, linking Singapore with Newark and Los Angeles, are landing in the history books.
Singapore Airlines’ (SIA:SP) daily nonstop from Newark stretches across 9,500 miles and averages about 18 hours via the North Pole, although the flight can last more than 21 hours because of some wind and routing variables.
If you cannot or refuse to. Say that you cannot or refuse to do so. Then concede that the flat earth model does not work with these flights. Then admit that you are wrong about the flat earth.
what did I post twice?
Are back to back posts against the forum rules?
Do we have your permission to continue with the discussion now?
Yes, that's the bi-polar model. The bi-polar model is also featured in the Wiki, and in some of the Flat Earth Literature, not only by Sandokhan. The map is not official, and is subject to change, but that's the idea of it.Yes, I think it needs to be subject to enormous change! See the image on the right. As it stands:
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Flat%20Earth%20Bi-polar%20map%20-%201272_zpsfub8glzp.png) Bi-Polar map Flat Earth |
| (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Bi-polar%20map%20-%20Australia_zpspi45amfu.png) Bi-polar map - Australia | (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Bi-polar%20map%20-%20Africa_zpsq6qxncao.png) Bi-polar map - Africa |
Yes, that's the bi-polar model. The bi-polar model is also featured in the Wiki, and in some of the Flat Earth Literature, not only by Sandokhan. The map is not official, and is subject to change, but that's the idea of it.
- How is an East to West circumnavigation possible on the equator?
- How is a North to South (then S back to N) circumnavigation possible on say Longitude 0°E?
- Australia is certainly nothing like the shape shown! It's worse than on the "UN" map.
- On this map Australia (see below) looks a big as the whole of Africa (or South America). I know we're a big country, but not that big!
Yes, that's the bi-polar model. The bi-polar model is also featured in the Wiki, and in some of the Flat Earth Literature, not only by Sandokhan. The map is not official, and is subject to change, but that's the idea of it.
oh come on Tom stop being silly, the bipolar model was torn to shreds before. This figure-8 sun model is nonsense, otherwise somebody would have noticed the retrograde motions of the sun, and Australia would get as cold as Siberia. What kind of celestial gears allow people to see stars rotate about the pole star and the southern cross on this model? It's a mess. Frankly it looks like celestial roadkill.
Tom Bishop:
Based on your prior post, it appears that this is the Flat Earth model you are comfortable with As you will see below, the Distances are the same on this model as well. So the previous Math still applies. In this model the distance from Tokyo to Singapore is close to the same as the distance from LAX to Tokyo:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/w1uziv.png)
By the same math "Two times 11.36 (by your own admission of the time it takes to go from LAX to Japan) is 23.12 hours. Not accounting for taxi on the take off and landing as well as airtime. total trip should be 25 hours or more on a flat map model."
These flights do not work on the Flat Earth Model, yet they do on a Globe Model. how do you explain this?
Have you even looked at your map? Just what happens when the aircraft drops off the earth following the equator when heading west from South America? For accurate navigation we would not use a magnetic compass! We can use Celestial Navigation, you know what ships and aircraft used before GPS. It's how Cook found his way around!The compass will align with the magnetic fields coming from either the North or South Pole.
- How is an East to West circumnavigation possible on the equator?
Quote from: rabinoz
- How is a North to South (then S back to N) circumnavigation possible on say Longitude 0°E?
Quote from: Tom BishopThe compass doesn't actually work in the Arctic or Antarctic circles, as the field lines are vertical[/]. You would have a lot of trouble making that route. Anything you attempt would have to be guessed at based on looking at celestial markers like the sun.The field lines are not vertical near the South Pole! The South Magnetic Pole is a long way from the South Pole! So if we know the declination we could even use a Magnetic Compass. In any case:
How do you think Robert Peary located the North Pole? - sun sights!
How do you think Amundsen and Scott located the South Pole? - sun sights!
But the big issue is not navigation on your bi-polar map again you drop off the earth when you pass Antarctica, then head "North" past New Zealand![/] However do you get from there back over the "void" to the Arctic again? Maybe a bit of Aetheric Transportation, but not over a miniscule distance like on JRowe's "Dual Flat earth".Quote from: Tom BishopAre you serious? How do I know what shape Australia takes? I have driven over most of it and while that does not tell the me shape, it DOES tell me the distances from East to West and from North to South, and they are NOTHING LIKE your map.Quote from: rabinozAnd how do you know what shape Australia takes?
- Australia is certainly nothing like the shape shown! It's worse than on the "UN" map.
Besides, unlike you, I am quite prepared to believe the surveyors who have measured the country!
I suppose you are now going to tell that we cannot trust chains and theodiltes[/] to measure distances and angles?Quote from: Tom BishopStop being utterly childish. Those countries have been quite adequately explored and surveyed to know their size and shape by now.Quote from: rabinozAnd how do you know how big either continent is?
- On this map Australia (see below) looks as big as the whole of Africa (or South America). I know we're a big country, but not that big!
Perhaps you should go ahead and explore South America for us so we can make corrections.How do you know what shape these continents are?If you are proposing a map with shapes and sizes so different from the accepted ones you really should have some solid evidence!You simply do not have any evidence that this data is significantly in error.From what I can see all the Zetetic method amounts to is looking out your window and deciding that the earth is flat, thenbending everything else to fit that one observation!
For accurate navigation we would not use a magnetic compass! We can use Celestial Navigation,
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kkg0gavYgY/UdLm2QoVDPI/AAAAAAAAAis/1csIRPmwOPc/s1600/B+16+APRIL+with+filter+2.jpg)
How is this change in direction explained in Round Earth Theory?
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kkg0gavYgY/UdLm2QoVDPI/AAAAAAAAAis/1csIRPmwOPc/s1600/B+16+APRIL+with+filter+2.jpg)
How is this change in direction explained in Round Earth Theory?
That pattern can be observed when you are far enough North ( or South ) to see the sun following the horizon, it was a solagraph taken with a pinhole camera pointed south. So it would be a very wide FOV.
More detail can be found here ... http://paulinewoolleyartist.blogspot.com.au/search/label/PIN%20HOLE%20PHOTOGRAPHY
I did say that celestial fixes are made to determine an accurate location, even in aircraft, take a look at:For accurate navigation we would not use a magnetic compass! We can use Celestial Navigation,This must be why airline pilots and ship captains use such a method in the present... :)
oh come on Tom stop being silly, the bipolar model was torn to shreds before. This figure-8 sun model is nonsense, otherwise somebody would have noticed the retrograde motions of the sun, and Australia would get as cold as Siberia. What kind of celestial gears allow people to see stars rotate about the pole star and the southern cross on this model? It's a mess. Frankly it looks like celestial roadkill.
The sun doesn't always follow straight lines in the sky. Sometimes it changes directions mid-stride.
(http://data.whicdn.com/images/43253520/original.jpg)
In fact, the sun does not always move in a consistent pattern:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kkg0gavYgY/UdLm2QoVDPI/AAAAAAAAAis/1csIRPmwOPc/s1600/B+16+APRIL+with+filter+2.jpg)
The above image is a capture of the sun over a period of 8 hours (http://paulinewoolleyartist.blogspot.com/2013/07/solargraphs-various-methods-and-times.html).
How is this change in direction explained in Round Earth Theory?
The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..
The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..
Actually, you are free to build and launch your own satellite. This is a rewarding experience on many levels.
The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..
Actually, you are free to build and launch your own satellite. This is a rewarding experience on many levels.
Thank you Sir!
But I doubt that I'll have any success, since NASA failed 100% of their attempts. Do you have a better plan?
The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..
Actually, you are free to build and launch your own satellite. This is a rewarding experience on many levels.
Thank you Sir!
But I doubt that I'll have any success, since NASA failed 100% of their attempts. Do you have a better plan?
If you are not willing to put in the effort to see for yourself, what makes you think you deserve the info?
Also, NASA and many others have succeeded in putting satellites into orbit.
The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..
Actually, you are free to build and launch your own satellite. This is a rewarding experience on many levels.
Thank you Sir!
But I doubt that I'll have any success, since NASA failed 100% of their attempts. Do you have a better plan?
If you are not willing to put in the effort to see for yourself, what makes you think you deserve the info?
Also, NASA and many others have succeeded in putting satellites into orbit.
Sir 'Sputnik',
The 'Space Dog' Laika died in the attempt to make it into 'space'. That was the first proof that space is a 'no go' place. Thanks for reminding me with your name.
RIP Laika
The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..
Actually, you are free to build and launch your own satellite. This is a rewarding experience on many levels.
Thank you Sir!
But I doubt that I'll have any success, since NASA failed 100% of their attempts. Do you have a better plan?
If you are not willing to put in the effort to see for yourself, what makes you think you deserve the info?
Also, NASA and many others have succeeded in putting satellites into orbit.
Sir 'Sputnik',
The 'Space Dog' Laika died in the attempt to make it into 'space'. That was the first proof that space is a 'no go' place. Thanks for reminding me with your name.
RIP Laika
People have died in cars as well. Your "argument" isnt even close to valid.
The difference is that everybody can repeat the experiment - take your own sun pictures - but only NASA can 'take pictures' of the 'round Earth'..
Actually, you are free to build and launch your own satellite. This is a rewarding experience on many levels.
Thank you Sir!
But I doubt that I'll have any success, since NASA failed 100% of their attempts. Do you have a better plan?
If you are not willing to put in the effort to see for yourself, what makes you think you deserve the info?
Also, NASA and many others have succeeded in putting satellites into orbit.
Sir 'Sputnik',
The 'Space Dog' Laika died in the attempt to make it into 'space'. That was the first proof that space is a 'no go' place. Thanks for reminding me with your name.
RIP Laika
People have died in cars as well. Your "argument" isnt even close to valid.
So driving to kmart is = going to space? ::)
Please get it on point/topic, everyone.
Please get it on point/topic, everyone.
I would love to! But it looks like we are going to need some remedial reading comprehension classes first.
Please get it on point/topic, everyone.
I would love to! But it looks like we are going to need some remedial reading comprehension classes first.
Please refrain from low-content posting in the upper fora. Warned.
I'm sure you mean low quality. As you can see, your post has less content than mine did.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_kkg0gavYgY/UdLm2QoVDPI/AAAAAAAAAis/1csIRPmwOPc/s1600/B+16+APRIL+with+filter+2.jpg)
How is this change in direction explained in Round Earth Theory?
That pattern can be observed when you are far enough North ( or South ) to see the sun following the horizon, it was a solagraph taken with a pinhole camera pointed south. And, as Enlightenmental noted the film is curved So it would be a very wide FOV.
More detail can be found here ... http://paulinewoolleyartist.blogspot.com.au/search/label/PIN%20HOLE%20PHOTOGRAPHY
So you admit that the sun changes direction in the sky mid day in your model?
Here's another one:
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JLU7a8BpDGM/UWrSk73fouI/AAAAAAAAAeM/qGZvO3WWOMc/s1600/Untitled-3.jpg)
The point I would like to bring up is that we are the center of the universe.I have no idea how you made that logical leap.
The north star proves it by never moving.
\The point I would like to bring up is that we are the center of the universe.I have no idea how you made that logical leap.
The north star proves it by never moving.
Care to elaborate?
It does move slightly, by the way...
http://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/north-star-movement
Proof is that the earth and north star stay aligned.1) That isn't proof. A distant star positioned "above" the north pole of a globe would not appear to move either