The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: alexbonn20075 on November 01, 2021, 05:46:45 PM

Title: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: alexbonn20075 on November 01, 2021, 05:46:45 PM
Hi all,
I am a student in French physics and mechanics student (I apologize for the incoming English mistakes I'll do), and I have a science project with a group of friends, which is: Find an experiment with the help of your smartphone, camera and sensors included, to prove or disprove element of Flat Earth Theory. I read a lot about FE theory, that I didn't know before, and I am a bit lost with all the different types of maps or assumptions the theory makes.

I am really respectful with all the work FE makes in order to seek the truth, and even if I am not still convinced with it, I am asking this to get a purely scientific exchange with smart scientists or truth seekers that made research and know way more than I do.

If you have an idea for such an experiment, I would really appreciate it!

Have a good day,
Alexis Bonnafont
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 01, 2021, 10:18:39 PM
Hi,

There's lots you could do. Some ideas:

1. Using an inclinometer app, measure the elevation angle of the pole star (Polaris) and note how it is almost exactly the same as the latitude reported by your phone (the compass app on an iPhone gives you a quick lat/long readout, or just use one of the mapping applications). Get a friend who lives a reasonable distance away from you, ideally north or south, to do the same exercise. Try to calculate the distance to Polaris by treating the earth as flat and using two observations to triangulate, then observe that this doesn't work for more than two observations - you get different results. Then try it with a round earth, and note that it absolutely does make sense for all latitudes in the northern hemisphere (you can't see it from the Southern Hemisphere...why?) if you assume the distance to Polaris is much larger than the earth's diameter (ie your observation lines are essentially parallel).

2. Whilst undertaking the first task, take some time to do some time lapse photography - again very possible with a mobile phone - and get your distant friend(s) to do the same. Try exposures of different times, and note that the stars blur into streaks after exposures of more than a minute or two. Note also that the stars appear to be rotating around the pole star in a circular motion. Observe the same type of photo from a different latitude, and notice that the stars are doing the same thing, ie rotating in a circle, but the centre of rotation is just higher or lower in the sky. 

FE theory seems to try to explain (1) by invoking EA, or 'bendy light', but if this was actually occurring, ask yourself how the stars could move in perfect circles, observed from any location, without distorting due to EA.

3. Measure the angle travelled by any star in one of your time lapse photos compared to the time of exposure - the rate of movement will equal the earth's rotation rate.

4. If you're feeling a bit more adventurous, get flying. Get a friend to fly to Australia, while you travel to Africa. Pick locations where it is dark at the same time (check https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html (https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html)) and take some photos of the night sky at the same time as each other. Notice how the stars you observe are the same as each other, other than differences caused by your respective latitudes. Each take a bearing using your phone to a particular star or constellation - I'd suggest true bearings, rather than magnetic, to avoid complication. Ask yourself how, if any of the FE maps are to be believed, you could both be looking at the same thing at the same time whilst facing in different directions. This only works if the earth is globe shaped.

5. While you're at it, each of you take a flight from your respective continents to the other continent, at the same time. Record the time of flight, from the moment you take off, to the moment you land. Look at any of the FE maps and ask how such a journey could be possible in a subsonic aircraft if the distances indicated by the map are true. And because you've done the journey both ways at roughly the same time, you know it can't be due to 'anomalous winds'.

Just a few to get started with - there are many others. Hope that helps
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 01, 2021, 10:44:21 PM
The concept of electromagnetic acceleration does exist in physics but not exactly in the context that FE seems to refer to it. Certainly nothing to do with the 'bending' of star light.

So my take on that is that FE have simply found the term and decided to borrow it and then re-invent their own alternative meaning for it so it appears to be something that can explain anything from the phases of the Moon to sunset and sunrise to the different appearance of the constellations between the northern and southern skies. Their version of EA is that it is a 'mechanism' which causes light to bend by just the right amount to produce the effects we observe. Ain't that clever!

In other words apply it to anything that they cannot otherwise explain so they don't have to admit that the Earth simply is not flat.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2021, 10:56:38 PM
FE theory seems to try to explain (1) by invoking EA, or 'bendy light', but if this was actually occurring, ask yourself how the stars could move in perfect circles, observed from any location, without distorting due to EA.

Since EA wraps the plane of the sky onto the equivalent of a personal dome, it is not inconceivable that the star trails may appear circular. While not a simulation of EA, there is a simulation of upwardly bending light with an atmospheric refraction model where the star trails looked fairly circular as they faced the observer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkDqdoINhYI&ab_channel=DecimalZ

(https://i.imgur.com/Wicf6fH.jpg)

There is some distortion at the horizon which is unaccounted for, but we can clearly see that the plane of the stars is wrapped around the observer's personal dome to face the observer without significant distortion to the circular shape.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 01, 2021, 11:18:52 PM
There is some distortion at the horizon which is unaccounted for, but we can clearly see that the plane of the stars is wrapped around the observer's personal dome to face the observer without significant distortion to the circular shape.

There is distortion all over the place. The horizon is nothing like what we see for real, and the circles made by the stars aren’t concentric - this is visible in the video at elevations way up past that of the pole. Just look at it. It’s just not even close. And that’s before you look to see what happens at different latitudes and longitudes at the same time.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 01, 2021, 11:38:56 PM
There is some distortion at the horizon which is unaccounted for, but we can clearly see that the plane of the stars is wrapped around the observer's personal dome to face the observer without significant distortion to the circular shape.

There is distortion all over the place. The horizon is nothing like what we see for real, and the circles made by the stars aren’t concentric - this is visible in the video at elevations way up past that of the pole. Just look at it. It’s just not even close. And that’s before you look to see what happens at different latitudes and longitudes at the same time.

Your original criticism was that the stars wouldn't make circles. Since you are drifting into other areas we can see that your idea was without merit and that you do not actually know how the stars would appear. The video is a simulation of a strong upwards refraction, not necessarily EA, since the gradient of the atmosphere maybe not be as uniform in the sim, but we can see that the state of the simulation is enough to cause the star trails to look generally circular to the observer.

You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the sky and horizon actually are distorted in reality. The stars slow down as they approach the horizon.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 01, 2021, 11:47:58 PM
Quote
Since EA wraps the plane of the sky onto the equivalent of a personal dome, it is not inconceivable that the star trails may appear circular. While not a simulation of EA, there is a simulation of upwardly bending light where the star trails looked fairly circular as they faced the observer:
Does it really Tom... and how exactly does EA do this then? Explain please. EA is mentioned in mainstream physics but that has nothing whatsoever to do with this magical bending of starlight you keep on about. So that seems to be a pure fantasy on your part to keep your beliefs alive. Anything to avoid having to admit that the Earth is actually a globe. Let's just reinvent the laws of physics to suit what we believe. If you accept that the Earth is simply a spinning globe then everything we observe is explained very logically and therefore much more naturally.

BTW have you come up with any alternative explanations for your claims about why equatorial mounts can supposedly only track the stars accurately for just a few minutes? That doesn't agree with my real world experience.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2021, 12:19:30 AM
The sky near the horizon is distorted in reality: In one assessment of star speed (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-xXhrTG3Sk&ab_channel=MickWest) at the 1m 17s mark Mick West says: "As you can see the stars get significantly closer together as they get closer to the horizon"

Quote from: Trillion
Does it really Tom... and how exactly does EA do this then? Explain please.

How the sky appears to be wrapped around a dome around the observer is described in the Celestial Sphere section of the EA page:

https://wiki.tfes.org/Electromagnetic_Acceleration#Celestial_Sphere

Quote
Celestial Sphere

Electromagnetic Acceleration predicts that our observations would appear as if we were inside of a dome. And indeed, this is what we experience. Straight line geometry stops working in the distance. When looking out over large distances it appears as if we are on the inside of a planetarium where straight lines become curved on a dome surface. Astronomers acknowledge this effect and attribute the phenomena to the Celestial Sphere, which posits that our celestial observations act as if they are projected onto a sphere around the observer.

Projected onto a Dome

As points in space recede from the observer they will lower in altitude due to the effect of Electromagnetic Acceleration, like how the Sun lowers as it recedes from the observer, causing celestial lines in space to generally appear as if they are being projected onto a curved surface. As an example, consider a straight line suspended high over and in front of an observer. From the observer's vantage point the points receding from the center of the line will appear to dip towards the ground due to EA, since those points are becoming more distant in relation to the observer. The straight line will appear curved on a 'celestial dome'.

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/0/09/EA_Drop1.png/600px-EA_Drop1.png)

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/6/63/EA-Curved.png/600px-EA-Curved.png)

This effect applies to celestial phenomena of sufficient length or duration. The tails of comets, meteors, Aurora borialis, Milky Way, path of the Moon and Sun, and direction of the Moon's illuminated area, are all affected and warped upon the Celestial Sphere. See the Celestial Sphere (https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere) page for citations regarding astronomical phenomena.

Quote from: Trillion
So that seems to be a pure fantasy on your part to keep your beliefs alive. Anything to avoid having to admit that the Earth is actually a globe.

Actually, the fact that the geometry of this light for the most part 'coincidentally' explains everything RE explains, as well as goes further to explain things RE does not explain, is evidence for its existence.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: stack on November 02, 2021, 05:36:20 AM
Actually, the fact that the geometry of this light for the most part 'coincidentally' explains everything RE explains, as well as goes further to explain things RE does not explain, is evidence for its existence.

Is EA responsible for night and day as well. From your wiki:

(https://i.imgur.com/1VECIUl.jpg)

I added the red area. Is the red area nighttime?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 02, 2021, 07:25:22 AM
Quote
Actually, the fact that the geometry of this light for the most part 'coincidentally' explains everything RE explains, as well as goes further to explain things RE does not explain, is evidence for its existence.
Does it really Tom. Such as what for example.

Can you provide any details of any experiments or investigations relating to the FE version of EA which have provided any evidence for its existence.  Apart from what is mentioned in the FE Wiki?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 02, 2021, 09:46:17 AM
Your original criticism was that the stars wouldn't make circles. Since you are drifting into other areas we can see that your idea was without merit and that you do not actually know how the stars would appear.

Not really. My point was that, viewed from different latitudes simultaneously, the stars move in perfect circles, by which I mean circular and concentric around the pole. If EA was actually happening the way you claim, then you would see different levels of distortion depending on your latitude and the elevation angle of the star in question. So at the North Pole, looking straight up at Polaris, the stars near the pole would be rotating in a circular fashion, but the lower down in the sky they get, the more distorted and elliptical they would get. Move to Europe, for example, and the stars around the pole would be distorted by EA.

But that's not what we see, hence my suggested experiment - we see perfect, concentric circles, regardless of latitude.

The only exception to that is the refraction we see close to the horizon, which you are desperately clinging on to as if it might come close to explaining your theory. It doesn't - just look at a time lapse photo of the stars. Make one yourself - it's easy to do and, dare I say, quite zetetic.

Quote
The video is a simulation of a strong upwards refraction, not necessarily EA since the gradient of the atmosphere maybe not be as uniform and cause gradual curves in the sim, but we can see that the state of the simulation is enough to cause the stars look generally circular when they face the observer.

The video doesn't even come close to representing what the night sky actually does. It doesn't look right, and it doesn't even purport to use the mechanism, EA, that you claim is acting on the stars. It is utterly bizarre that you would choose to use it to support your claims.

Quote
You are also apparently unaware of the fact that the sky and horizon actually are distorted in reality. The stars slow down as they approach the horizon.

Well aware of refraction, thanks. Doesn't make the sky look anything like what you claim it does.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 02, 2021, 07:25:45 PM
Quote
The video doesn't even come close to representing what the night sky actually does. It doesn't look right, and it doesn't even purport to use the mechanism, EA, that you claim is acting on the stars. It is utterly bizarre that you would choose to use it to support your claims.
Couldn't agree more.  I guess any kind of CGI is acceptable to FE if it can be made to seemingly support their claims. Never seen anything so ridiculous.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2021, 07:34:46 PM
Quote
Actually, the fact that the geometry of this light for the most part 'coincidentally' explains everything RE explains, as well as goes further to explain things RE does not explain, is evidence for its existence.
Does it really Tom. Such as what for example.

Can you provide any details of any experiments or investigations relating to the FE version of EA which have provided any evidence for its existence.  Apart from what is mentioned in the FE Wiki?

We put the EA stuff in the Wiki, so your query of not to use the Wiki is ridiculous. It's all described there.

Quote from: SteelyBob
Not really. My point was that, viewed from different latitudes simultaneously, the stars move in perfect circles, by which I mean circular and concentric around the pole. If EA was actually happening the way you claim, then you would see different levels of distortion depending on your latitude and the elevation angle of the star in question. So at the North Pole, looking straight up at Polaris, the stars near the pole would be rotating in a circular fashion, but the lower down in the sky they get, the more distorted and elliptical they would get. Move to Europe, for example, and the stars around the pole would be distorted by EA.

But that's not what we see, hence my suggested experiment - we see perfect, concentric circles, regardless of latitude.

The only exception to that is the refraction we see close to the horizon, which you are desperately clinging on to as if it might come close to explaining your theory. It doesn't - just look at a time lapse photo of the stars. Make one yourself - it's easy to do and, dare I say, quite zetetic.

So you concede that there is distortion in reality in the sky, but claim that it is not like the non-EA atmospheric refraction model so EA must be false. This is a horrible leap of logic. Different curves, properties, and scales would produce different types of distortion. You have not properly assessed all possibilities to be able to conclude anything.

Your "point" of other things you think should happen under EA at different latitudes are also without merit, as you have nothing behind that except for a baseless claim without evidence. You have provided no analysis of the geometry involved. Zero. Yet you think you "know" what should happen.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 02, 2021, 08:36:18 PM
Quote
We put the EA stuff in the Wiki, so your query of not to use the Wiki is ridiculous. It's all described there.
Yes obviously the FE version of EA is described in your own FE Wiki. What I want to know is where else, outside of FE is EA explained as you believe it to be? I have read about EA elsewhere but in a completely different context and completely unrelated to how it is described in the FE Wiki.

Its almost as if you have simply taken the term Electromagnetic Acceleration and basically just reinvented what it means to suit your beliefs.

That video is a joke. Nothing more. For example the annotated screen data (very Stellariumesque I must say) which describes the diameter of the Sun as 36 miles!
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: stack on November 02, 2021, 08:59:13 PM
So you concede that there is distortion in reality in the sky, but claim that it is not like the non-EA atmospheric refraction model so EA must be false. This is a horrible leap of logic. Different curves, properties, and scales would produce different types of distortion. You have not properly assessed all possibilities to be able to conclude anything.

The cause of atmospheric refraction, density, is pretty well understood and measurable. The effects of which seem to dissipate as observed from higher altitudes and/or the higher above the horizon. What is the cause of EA refraction? All I can find in the wiki is that EA is the cause, but not how EA causes it. It seems rather circular. Also, in terms of scale, the wiki proposes that the Sun is only 3000 miles above the earth and is rather small. So from a scale perspective we're not talking a lot here. 

Additionally, you didn't answer my question. Is EA proposed as to what causes day and night? Or is it at least factored into the phenomenon?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 02, 2021, 09:00:44 PM
Your "point" of other things you think "should" happen under EA at different latitudes, are also without merit, as you have nothing behind that except a baseless claim without evidence.

The claims I've made are based on the wiki's assertions regarding EA. The diagram you have on the EA page provides a useful illustration of the point. I've taken the sun out, and simplified the picture to contain only three stars, arranged in a plane, as you suggest, above a monopole flat earth. The points at the edge of the diagram, where the curved light rays are close to parallel to there ground, would presumably be the equator in the FE model, although do please correct me if I've got that wrong. I've taken the curved light rays and copied them for each star.

(https://i.postimg.cc/Jz6rn2Tv/Screenshot-2021-11-02-at-20-48-51.png)

As I suggested to our experimentally minded OP, if you observe the stars from different latitudes they still look the same - they rotate in concentric circles, and the angular distance between individual stars doesn't change with either your location or as the stars rotate over time. But the problem you have is that the curved light from the two outer stars subtends a different angle depending on the observer's location - see the red lines by the observers. Our North Pole observer would see a larger apparent distance between the stars than the observer at a mid-hemisphere latitude, as shown. As the stars rotate, this would manifest itself in non-circular motion, which is not what we observe, is it?

Those curved rays come from the wiki. This is your theory, not mine, and it doesn't work. It doesn't match what we observe. It is not correct.


[edited to clarify which two stars I'm talking about]
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 02, 2021, 11:27:53 PM
What you pointed out with that particular diagram is part ongoing debate about EA. The original diagram was made assuming a distance to the celestial bodies of about 3000 miles, the current listed distance to the celestial bodies for FET from the pre-internet FES.

As I have mentioned a number of times in the past, I have dispute with that distance for use with EA.

25. How big is the sun and how far away from the flat earth disc is it?

If EA is considered, the celestial bodies are possibly about 6000 miles in altitude. Assuming that the distance from the NP to the Equator is correct, it takes about 6000 miles for the North Star to set when traveling from the NP where it is overhead to the Equator where it is on the horizon. Therefore, if EA causes bodies to descend consistently, the North Star would be an equal distance above the Earth.

Some of the information is from the pre-internet Flat Earth Movement done under straight line trigonometry and is held as an informal number. For a background see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

(https://i.imgur.com/DjnJQIp.png)

Work needs to be done by the modern society before it can be updated. EAT is becoming a popular astronomical model. Building off of Voliva's 3000 miles distance for the sun at 45 degrees in the sky via straight line trigonometry, and assuming that the sun moves in the sky at around a constant pace (although I've heard that it moves slightly quicker at zenith), my own initial estimation would be that under the schema of EAT at 90 degrees zenith the Sun would be somewhere about 6000 miles in height; although this is assuming that the area of illumination is linearly related to its distance in the sky. EAT proponents can give their own ideas.

I also found some correlation with distances and moon positions here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84214.msg2223513#msg2223513) on the other forum, using an altitude of 6100 miles.

If the distance to the celestial bodies is about 6000 miles and we stretch the diagram vertically to make it about twice as high then the angles will be about the same at the end cross sections.

(https://i.imgur.com/mrsrt88.png)
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 02, 2021, 11:40:36 PM
Quote
If the distance to the celestial bodies is about 6000 miles
By 'celestial bodies' I take it you mean stars... in which case you are just kidding with 6000 miles right?  So you are suggesting that the stars are nearer to us than the diameter of the Earth itself then.

Quote
The original diagram was made assuming a distance to the celestial bodies of about 3000 miles
In that case your assumption is wrong, and along with it all notions you have about EA. 
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 05, 2021, 04:49:40 PM
What you pointed out with that particular diagram is part ongoing debate about EA. The original diagram was made assuming a distance to the celestial bodies of about 3000 miles, the current listed distance to the celestial bodies for FET from the pre-internet FES.

Well, ok, but there doesn't seem to be much debate going on about it! Maybe you should change the wiki?

As I have mentioned a number of times in the past, I have dispute with that distance for use with EA.

25. How big is the sun and how far away from the flat earth disc is it?

If EA is considered, the celestial bodies are possibly about 6000 miles in altitude. Assuming that the distance from the NP to the Equator is correct, it takes about 6000 miles for the North Star to set when traveling from the NP where it is overhead to the Equator where it is on the horizon. Therefore, if EA causes bodies to descend consistently, the North Star would be an equal distance above the Earth.

Some of the information is from the pre-internet Flat Earth Movement done under straight line trigonometry and is held as an informal number. For a background see: https://wiki.tfes.org/Distance_to_the_Sun

(https://i.imgur.com/DjnJQIp.png)

Work needs to be done by the modern society before it can be updated. EAT is becoming a popular astronomical model. Building off of Voliva's 3000 miles distance for the sun at 45 degrees in the sky via straight line trigonometry, and assuming that the sun moves in the sky at around a constant pace (although I've heard that it moves slightly quicker at zenith), my own initial estimation would be that under the schema of EAT at 90 degrees zenith the Sun would be somewhere about 6000 miles in height; although this is assuming that the area of illumination is linearly related to its distance in the sky. EAT proponents can give their own ideas.

I also found some correlation with distances and moon positions here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84214.msg2223513#msg2223513) on the other forum, using an altitude of 6100 miles.

If the distance to the celestial bodies is about 6000 miles and we stretch the diagram vertically to make it about twice as high then the angles will be about the same at the end cross sections.

(https://i.imgur.com/mrsrt88.png)

Well, that's great. You could actually improve that diagram by putting a graduated scale on it - we know that the North Star (or Sig Oct, in the Southern Hemisphere) appears at almost precisely the same elevation angle as the observer's latitude, so the angle of those rays meeting the observers' eyes, that we have both crudely drawn, is actually a precisely known quantity - 90 degrees at the pole, 80 degrees at 80 degrees north, 70 at 70 north etc.

The problem you have though, is that whilst that magics away the elevation angle problem, it doesn't address the azimuth issue - I'm curious to know how you would explain that. Back to crudely drawn stick men, this time in plan form:

(https://i.ibb.co/z51pG2Q/Screenshot-2021-11-05-at-16-33-20.png) (https://ibb.co/j5dmgwb)

We have one observer close to the pole, observing two stars moving in circles around the pole star. That observer perceives a particular angle between those stars, as shown by the red lines. Our other observer is much further away, at say 30 degrees north. That observer sees the same stars, but your model would have the observed azimuth angle, as shown by the red lines, very much less than that for the closer observer. That doesn't match observations - the angle between stars doesn't change with latitude. The generally accepted, conventional RE model would explain this by pointing out that this distance between the observers and the stars is massive compared to the size of the earth, hence no observable angle difference. Thoughts?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 05, 2021, 06:32:39 PM
The answer to that query is that those are not the angles the observers would see since that diagram is an overhead two dimensional scene which inherently assumes that the stars and the observers are at the same altitude. Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, and if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole, the angle the observer sees between the top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 05, 2021, 10:41:59 PM
Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole the angle the observer sees between the two top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.

You're absolutely right in the sense that the angle we're interested in is the apparent azimuth as far as the viewer is concerned - the azimuth angle is tilted up at the elevation angle, as if the observer was making an azimuth measurement. So yes, my diagram is something of a simplification, in that the two pairs of red lines aren't precisely comparable, but the point I'm making is that the difference is enormous, and correcting for elevation doesn't fix the problem.

Let's take an example, with one viewer at the North Pole observing a star that is 5 degrees away from the pole, so roughly 300nm laterally, and one observer at 30 degrees north, so 3600nm away. The calculation for our polar observer is simple - it's 5 degrees, whichever way he looks, and wherever the star is on its circular track. I've kept the example deliberately small so we don't stray into needing to make big corrections for EA...difficult to do as you haven't actually got a formula for it! I hope you agree that the difference from a straight line is pretty negligible at 5 degrees.

Our more southern observer requires some maths. The position is 3600nm horizontally, and displaced 5400nm vertically according to your updated number. Pythagoras gives us a direct viewing distance for Polaris of around 6500nm. The other star is roughly 300nm displaced from the pole at the same altitude (we're assuming it's at its maximum azimuthal displacement, 3 or 9 o'clock around Polaris with respect to the ground/observer). So now our 6500nm viewing line becomes the adjacent side of a new right angled triangle, the 300nm becomes the opposite. Trigonometry gives an azimuth angle of around 2.6 degrees for our distant observer (tan 2.6 = 300/6500), so roughly half the azimuth angle for our polar observer.

That's a massive difference - that means the distant observer would see elliptical movement, with the ellipse roughly twice as high as its width. That is not what we observe, is it? Do check my maths, of course...it's late.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 05, 2021, 11:27:56 PM
So what leads you to conclude that the 'celestial bodies' are only 6000 miles away then Tom?  I presume that you dismiss all the measurements of stellar parallax, Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae as being utter nonsense. Just because you prefer to believe in the Earth being flat.

You would rather accept some as yet undetected and non-existence and non verified phenomenon of light that you like to call electromagnetic acceleration because it sounds good and convincing to you.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 06, 2021, 08:06:44 PM
Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole the angle the observer sees between the two top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.

You're absolutely right in the sense that the angle we're interested in is the apparent azimuth as far as the viewer is concerned - the azimuth angle is tilted up at the elevation angle, as if the observer was making an azimuth measurement. So yes, my diagram is something of a simplification, in that the two pairs of red lines aren't precisely comparable, but the point I'm making is that the difference is enormous, and correcting for elevation doesn't fix the problem.

Let's take an example, with one viewer at the North Pole observing a star that is 5 degrees away from the pole, so roughly 300nm laterally, and one observer at 30 degrees north, so 3600nm away. The calculation for our polar observer is simple - it's 5 degrees, whichever way he looks, and wherever the star is on its circular track. I've kept the example deliberately small so we don't stray into needing to make big corrections for EA...difficult to do as you haven't actually got a formula for it! I hope you agree that the difference from a straight line is pretty negligible at 5 degrees.

Our more southern observer requires some maths. The position is 3600nm horizontally, and displaced 5400nm vertically according to your updated number. Pythagoras gives us a direct viewing distance for Polaris of around 6500nm. The other star is roughly 300nm displaced from the pole at the same altitude (we're assuming it's at its maximum azimuthal displacement, 3 or 9 o'clock around Polaris with respect to the ground/observer). So now our 6500nm viewing line becomes the adjacent side of a new right angled triangle, the 300nm becomes the opposite. Trigonometry gives an azimuth angle of around 2.6 degrees for our distant observer (tan 2.6 = 300/6500), so roughly half the azimuth angle for our polar observer.

That's a massive difference - that means the distant observer would see elliptical movement, with the ellipse roughly twice as high as its width. That is not what we observe, is it? Do check my maths, of course...it's late.

I can't determine exactly what you are describing due to the usage of azimuth angle which appears unrelated to common definitions (https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/azimuth-angle#:~:text=The%20azimuth%20angle%20is%20the,north%20in%20the%20southern%20hemisphere.&text=The%20azimuth%20angle%20is%20like,%C2%B0%20and%20South%20%3D%20180%C2%B0.), but appears you are trying to use a straight line geometry analysis on this. You say "I've kept the example deliberately small so we don't stray into needing to make big corrections for EA" like you assume that the angles aren't constantly slightly changing if you even move your eye an inch.

Quote from: Trillion
So what leads you to conclude that the 'celestial bodies' are only 6000 miles away then Tom?  I presume that you dismiss all the measurements of stellar parallax, Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae as being utter nonsense. Just because you prefer to believe in the Earth being flat.

I gave my reasoning on the previous page: "If EA is considered, the celestial bodies are possibly about 6000 miles in altitude. Assuming that the distance from the NP to the Equator is correct, it takes about 6000 miles for the North Star to set when traveling from the NP where it is overhead to the Equator where it is on the horizon. Therefore, if EA causes bodies to descend consistently, the North Star would be an equal distance above the Earth."

Now, the bodies do not actually descend exactly consistently, and it's not exactly 6000 miles between the NP and Equator, but the point stands.

Quote from: Trillion
You would rather accept some as yet undetected and non-existence and non verified phenomenon of light that you like to call electromagnetic acceleration because it sounds good and convincing to you.

The Wiki provides an analysis. If EA is true then straight lines should become curved on our 'celestial sphere', which is what we experience to be the case - https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 06, 2021, 08:56:10 PM
Quote
If EA is true
But it isn't true it is. There is absolutely no evidence for it. Or indeed any need for it. It is just flat Earth believers trying to make a square peg into a round hole so they can carry on believing the Earth is flat.  Your Wiki is so full of holes because you try and make what you believe seem to be true.

What we see on the celestial 'sphere' can be entirely accounted for by supposing that we live on a sphere surrounded by stars at effective infinity.  If you want to try and make it into something different (for whatever reason) then who am I to question it.

Quote
If EA is considered, the celestial bodies are possibly about 6000 miles in altitude
Well they are not. We know they are not because we have measured them in multiple different ways and shown that they are not. We've known that since the mid-19th century and GAIA has now providing a mapping of 90% of the stars in the galaxy. I know about GAIA because whether you believe me or not (and I really don't care whether you do or not) I have a friend who actually worked on the CCDs which went into GAIAs cameras. Made by UK based firm E2V.

So to suggest that the stars are only 6000 miles away is simply absurd.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 06, 2021, 09:11:50 PM
I can't determine exactly what you are describing due to the usage of azimuth angle which appears unrelated to common definitions (https://www.pveducation.org/pvcdrom/properties-of-sunlight/azimuth-angle#:~:text=The%20azimuth%20angle%20is%20the,north%20in%20the%20southern%20hemisphere.&text=The%20azimuth%20angle%20is%20like,%C2%B0%20and%20South%20%3D%20180%C2%B0.),

I am using azimuth in the conventional sense of the term - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuth  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuth).

In this case, we are measuring the angle, at the eyes of an observer, between two stars. It's pretty straightforward.

but appears you are trying to use a straight line geometry analysis on this.

Yes, I am, because that's a completely reasonably way to analyse this problem. Unless you are now claiming that light curves laterally as well as vertically?

You say "I've kept the example deliberately small so we don't stray into needing to make big corrections for EA" like you assume that the angles aren't constantly slightly changing if you even move your eye an inch.


That just doesn't make any sense I'm afraid. The EA reference was regarding the 300nm estimate for the distance between the Polaris and a star 5 degrees away. My point was that if I had chosen a larger number, like 30 degrees, then your alleged curvature of the light rays would prevent a simple conversion of degrees to distance in nm by multiplying by 60. I wasn't talking about moving the observers eyes.

If you still don't understand where I'm coming from, then put it to bed by doing your own calculations for us. We have two stars, one overhead the North Pole at your suggested altitude of 6000nm, and one at the same altitude 300nm miles away, above say 85N 00W. The question then is what angle would an observer who is at 30N 90W see between the two stars? Show your working as they say.

It's really a simple question of perspective - as you get further away from things, the apparent angle between them reduces. Your system upends that without explanation.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 06, 2021, 09:18:08 PM
EA in the sense that FE keep on harking on about it doesn't exist. It doesn't need to exist because the conventional spinning globe of Earth can account for everything in the sky that we see without having to bend light in the fanciful ways that they say it does. 

EA does exist but it's meaning in conventional physics is not even slightly related to the way FE mention it. They have just borrowed the term and re-defined it to their own suiting. FE are quite good at mis-representing things to make them appear to suit what they believe. Toms recent 'confusion' between tracking and guiding in relation to equatorial mounts was a classic example.

It is now relatively easy to measure the distances of the nearest stars. Even with amateur equipment. So for Tom to even suggest, imply or whatever that the stars are only 6000 miles away is complete nonsense. If they were that near they would also have to be very small. Very small indeed. No matter what telescopes we aim at stars, they never appear as anything other than a points of light. So what does he think has been making such tiny stars shine for as long as they have been?  What would be the energy source for such tiny stars? All the Wiki tells us is that 'The stars are luminous elements'.  What does that mean?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 06, 2021, 09:30:39 PM
EA in the sense that FE keep on harking on about it doesn't exist. It doesn't need to exist because the conventional spinning globe of Earth can account for everything in the sky that we see without having to bend light in the fanciful ways that they say it does. 

EA does exist but it's meaning in conventional physics is not even slightly related to the way FE mention it. They have just borrowed the term and re-defined it to their own suiting. FE are quite good at mis-representing things to make them appear to suit what they believe. Toms recent 'confusion' between tracking and guiding in relation to equatorial mounts was a classic example.

It is now relatively easy to measure the distances of the nearest stars. Even with amateur equipment. So for Tom to even mention the stars are only 6000 miles away is nonsense. If they were that near they would also be very small. Very small indeed. No matter what telescopes we aim at stars, they never appear as anything other than a point of light. So what does he think has been making such tiny stars shine for as long as they have been?  What would be the energy source for such tiny stars?

There’s hundreds of things wrong with it. I’m just picking one thing, in this case perspective, and running with it until we reach some kind of conclusion. All your other points are of course entirely true, although I generally prefer to stick to those things that people can observe for themselves, as that seems to be the mantra of the FE community - much like the OP’s original request for simple experiment ideas.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 06, 2021, 11:57:16 PM
It depends on how set in your mind you are about the Earth being flat. If you are going to make that your base assertion irrespective of anything else you have then got to find a way of explaining the circular motions of the stars around both the N and the S poles. Two points on the sky which are 180 degrees apart. That's where the FE community need to bring in their EA hypothesis but to make that work they also need the stars to be much closer. We know that the stars are very distant and that immediately knocks EA off the battlefield because EA and distant stars is a combo which simply cannot work. So FE simply insist the stars are near.

We on the other hand find that if the Earth was a sphere and the stars were all at effective infinity so the light from them arrives along parallel paths then we will see exactly what we see in the night sky without having to bend light in such a way to 'make things fit'. The stars rotate in the opposite direction in the south compared to the north. Exactly as they would if two observers at the N and S poles were looking out into opposite directions in space from the surface of a spinning globe. If the stars are very big but also very distant then that also explains why we have been able to observe them for so long (because they have enough mass to produce the energy needed) yet we cannot see any physical size.

Which is the most likely correct version to you?

The FE version is so vague in its detail as to be meaningless. And that in itself should be enough to set the alarm bells ringing.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2021, 12:09:43 AM
Quote
If you still don't understand where I'm coming from, then put it to bed by doing your own calculations for us. We have two stars, one overhead the North Pole at your suggested altitude of 6000nm, and one at the same altitude 300nm miles away, above say 85N 00W. The question then is what angle would an observer who is at 30N 90W see between the two stars? Show your working as they say.

You basically appear to be asking why the stars always maintain the same angular distance away from each other like in my previous EA diagram that I provided and want to "see workings". You have conceded that the diagram I had provided would also work in three dimensions, if it were split into a three dimensional symmetrical cross section, looking like a + from above, with four stars instead of two. So lets take one arm of a 2D scene and look at it:

(https://i.imgur.com/mrsrt88.png)

It is easy to see graphically why the angular displacement would be the same for any two stars for the observers. As seen in the diagram, below a star the star is 90 degrees overhead to the observer. At the extremes of either arm of a graph the star is 0 degrees at the horizon of the observer. The stars and celestial bodies set relatively, but not exactly, consistently, meaning that the the angle of descent is spaced relatively consistently along the length of the diagram.

Take one arm (one half of a EA diagram) and overlay it with another arm. The angle you see between one star and another star will compensate to see the same angular displacement between each star, in a static scene, wherever the observer is within the light sources.

(https://i.imgur.com/Yb6mEi6.png)

Moving Star 1 away a little bit:

(https://i.imgur.com/t5g9aDF.png)

This is why, in a graphical manner, this occurs.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2021, 02:45:03 AM
Quote from: Trillion
But it isn't true it is. There is absolutely no evidence for it. Or indeed any need for it. It is just flat Earth believers trying to make a square peg into a round hole so they can carry on believing the Earth is flat.  Your Wiki is so full of holes because you try and make what you believe seem to be true.

What we see on the celestial 'sphere' can be entirely accounted for by supposing that we live on a sphere surrounded by stars at effective infinity.  If you want to try and make it into something different (for whatever reason) then who am I to question it.

Actually, you didn't go through the points on the page I linked or address the content in a sufficient manner - https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

You just said that it can be "accounted for".
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 07, 2021, 09:10:09 AM
Quote
You just said that it can be "accounted for".
Yes Tom I did say "accounted for".  In my dictionary that means 'explained', 'found', 'to find a reason for' etc etc.  Having been a keen amateur astronomer all my life I am very familiar with what the celestial sphere means in the astronomical context. It is a means by which astronomers map the sky. It forms the basis of the science of astrometry and yes I know we don't mean a literal sphere surrounding the Earth.   I don't need to refer to whatever you have put in your FE Wiki page.

If it makes you happy to believe the Earth is flat and that it is this thing called electromagnetic acceleration that makes the stars appear as they do and move as they do and that they are only 6000 miles away then I'm happy for you. Carry on believing. I have presented my case and I will be sticking to it just as I'm sure you will be sticking to yours. So lets just leave it at that shall we because otherwise we could go on for ever and get nowhere.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 07, 2021, 01:17:09 PM

You basically appear to be asking why the stars always maintain the same angular distance away from each other

Yes, that's exactly it. As Trillion rightly points out, in conventional science we explain that by pointing out that the stars are so far away that our movements around the earth are trivial in comparison. They are effectively at an infinite distance.

like in my previous EA diagram that I provided and want to "see workings". You have conceded that the diagram I had provided would also work in three dimensions,

No, not really - I agree that it would explain the vertical movement. The problem is that you have to explain the lateral aspect of the problem as well.


 if it were split into a three dimensional symmetrical cross section, looking like a + from above, with four stars instead of two. So lets take one arm of a 2D scene and look at it:

(https://i.imgur.com/mrsrt88.png)

It is easy to see graphically why the angular displacement would be the same for any two stars for the observers. As seen in the diagram, below a star the star is 90 degrees overhead to the observer. At the extremes of either arm of a graph the star is 0 degrees at the horizon of the observer. The stars and celestial bodies set relatively, but not exactly, consistently, meaning that the the angle of descent is spaced relatively consistently along the length of the diagram.

Take one arm (one half of a EA diagram) and overlay it with another arm. The angle you see between one star and another star will compensate to see the same angular displacement between each star, in a static scene, wherever the observer is within the light sources.

(https://i.imgur.com/Yb6mEi6.png)

Moving Star 1 away a little bit:

(https://i.imgur.com/t5g9aDF.png)

This is why, in a graphical manner, this occurs.

That's just a rehash of our earlier discussion - I'm absolutely happy with that (although I clearly disagree with the model being proposed). You need to address the azimuth angle issue. Your explanation of EA says that light bends upwards. If we accept that premise, and then model what that would mean for an observer looking at two stars some way in the distance, we would see something like this:

(https://i.ibb.co/4dKd3BZ/Screenshot-2021-11-07-at-12-46-46.png) (https://ibb.co/nC6Cths)
 (https://geojsonlint.com/)

If that observer moves closer or further away from the stars, then it is obvious that the azimuth angle he perceives, indicated by the green dashed arc, would change. Do you disagree with my diagram?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2021, 02:40:22 PM
Azimuth angles are not maintained. The azimuthal angle between two bodies will not be the same for two observers who view the celestial bodies from any position. Take an Azimuthal Grid Chart and take two points overhead which gives an azimuth angle of about 180 degrees separation and then try to put the two points at lower elevation angles on the chart.

(https://i.imgur.com/OAFTXdL.png)
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 07, 2021, 02:57:48 PM
For any single observer at a given point, the azimuth (and altitude) of a star will be continuously changing with time. That is why star (or planet or comet) positions are given by their equatorial (RA, Dec) coordinates because they are relative to two fixed points on the sky (the 1st point of Aries, which is actually in Pisces now and the NCP) which are the same for all observers. Azimuth and altitude are relative to the observers horizon and overhead point and so they will depend on the observers location.

Quote
You basically appear to be asking why the stars always maintain the same angular distance away from each other
Depends on what sort of timescales we are dealing with. Night by night, week by week, month by month yes they do. The nightly rotation of the sky is due to the Earth rotation.

But over a period of years (several years) the positions of some stars does shift by a very small amount relative to the background stars. We call it proper motion which is due to the stars actual velocity through space. Take Barnards Star for example. It changes its position relative to those around it by just over 10 arc seconds a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star

It was through systematic measurement of the proper motion of various stars across the sky that Sagittarius was identified as the direction of the center of the Galaxy. All proper motions point to an origin in that region of sky.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 07, 2021, 04:35:15 PM
It depends on how set in your mind you are about the Earth being flat. If you are going to make that your base assertion irrespective of anything else
Right. And this is my issue with FET.
It starts with the assumption that the earth is flat and then tries to fit everything around that. The simple observation that ships sink below the horizon can be explained by the fact we live on a globe. FET either denies this happens and claims we can simply “restore” the whole ship with optical magnification. When that is shown to be false with zoomed in photos clearly showing a ship occluded by the horizon then a mechanism like EA is invoked.

So it seems that FET simultaneously denies observations which point to a globe and invents mechanisms which explain why observations fit better with the idea of us living on a globe than a flat plane.

It’s an interesting thought experiment but that’s about all.

And this is why I’m not sure what experiment can be done to distinguish between FET and a globe. If mechanisms are invented in FET to explain observations which indicate a globe then how does one distinguish?

Obviously the real clincher for the globe is the fact we have multiple technologies like GPS and satellite TV which rely on us living on a globe, and we have an increasing number of people who have seen the earth from space, especially now space tourism seems to finally be getting some traction. The FE tactic here seems to be to simply deny this is happening.

If one is determined enough to believe in a FE then all evidence to the contrary can simply be explained in other ways or simply denied.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2021, 04:40:38 PM
FET either denies this happens and claims we can simply “restore” the whole ship with optical magnification. When that is shown to be false with zoomed in photos clearly showing a ship occluded by the horizon then a mechanism like EA is invoked.

Actually the effect you referenced is true. The hull of a ship can be hidden by lack of optical resolution. - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution

This can be tested and recorded with camera or a modern camera phone, which are fairly high quality now, by anyone who wishes.

https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/69/Sinking_Optical-Resolution.png

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/69/Sinking_Optical-Resolution.png)
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 07, 2021, 05:03:18 PM
Actually the effect you referenced is true. The hull of a ship can be hidden by lack of optical resolution.
Ha. Yes, and your super reliable evidence of that is your own Wiki which quotes your hero Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was transparent or translucent or some such nonsense. Compelling

Quote
This can be tested and recorded with camera or a modern camera phone, which are fairly high quality now, by anyone who wishes.
And yet your example, again from your own Wiki, is a diagram? That’s the best you’ve got despite your claim that anyone can test this?

There’s no doubt that details which are not clear to the naked eye can be made clearer by optical magnification. But if the bottom of a ship, or any object, has been occluded by the horizon then no amount of optical magnification will restore them. Because of what “occluded” means.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: RonJ on November 07, 2021, 05:31:21 PM
There’s a better example of the ‘sinking ship’ effect and that’s the ‘sinking mountain’.  If you ever have occasion to go to Tokyo, Japan by ship you can observer Mt. Fuji from a long distance out at sea.  The difference between this mountain and a ship is that the base is much wider than the peak.  On every trip just the peak would start to rise up from the horizon line very slowly.  When this was observed many of us would also take a look with our really good binoculars that were so big and heavy, they had to be mounted on a stand to the deck.  At no time could we ever resolve anything more than just the snow covered peak, and it was always appearing just above the wave tops on the horizon line even on trips when the seas were smooth.  If the earth were flat, it would be easy to surmise that if we could see the top, we could also see the rest of the mountain as well because it was much wider and the front was closer.  The top would also be much higher above the horizon than we ever observed.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 07, 2021, 06:11:39 PM
There’s a better example of the ‘sinking ship’ effect and that’s the ‘sinking mountain’.
Right. A friend who is in to sailing told me about how you get the same with lighthouses. He told me that you can see the light from one reflecting off the clouds before you can see the light itself. Then you see it on the horizon and it slowly rises from there.

So FE invents EA to explain stuff like this. And UA to explain gravity. And some magnification effect which only applies to the sun and moon to explain consistent angular size.
As I said FE seems to be a combination of denying that observations work on a globe and inventing mechanisms to explain why observations indicate we live on a globe.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: RonJ on November 07, 2021, 06:18:07 PM
I would say that using EA at this time to explain anything is invalid.  There's never been a published number for the Bishop Constant.  Without that how can you use EA to test anything? 
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 07, 2021, 06:47:20 PM
Quote
Ha. Yes, and your super reliable evidence of that is your own Wiki which quotes your hero Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was transparent or translucent or some such nonsense. Compelling
Has Tom ever given as 'evidence' for what he claims is true anything other than links to the FE Wiki? Its almost as if that on its own is supposed to show that whatever he is claiming is true.  It must be true... the FE Wiki says so.  And who wrote most of the FE Wiki?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 07, 2021, 07:17:40 PM
Quote
Ha. Yes, and your super reliable evidence of that is your own Wiki which quotes your hero Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was transparent or translucent or some such nonsense. Compelling
Has Tom ever given as 'evidence' for what he claims is true anything other than links to the FE Wiki? Its almost as if that on its own is supposed to show that whatever he is claiming is true.  It must be true... the FE Wiki says so.  And who wrote most of the FE Wiki?
He does sometimes reference other sources but he cherry picks and often quotes parts out of context to make it look like they’re saying something they aren’t.
A good example is in the Wiki pages about UA where he quotes part of a book about gravity which appears to back up the notion that the earth is accelerating upwards. Looking at the source it’s clear the author believes the earth to be a spherical planet, formed into that shape because of gravity. Tom dishonestly cherry picks to make it look like the author is agreeing with his worldview when the opposite is true.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 07, 2021, 08:26:52 PM
Quote
He does sometimes reference other sources but he cherry picks and often quotes parts out of context to make it look like they’re saying something they aren’t.
Yes I had noticed that. I did a little reading up about this so-called electromagnetic acceleration that FE claim makes light bend in such a way (and in just the right way under just the right conditions) to make certain things such as the phases of the Moon, sunrise and sunset and the motion of the stars possible in flat land.

Thing is, electromagnetic acceleration is mentioned in conventional or mainstream physics but not in the same context as FE refer to it. For example, check the link below and tell me how this explains anything about how FE refers to EA? How many times in this article is the word 'star' even mentioned?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276849404_Electromagnetic_acceleration_of_permanent_magnets

FE people are always going on about conspiracies and how people are lying or making out that things are different from what we are told.  Seems to me though they are doing exactly the same to try and persuade people towards their own beliefs.  Unsuccessfully in my case I might add.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 07, 2021, 08:28:53 PM
Quote from: AllAroundTheWorld
He does sometimes reference other sources but he cherry picks and often quotes parts out of context to make it look like they’re saying something they aren’t.
A good example is in the Wiki pages about UA where he quotes part of a book about gravity which appears to back up the notion that the earth is accelerating upwards. Looking at the source it’s clear the author believes the earth to be a spherical planet, formed into that shape because of gravity. Tom dishonestly cherry picks to make it look like the author is agreeing with his worldview when the opposite is true.

Incorrect. The Wiki article does not say that the author believes the Earth is accelerating upwards. The author in the quote you are referring to says that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through curved spacetime. This simulates the effect of accelerating upwards.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Equivalence_Principle#General_Relativity_and_Accelerating_Upwards

Quote

General Relativity and Accelerating Upwards

The Equivalence Principle is a fundamental tenet of General Relativity, which describes that the surface of the Earth is accelerating upwards through space-time to cause the EP effects as experienced on Earth.

From Gravity: A Very Short Introduction (https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&dq=%22earth+pushing+you%22&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ#v=onepage&q=%22earth%20pushing%20you%22&f=false) (Archive (https://web.archive.org/web/20200915185248/https://books.google.com/books?id=FFQjDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&lpg=PT34&source=bl&ots=MV9ROmx5Eu&sig=ACfU3U17gR2YnIJbxFhEuRhKz2cR-mVBgQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjaoLf6xMHiAhUPpFkKHTqqAMwQ6AEwDXoECB0QAQ)) by Cosmologist Timothy Clifton (bio (https://web.archive.org/web/20200822193750/https://www.qmul.ac.uk/spa/people/academics/profiles/tclifton.html)), we read:

“ Consider a skydiver jumping out of an airplane. The skydiver falls freely, up to the effects of air resistance. According to Einstein, the skydiver's path is the straightest line possible through the curved space-time around the Earth. From the skydiver's perspective this seems quite natural. Except for the air rushing past her, the skydiver feels no perturbing forces at all. In fact, if it weren't for the air resistance, she would experience weightlessness in the same way that an astronaut does in orbit. The only reason we think the skydiver is accelerating is because we are used to using the surface of the Earth as our frame of reference. If we free ourselves from this convention, then we have no reason to think the skydiver is accelerating at all.

Now consider yourself on the ground, looking up at the falling daredevil. Normally, your intuitive description of your own motion would be that you are stationary. But again this is only because of our slavish regard to the Earth as the arbiter of what is at rest and what is moving. Free yourself from this prison, and you realize that you are, in fact, accelerating. You feel a force on the soles of your feet that pushes you upwards, in the same way that you would if you were in a lift that accelerated upwards very quickly. In Einstein's picture there is no difference between your experience sanding on Earth and your experience in the lift. In both situations you are accelerating upwards. In the latter situation it is the lift that is responsible for your acceleration. In the former, it is the fact that the Earth is solid that pushes you upwards through space-time, knocking you off your free-fall trajectory. That the surface of the Earth can accelerate upwards at every point on its surface, and remain as a solid object, is because it exists in a curved space-time and not in a flat space.

With this change in perspective the true nature of gravity becomes apparent. The free falling skydiver is brought to Earth because the space-time through which she falls is curved. It is not an external force that tugs her downwards, but her own natural motion through a curved space. On the other hand, as a person standing on the ground, the pressure you feel on the soles of your feet is due to the rigidity of the Earth pushing you upwards. Again, there is no external force pulling you to Earth. It is only the electrostatic forces in the rocks below your feet that keep the ground rigid, and that prevents you from taking what would be your natural motion (which would also be free fall).

So, if we free ourselves from defining our motion with respect to the surface of the Earth we realize that the skydiver is not accelerating, while the person who stands on the surface of the Earth is accelerating. Just the opposite of what we usually think. Going back to Galileo's experiment on the leaning tower of Pisa, we can now see why he observed all of his cannonballs to fall at the same rate. It wasn't really the cannonballs that were accelerating away from Galileo at all, it was Galileo that was accelerating away from the cannonballs! ”

He is explaining how curved spacetime works. The Wiki does not state that he believes that the Earth is physically accelerating upwards. This is only your misconception. The author clearly states that he believes that the surface of the earth is accelerating upwards through curved spacetime.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 07, 2021, 08:32:47 PM
Tom, perhaps you could point me towards a link (apart from just what your FE Wiki says) where electromagnetic acceleration is described in the same way that FE refer to it.  An independent source is what I am after. Otherwise all I have to go on is one webpage essentially that tells me there is an apparently a 'mechanism' to the universe which causes light to be pulled, pushed or deflected.

There is nothing to tell me what that 'mechanism' is, how it does what it does or how it can be controlled to provide the effects that we observe.  These being different to suit the circumstances. Have you got anything else on this or is the Wiki page on EA it so far as any explanation is concerned? What is written amounts to nothing more than a vague hypothesis.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 09, 2021, 01:20:23 PM
Azimuth angles are not maintained. The azimuthal angle between two bodies will not be the same for two observers who view the celestial bodies from any position. Take an Azimuthal Grid Chart and take two points overhead which gives an azimuth angle of about 180 degrees separation and then try to put the two points at lower elevation angles on the chart.

(https://i.imgur.com/OAFTXdL.png)

Apologies - you're absolutely right, I've muddled the conversation by using the word 'azimuth' which is of course refers to a horizon measurement, which does indeed change with position.  I was trying to refer the to lateral angular separation between the stars - the angle an observer would see if they measured it, or held up a suitable sight marked with angular graduations etc. That absolutely does stay the same regardless of position, which is how and why star almanacs can refer to star's positions by means of RA and dec number pairs - the numbers don't change with location, just their relative position in the sky. The time and date site has quite a good night sky simulator where you can change viewing location and see this effect yourself - I played with varying latitude in the northern hemisphere and it shows the principle very nicely - Polaris just moves higher up in the sky and all the other stars around it retain their relative positions - https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/@80,-0 (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/@80,-0).

If you work out the angular separation between stars, they remain the same. That's not what your model would predict, as per my diagram - you would expect the angular separation to reduce as you got further away. It doesn't, though, does it?

Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 09, 2021, 01:44:21 PM
To even suggest that the stars are just a few thousand miles away so completely absurd when modern measurements have shown conclusively that they are actually lightyears away.

If Tom is proposing that his EA 'hypothesis' suggests that they are just a few thousands of mile away then that is evidence enough that EA is wrong. So far the FE Wiki is the only mention I can find on the internet about it. EA is mentioned elsewhere but in a completely different context.

If Tom wants to carry on insisting these ridiculous figures for the distances to the stars then that is up to him but I'm not wasting my time on that. 
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 09, 2021, 02:03:29 PM
There is nothing to tell me what that 'mechanism' is, how it does what it does or how it can be controlled to provide the effects that we observe.
I don't believe there is any known mechanism behind UA or EA or the magnifying affect which keeps the sun and moon a consistent angular size despite their vastly varying distances.

This is another issue I have with Tom. I've seen him attack gravity because there is no mechanism for why mass attracts mass (although I believe Relativity does actually explain this). But he readily accepts these other mechanisms which have no known mechanism or explanation behind them.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 09, 2021, 02:15:59 PM
There is nothing to tell me what that 'mechanism' is, how it does what it does or how it can be controlled to provide the effects that we observe.
I don't believe there is any known mechanism behind UA or EA or the magnifying affect which keeps the sun and moon a consistent angular size despite their vastly varying distances.

This is another issue I have with Tom. I've seen him attack gravity because there is no mechanism for why mass attracts mass (although I believe Relativity does actually explain this). But he readily accepts these other mechanisms which have no known mechanism or explanation behind them.

Indeed. The sun and moon apparent size issue is very similar to the star separation point I made previously - they wouldn't hold constant if they were moving the way they are supposed to according the model presented in the wiki.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 09, 2021, 02:17:37 PM
It seems to be the case that those with a FE mindset have a problem with any kind of non-contact force. But then that kind of includes all the fundamental forces such as gravity, magnetism and even electrical force.

It seems that having a belief that the Earth is flat means you effectively have to throw out the whole of physics.  Which seems a bit ridiculous to me.  But then so too does believing the Earth is flat. It's OK though to propose some non-existent property of light which magically bends light in just the right way under just the right conditions to produce the impression of sunrise, sunset, the phases of the Moon or indeed the observed motion and positions of the stars.  That is some property!

If it were true and real you'd think there would be a mention about that somewhere other than just the FE Wiki wouldn't you?!?

I guess when you join a forum which is part of a FE website then you are naturally going to get some people who have 'unconventional' ideas about stuff.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 09, 2021, 02:37:59 PM
It seems to be the case that those with a FE mindset have a problem with any kind of non-contact force. But then that kind of includes all the fundamental forces such as gravity, magnetism and even electrical force.

It seems that having a belief that the Earth is flat means you effectively have to throw out the whole of physics.  Which seems a bit ridiculous to me.  But then so too does believing the Earth is flat. It's OK though to propose some non-existent property of light which magically bends light in just the right way under just the right conditions to produce the impression of sunrise, sunset, the phases of the Moon or indeed the observed motion and positions of the stars.  That is some property!

If it were true and real you'd think there would be a mention about that somewhere other than just the FE Wiki wouldn't you?!?

I guess when you join a forum which is part of a FE website then you are naturally going to get some people who have 'unconventional' ideas about stuff.

Whilst I completely agree, I think I come at it from a completely different angle. This is a debating forum, and whilst you're absolutely right in that if something was true then it probably wouldn't only be found on the FE wiki, that is a form of an appeal to authority - it's a fallacious argument. Likewise, it is highly unlikely that light does bend so conveniently, but that's not why the concept is wrong. I'm trying to show that the idea can be shown to be wrong by simple observation - the moon wouldn't wouldn't stay the same size, nor would the stars retain the same angular separation as they rotated, or as the viewer moved north and south, if the earth was flat. Even the bendy light, convenient though it may be for explaining some things, cannot explain that observable fact.

Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 09, 2021, 03:26:42 PM
I am also looking at it from a practical point of view. If the stars were so near then they would also have to be very small. I can aim my 20" telescope at any star and even through 300x or more magnification I cannot see any star as anything more than a point of light. Perfectly explainable if the stars are at effective infinity in terms of distance. Their angular diameter on the sky is less than the resolving limit of my telescope. Therefore I only see an Airy disk formed optically by the telescope. Yet I can see fine detail on the Moon through the same eyepiece. So if the stars are so near and so small then what has been their source of power all this time?  Why do they vary in colour and brightness?  FE promote 'questioning' things so I am questioning my observations against their theories and claims.

The Sun they claim is only 32 miles across. So likewise, what is the source of power? That has been shining for as long as the Earth has existed and we know from geological studies that is millions of years. Or are they going to insist that geologists are lying to us as well. I can see the Sun as a disk in the sky half a degree in diameter but if that is also only 3000 miles away (as FE Wiki lays claim to) then why can I not see any physical disk for any other star?

I am not going to limit myself to purely what I can see with my naked eye when I have access to my own telescopes and cameras etc. If I have equipment available to me then I will use it. As have millions of other astronomers over the world.

Bottom line is that what the FE Wiki claims simply doesn't add up to what we see in the real world. No matter how you dress it up.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 09, 2021, 03:58:32 PM
Apologies - you're absolutely right, I've muddled the conversation by using the word 'azimuth' which is of course refers to a horizon measurement, which does indeed change with position.  I was trying to refer the to lateral angular separation between the stars - the angle an observer would see if they measured it, or held up a suitable sight marked with angular graduations etc. That absolutely does stay the same regardless of position, which is how and why star almanacs can refer to star's positions by means of RA and dec number pairs - the numbers don't change with location, just their relative position in the sky. The time and date site has quite a good night sky simulator where you can change viewing location and see this effect yourself - I played with varying latitude in the northern hemisphere and it shows the principle very nicely - Polaris just moves higher up in the sky and all the other stars around it retain their relative positions - https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/@80,-0 (https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/night/@80,-0).

If you work out the angular separation between stars, they remain the same. That's not what your model would predict, as per my diagram - you would expect the angular separation to reduce as you got further away. It doesn't, though, does it?

The problem is that you want to use some parts of EA as if things operate in straight line geometry and think that you have identified a view and situation where it must apply. But this is incorrect. There is also distortion when viewing stars on a lateral view as well.

From this top down view an observer is observing two stars:

(https://i.imgur.com/4NGbUOS.png)

From a "3D" view of this below we can see that the closer star would create one angle, but if the curve of one star is dropping down to a lower elevation laterally then the rays of the second star would dip to a lower elevation and the angle the observer sees between the stars would not match the prediction of straight line geometry.

(https://i.imgur.com/QOvVbyH.png)

The points and curves I made here are somewhat arbitrary to show a point, but we can here that one star would create a greater curve than the other. The angle between the curved lines at the observer wouldn't make the same angle in space as the straight lines and angular separation as you envision it to be.

In another type of 3D scene where the light is shining from overhead and casts shadows straight down beneath a body, the following shows two lines (black) that appear at an angle. But if we look at the paths the shadows make on the surface, the shadows are actually intersecting at a broader angle on the surface:

(https://i.imgur.com/DtEYzbV.png)

You believe that if we turned the EA diagram I provided:

(https://i.imgur.com/mrsrt88.png)

 into a 3D view split into a three dimensional symmetrical cross insert, looking like a + from above, with four stars instead of two, that the observer at the far end of an arm would see two of the stars closer together than the top and bottom stars he observes. You think that an observer, who starts at the center of the scene beneath the stars, who then recedes to the end of one arm, would cause two of the four stars to get closer together and the effect would only apply in two dimensions.

But, as the central observer recedes away to the end of one arm the rays will dip in another dimension, causing them to widen out as they shrink.

(https://i.imgur.com/yodlugz.png)

It works in multiple dimensions, which is why the video I posted on the first page shows circles that are fairly circular.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 09, 2021, 05:32:18 PM
I am also looking at it from a practical point of view. If the stars were so near then they would also have to be very small. I can aim my 20" telescope at any star and even through 300x or more magnification I cannot see any star as anything more than a point of light. Perfectly explainable if the stars are at effective infinity in terms of distance. Their angular diameter on the sky is less than the resolving limit of my telescope. Therefore I only see an Airy disk formed optically by the telescope. Yet I can see fine detail on the Moon through the same eyepiece. So if the stars are so near and so small then what has been their source of power all this time?  Why do they vary in colour and brightness?  FE promote 'questioning' things so I am questioning my observations against their theories and claims.

The Sun they claim is only 32 miles across. So likewise, what is the source of power? That has been shining for as long as the Earth has existed and we know from geological studies that is millions of years. Or are they going to insist that geologists are lying to us as well. I can see the Sun as a disk in the sky half a degree in diameter but if that is also only 3000 miles away (as FE Wiki lays claim to) then why can I not see any physical disk for any other star?

I am not going to limit myself to purely what I can see with my naked eye when I have access to my own telescopes and cameras etc. If I have equipment available to me then I will use it. As have millions of other astronomers over the world.

Bottom line is that what the FE Wiki claims simply doesn't add up to what we see in the real world. No matter how you dress it up.

All very good points - I entirely agree. And that's before we even touch on the obvious issues with the Southern Hemisphere...
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 09, 2021, 05:42:43 PM
Thanks for the reply Tom.


The problem is that you want to use some parts of EA as if things operate in straight line geometry and think that you have identified a view and situation where it must apply. But this is incorrect. There is also distortion from that when viewing stars on a lateral view as well.

From this top down view an observer is observing two stars:

(https://i.imgur.com/4NGbUOS.png)

From a "3D" view of this below we can see that the closer star would create one angle, but if the curve of one star is dropping down to a lower elevation laterally then the rays of the second star would dip to a lower elevation and the angle the observer sees between the stars would not match the prediction of straight line geometry.

(https://i.imgur.com/QOvVbyH.png)

The points and curves I made here are somewhat arbitrary to show a point, but we can here that one star would create a greater curve than the other. The angle between the curved lines wouldn't make the same angle in space as the straight lines and angular separation as you envision it to be.


But in the example I gave, the angle between the stars was fairly small, meaning the distance between them was small compared to the observer's displacement. This means the hypotenuse of the triangle is essentially the same length as the adjacent side, which would mean, going from your EA diagram, that the curvature of the two paths would be very similar.

And if that difference is still too big for you, consider a situation where the observed stars are either side of the pole, and our observer retreats away down a line of longitude splitting them in two - the two light rays would be identical on either side, so the effect you're relying on there wouldn't happen. This would be as if the 'Ob' in your first diagram moved to the right, to a point equidistant from the two stars. How in that case would you explain the lack of changing angular separation as the observer moves closer and further from the mid-point between the stars? That's essentially very similar to your '+' example - if you're equidistant from the stars either side, why would one star dip more than another? Surely they would just dip or rise together as you changed latitude?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2021, 12:59:49 AM
And if that difference is still too big for you, consider a situation where the observed stars are either side of the pole, and our observer retreats away down a line of longitude splitting them in two - the two light rays would be identical on either side, so the effect you're relying on there wouldn't happen. This would be as if the 'Ob' in your first diagram moved to the right, to a point equidistant from the two stars. How in that case would you explain the lack of changing angular separation as the observer moves closer and further from the mid-point between the stars? That's essentially very similar to your '+' example - if you're equidistant from the stars either side, why would one star dip more than another? Surely they would just dip or rise together as you changed latitude?

When coming in at a lower angle the apparent angles are different. Elevated angles look differently from the observer's vantage point and are height dependent. You assume that it would always equal, but this is not so.

The only way to get anything looking like a circle facing the observer in the video on page one is if there was compensation inherent in the geometry of this.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: ichoosereality on November 10, 2021, 01:41:12 AM
Prior to running an experiment one has to clearly describe what you aim to prove (i.e. so the experiment is falsifiable).
No such formulation of "bendy light" exists.  I do not think any such formulation is possible that would match actual observations.  But that fact that none is even offered clearly shows that this is just FE hand waving used as a crutch by folks who want to believe (or at least claim that they believe) in a FE.  Why is it that (it appears) that no one with the requisite scientific training to create such a formulation will do so?  Is every member of every science faculty and all their students for the last 50? 100? years (that's many millions) part of the conspiracy?
Come on.

Apologies if this sounds harsh, but I don't think professed FE believers really hold that belief, they just like to say so.  How many FE'ers have boarded a long haul flight fully expecting to get to their desired destination (as happens 1000s of times a day) despite the flight being navigated, planned and fueled all on a globe earth model?  How may FE'ers are receiving satellite TV?  How many FE'ers are routinely using GPS?

The globe earth is apparent in aspects of every day modern life in which I suspect many FE'ers readily partake.  Humans have traveled extensively over the earth and all of those distances correspond to the globe earth not the FE.  In all of that travel no dome or wall or infinite plane has ever been observed.  Yet some seem to genuinely persist in their belief in a FE (there are of course trolls here as well).  The interesting question is why?

I ask as I think this is a major issue in our civilization but particularly in the US.  This effect has come up with the pandemic, the 2020 elections, and climate change.  All of which are very very serious issues on which a significant group refusing to accept reality is a major problem.  I chose the FE to ask about this as it seemed the topic where the evidence is the most overwhelmingly clear (that the FE belief is wrong).   But so far not much internal questioning seems to be on the table.  If one is to take the idea of questioning seriously, shouldn't the question of why you believe what you believe be the most fundamental?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 10, 2021, 09:18:00 AM
How is this any different to what Tom is inferring?

https://britastro.org/node/17066

Or indeed this

http://www.mike-willis.com/Tutorial/refraction.htm

Tom is simply providing a re-interpretation of this to suit his apparent beliefs?  The difference with the above on atmospheric refraction is that it is entirely based on known properties of light. Plus of course it is a much more thorough and more detailed explanation.

I can't find the term 'electromagnetic acceleration' mentioned once in either of these links. Why would that be?

Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 10, 2021, 06:16:00 PM
Aside from the explanation of "this must be the case since the earth is round", how do they know this?

Quote
When trapped between an elevated layer and the surface in a surface duct, extended propagation will occur if the reflection from the ground is low loss. The angles are small and low loss reflections can occur, especially where the roughness of the terrain is small compared to the wavelength. When trapped between layers within the troposphere in an elevated duct is formed and the refraction loss depends on the roughness of the layers.

(https://i.imgur.com/4ecbt6W.png)
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 10, 2021, 11:23:22 PM
How do you know the Earth is flat Tom? Or is it just a case of you believe it is flat, and if so why? When we can see that the other planets are round, why should the Earth be any different and how did it form flat rather than round?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: ichoosereality on November 11, 2021, 09:48:19 PM
Its common in science for there to be differing views or competing theories on things.  String theory for example is not universally accepted but its getting there.  Likewise for the multiverse.   (I am not an expert in physics, just an interested layman).  The same happened for climate change which was viewed somewhat skeptically back when it was proposed in the 70s, but is essentially universally accepted now (mostly by the 90s).  The same could be said decades ago for continental drift.  But for the globe earth there are no such differing views.  The entirety of industry, science, engineering, and academia agree on the globe earth.  The FE believers are all layman.  Why is that?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 11, 2021, 10:44:50 PM

When coming in at a lower angle the apparent angles are different. Elevated angles look differently from the observer's vantage point and are height dependent. You assume that it would always equal, but this is not so.

This doesn't make any sense. We know what angle to the horizontal the light rays are arriving at the observer's eyes, because we know their latitude, so we have a good idea, in your model, of what the end result of the curvature is, even if you can't say for sure how far away the stars are. If they are at 30 degrees North, then light from a star over the North Pole will arrive at an angle of 30 degrees to the horizontal. It has to. But that arrival angle is all we need to know - it doesn't matter whether the light rays are straight, bendy, wiggly or whatever. We know they aren't curving laterally - viewed from above they trace a straight line. If you have two light rays arriving at your eyes from two equidistant objects at the same height, then they can move up and down all day long, but as long as they move together, the angle you see between them won't change.

The only way to get anything looking like a circle facing the observer in the video on page one is if there was compensation inherent in the geometry of this.

The earth could be globe-shaped, and the stars could be a long, long way from us. That would work, would it not?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 11, 2021, 11:26:04 PM
What I don't get is that given all the fascinating and ground breaking investigations that science in general and modern astronomy is now working on, there are people in this world who would rather spend their time role playing as if they are people who lived generations ago by arguing about what shape the Earth is. Something that we actually worked out a long, long time ago.  Time to move on!
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: scomato on November 12, 2021, 02:33:44 AM
What I don't get is that given all the fascinating and ground breaking investigations that science in general and modern astronomy is now working on, there are people in this world who would rather spend their time role playing as if they are people who lived generations ago by arguing about what shape the Earth is. Something that we actually worked out a long, long time ago.  Time to move on!

It's people who think they are much more clever than career scientists and academics, ironically despite knowing less than a learning impaired child. 

Plus, believing that the world is flat gives you the chance to feel persecuted for your beliefs every time someone calls you an idiot. A victim-complex can paradoxically feel empowering, fringe conspiracy beliefs are perfectly situated to exploit this funny part of our psychology.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 12, 2021, 02:47:46 AM
Quote from: SteelyBob
If you have two light rays arriving at your eyes from two equidistant objects at the same height, then they can move up and down all day long, but as long as they move together, the angle you see between them won't change.

Incorrect. If you have two golf balls, two inches apart from each other side by side, located at a distance of one foot away from your face horizontally and then increase their vertical height by two feet they are no longer one foot away from your face and the two golf balls will not maintain the same angular distance from each other.

Quote from: SteelyBob
The earth could be globe-shaped, and the stars could be a long, long way from us. That would work, would it not?

Considering that a circular startrail can be made elsewise this apparently is not the only conclusion possible.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 12, 2021, 08:48:11 AM
Quote
Considering that a circular startrail can be made elsewise this apparently is not the only conclusion possible.
It is when we have data that conclusively shows that the stars are a long, long way off. You may not like or accept that data but that doesn't change the validity of it. As I said if the stars were as near as you seem to believe they are then they would have to be very small physically. So that introduces (not resolves) the problem of what powers them.  What makes them shine?

As passionate as you obviously are about your beliefs, you can only seem to think about all this from a particular point of view.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 12, 2021, 09:36:43 AM
If you have two golf balls, two inches apart from each other side by side, located at a distance of one foot away from your face horizontally and then increase their vertical height by two feet they are no longer one foot away from your face and the two golf balls will not maintain the same angular distance from each other.
So you do understand why your model doesn't match observations then, a sun circling above us wouldn't maintain a consistent angular size or velocity
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 12, 2021, 12:34:13 PM
Incorrect. If you have two golf balls, two inches apart from each other side by side, located at a distance of one foot away from your face horizontally and then increase their vertical height by two feet they are no longer one foot away from your face and the two golf balls will not maintain the same angular distance from each other.

If that's the principle you're relying on here, it's working in the wrong sense. If you consider somebody viewing a pair of stars over the North Pole from, say, 60 degrees north, and consider what happens as they change their position to, say, 30 degrees north. We both agree, albeit for different reasons, that the elevation angle will reduce from 60 to 30 degrees. Given that the stars are now significantly more distant, according to your model, one would expect them to appear closer together - a reduced angular separation. Can you explain how exactly the compensation would work? By your golf ball analogy, objects moving lower would appear to get closer together, not further apart, which is the correction your model needs to work. 



Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 12, 2021, 01:14:27 PM
They would surely also change in luminosity and angular size with the varying distance. We are talking about the distance varying by a factor of 3 or 4 but there is no measurable change.
The reason of course is that the distance to the stars is so large that the difference in distance on the globe is too small to measure. That wouldn’t be true in FET. You should be able to measure the difference but you can’t.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 12, 2021, 03:14:48 PM
My experience of Tom Bishop is that he spends a disproportionate amount of time thinking about and trying to prove something is true which so obviously isn't true to everyone else.  OK make that most people.  There are one or two others who believe the Earth is flat as well.

What can you tell people with that kind of mindset?  Nothing probably!
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 12, 2021, 04:34:57 PM
They would surely also change in luminosity and angular size with the varying distance.

Yep.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 12, 2021, 04:58:22 PM
The apparent brightness of stars obey an inverse square law.

http://burro.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr221/Light/invsq.html

So even clearly even a small change in distance would result in a large change in apparent brightness.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: ichoosereality on November 12, 2021, 05:29:52 PM
My experience of Tom Bishop is that he spends a disproportionate amount of time thinking about and trying to prove something is true which so obviously isn't true to everyone else.  OK make that most people.  There are one or two others who believe the Earth is flat as well.

What can you tell people with that kind of mindset?  Nothing probably!
Right, I don't think you can tell them anything.  I think the person has to be willing to question their own (way of) thinking.  I thought Tom might be up for that, but maybe not.  It's not an easy thing to do.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 12, 2021, 05:51:20 PM
After all has been said, FE theory is a conspiracy theory and not a scientific theory. Therefore presenting evidence which counters a belief (no matter how compelling it is) is essentially a waste of time. Because those who 'believe' will simply dismiss that evidence, or at least those who present it as being part of the conspiracy themselves.

A conspiracy theorist will only ever identify with one 'truth' which is the truth they are trying to prove of course. I'm not sure exactly why anyone in this day and age would even entertain the idea that the Earth is flat, other than the simple observation from ground level that you cannot detect a curvature. That alone perhaps means to a FE believer that anyone who says the Earth is a sphere must therefore be lying.

Of course conformation biasing does the rest.  Science naturally challenges FE belief, in particular astronomy. So it is hardly surprising that FEers like to describe astronomy as a 'pseudoscience'. To my mind nothing could be further from the truth!
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: ichoosereality on November 12, 2021, 07:00:04 PM
I completely agree.  The question becomes how to get someone to examine their thinking / methodology?
With ever more sources actively exploiting this common human phenomenon for partisan purposes, it's ever more important to figure out how to encourage such self examination.

Reading about folks who have left "cults" and those that helped them do so, a few things seem common.
* It takes a personal connection (so that will be hard just over the net)
* It takes time
* It takes empathy, no one likes to be made to feel wrong or stupid etc.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 12, 2021, 08:41:13 PM
You don't need multiple stars to evidence the flaw in FE theory.  You only need one, the sun, and the easiest day to demonstrate the problem, the equinox.

FE theory dictates that everyone at an equal distance from the sun would see the sun appear at the same altitude.  This is true whether you consider bendy light or not.  This means that if you locate the sun above the plane and then draw a circle with the sun as center, everyone at the edge of the circle will view the sun at the same altitude.

Now let's look at the equinox as it is the simplest say to compare what is observed, that zetetic thing, with what should be observed.  If we place the sun at 0 lat, 0 lon. 4 observers placed at 0 lat.-45E, 0 lat.-45W, 45N-0 lon., 45S-0 lon. will each observe the sun at an altitude of 45 degrees.  However, if you place the sun above the plane at 0,0 and draw a circle that touches 45N and 45S you will notice that the circle does not reach 45E and 45W.  On FE, the observers at 45E and 45W should view the sun at an altitude of less than 45 deg.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 13, 2021, 04:25:19 PM
You don't need multiple stars to evidence the flaw in FE theory.  You only need one, the sun, and the easiest day to demonstrate the problem, the equinox.

FE theory dictates that everyone at an equal distance from the sun would see the sun appear at the same altitude.  This is true whether you consider bendy light or not.  This means that if you locate the sun above the plane and then draw a circle with the sun as center, everyone at the edge of the circle will view the sun at the same altitude.

Now let's look at the equinox as it is the simplest say to compare what is observed, that zetetic thing, with what should be observed.  If we place the sun at 0 lat, 0 lon. 4 observers placed at 0 lat.-45E, 0 lat.-45W, 45N-0 lon., 45S-0 lon. will each observe the sun at an altitude of 45 degrees.  However, if you place the sun above the plane at 0,0 and draw a circle that touches 45N and 45S you will notice that the circle does not reach 45E and 45W.  On FE, the observers at 45E and 45W should view the sun at an altitude of less than 45 deg.

That’s a really elegant, simple problem - much neater than my idea, so thank you. It all stems, I suppose, from the fact that the monopole FE map holds north-south distances equal to those on the globe, but allows east-west distances to differ, with the difference becoming progressively more marked as you journey south. Hence the locus of points observing the sun in your example at 45 degrees elevation would not be a circle, despite another aspect of FET requiring it to be just that.

Very interested in a FE response to this - Tom, thoughts? I’m guessing the response will be that east-west distances are somehow unknown, which seems to be the get-out-of-jail option for problems of this nature. Amazing how those poor Aussies don’t know the size of their own country…
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 13, 2021, 06:43:08 PM
It all stems, I suppose, from the fact that the monopole FE map holds north-south distances equal to those on the globe, but allows east-west distances to differ, with the difference becoming progressively more marked as you journey south. Hence the locus of points observing the sun in your example at 45 degrees elevation would not be a circle, despite another aspect of FET requiring it to be just that.

The bi-polar model is a little more difficult to try to examine but still has the same problem.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 13, 2021, 07:03:02 PM
It all stems, I suppose, from the fact that the monopole FE map holds north-south distances equal to those on the globe, but allows east-west distances to differ, with the difference becoming progressively more marked as you journey south. Hence the locus of points observing the sun in your example at 45 degrees elevation would not be a circle, despite another aspect of FET requiring it to be just that.

The bi-polar model is a little more difficult to try to examine but still has the same problem.

The bi-polar model is so ridiculous I think it can almost be dismissed ‘by inspection’. There’s hundreds of problems, my personal favourite being the challenge of re-telling the pacific campaign of WW2 using that map…it makes no sense at all.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 13, 2021, 08:30:26 PM
The only reason the standard FE model places the North Pole at the center is that Rowbotham lived in the UK - the northern hemisphere. The model sort of works for the northern hemisphere. I mean, you have to invent things like UA and EA to replace gravity and explain the sinking ship effect respectively, but it kinda works. EA is a recent invention, Rowbotham used some nonsense perspective explanation which is demonstrably false.
But anyway, there are still a bunch of problems but for the northern hemisphere it’s not completely ridiculous. For the southern hemisphere  though it’s a complete mess. Distances don’t even close to match reality, the entire continent of Antarctica has to be denied to even exist despite the fact you can literally go there. And there’s the whole issue of star trails.
The bi-polar model might fix some of that but it creates a whole bunch of other problems. How does the sun move in that model in any way that matches observations.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 13, 2021, 08:44:45 PM
The only reason the standard FE model places the North Pole at the center is that Rowbotham lived in the UK - the northern hemisphere.
What does Rowbotham's place of residence have to do with a theory that predates him by centuries? Did the ancients just decide that Rowbotham would be significant in the future?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 13, 2021, 10:10:08 PM
The only reason the standard FE model places the North Pole at the center is that Rowbotham lived in the UK - the northern hemisphere.
What does Rowbotham's place of residence have to do with a theory that predates him by centuries? Did the ancients just decide that Rowbotham would be significant in the future?
Ok, so I will admit some ignorance here. But I would imagine that in the ancient flat earth model they would have thought that the sun went up and over the sky, so day was when the sun was above the earth and night was when it was below. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. They wouldn’t have had the international travel or communication necessary to understand that day in the UK is night in Australia and that the seasons are also opposite. I doubt they would have had much concept of a world map.

The FE idea of a sun which circles above us and the North Pole in the centre is a different FE model. One which is more modern and one which works a lot better for the northern hemisphere than the southern. I thought that model originated with Rowbotham. Maybe not. But given that most of the world population is in the northern hemisphere it’s not a surprise that it works much better in that hemisphere. Isn’t that also why the map is that way up and north is “up”?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 14, 2021, 04:04:26 PM
Ok, so I will admit some ignorance here. But I would imagine that in the ancient flat earth model they would have thought that the sun went up and over the sky, so day was when the sun was above the earth and night was when it was below. Day was day everywhere, night was night everywhere. They wouldn’t have had the international travel or communication necessary to understand that day in the UK is night in Australia and that the seasons are also opposite. I doubt they would have had much concept of a world map.
That relies on the assumption that long-distance trade is a much more recent invention than it really is. I can see why it would be convenient for you to believe this, considering your strong RET bias, but it's pretty much impossible if you consider history, even at a very high level. The concept of local time, long before it was compartmentalised into "timezones", was unavoidable back when sundials were the primary reference frame for time.

Isn’t that also why the map is that way up and north is “up”?
That is a relatively recent invention (that is to say, north wasn't always "up"), and it's purely to do with a combination of convention and the invention of compasses. It also has interesting implications on modern society, because human brains are funny. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160614-maps-have-north-at-the-top-but-it-couldve-been-different
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Kokorikos on November 14, 2021, 08:45:08 PM
That relies on the assumption that long-distance trade is a much more recent invention than it really is.

It depends on how you define long-distance trade.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 14, 2021, 09:50:23 PM
That relies on the assumption that long-distance trade is a much more recent invention than it really is. I can see why it would be convenient for you to believe this, considering your strong RET bias, but it's pretty much impossible if you consider history, even at a very high level. The concept of local time, long before it was compartmentalised into "timezones", was unavoidable back when sundials were the primary reference frame for time.
This is nothing to do with convenience. Honestly, I don't know what the ancient flat earth model was in detail and it doesn't actually matter what it was. I Googled it and struggled to find anything much. By ancient I'm talking thousands of years ago, when people probably didn't have much of an idea about how anything worked. From a local perspective the thought that the earth is flat, the sun rises above it and that's day, goes around the sky and then sinks below it and that's night makes some sense. The idea of a flat earth with the north pole in the centre and the sun and moon circling above it is surely a modern FE one. And the fact the earth is a globe is not exactly a new one.

But whether this FE model putting the north pole in the middle is because Rowbotham or anyone else lived in the northern hemisphere, the point I'm trying to make is no flat earth model (or none I've seen) can work equally well for both hemispheres. For the same reason that no world map can accurately represent all land mass shapes and distances. Because it is impossible to perfectly map the surface of a sphere onto a flat plane. Something has to give. In the case of your model what gives is how well it works for the southern hemisphere. You have to deny the entire continent of Antarctica even exists - or does so in the way conventionally claimed, you have problems with distances in the southern hemisphere because on a globe lines of longitude converge to a point at the south pole, in your model they keep diverging. And star trails in the southern hemisphere are problematic.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Trillion on November 14, 2021, 10:12:56 PM
Quote
And star trails in the southern hemisphere are problematic.
How could you align equatorial mounts in the southern hemisphere according to FET models? As I understand FE models, equatorial mounts could not possibly work in the southern hemisphere if they were true but they do. How could you have a south celestial pole if there is no south geographic pole as such?

Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 14, 2021, 10:39:12 PM
But whether this FE model putting the north pole in the middle is because Rowbotham or anyone else lived in the northern hemisphere
It is only you who assumes the northern hemiplane has anything to do with the history of the theory. Ancient Egyptians would not be particularly subject to the bias you're so brazenly accusing them of, simply due to their location. Then again, you didn't know who you were accusing, you were just saying it because it made you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

the point I'm trying to make is no flat earth model (or none I've seen) can work equally well for both hemispheres.
The Flat Earth model works perfectly fine. What you're trying to say is that it doesn't match your (ignorant, as you demonstrated) preconceptions. "If the Earth is flat then why do I think it's round?" is what it boils down to. That is where the convenience comes into play. You want the Earth to be round, so you imagine flaws in FET, like the one above. FET is north-centric because Rowbotham would have lived in England thousands of years later - I'm sure you can see why this isn't compelling.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 15, 2021, 11:07:06 AM
It is only you who assumes the northern hemiplane has anything to do with the history of the theory. Ancient Egyptians would not be particularly subject to the bias you're so brazenly accusing them of, simply due to their location.
I wasn't talking about the ancient Egyptians. They didn't have the global perspective we have. Sure, they traded with other nations but they didn't know about The Americas or Australia, Antarctica or the North Pole. I don't believe there is an ancient Egyptian world map - or it certainly wouldn't be a world map as we know it.

Quote
Then again, you didn't know who you were accusing, you were just saying it because it made you feel warm and fuzzy inside.
I was talking specifically about Rowbotham because from what I understand it was his ENaG book which outlined the "modern" FE model.
It wasn't an "accusation" but he was writing at a time when the world had been pretty much mapped out. His model demonstrably works better in the northern hemisphere than it does the southern, my guess is that's because he lived and worked in the northern hemisphere.
In an era when international travel and communication was still slow the problems in the southern hemisphere were less evident.

Quote
The Flat Earth model works perfectly fine. What you're trying to say is that it doesn't match your (ignorant, as you demonstrated) preconceptions.
I'm saying it doesn't match observations.
I mean, the simple observation that the sun maintains a consistent angular size through the day demonstrates it must be at a constant distance.
I've outlined the specific problems with the southern hemisphere. What's the FE flight path of the Santiago to Sydney flight, for example?
You have to deny an entire continent exists. Then there's the problem of star trails - if there's a FE explanation for that then I've not seen it.

Quote
You want the Earth to be round, so you imagine flaws in FET, like the one above.

Well, for a start these flaws aren't imagined.
And secondly I don't "want" the earth to be any particular shape. If the earth was flat and my GPS worked, international travel still got me where I wanted to go and my satellite TV still worked then the shape of the earth would have no consequence for my life.

Quote
FET is north-centric because Rowbotham would have lived in England thousands of years later - I'm sure you can see why this isn't compelling.

No, that thing you said which bears no relation to what I said isn't compelling.
Again, I'm not talking about the ancient FE models. I'm talking about Rowbotham's. Are you suggesting the ancient Egyptians who didn't know the north pole existed had a FE model which placed it at the centre or had a model where the sun goes in circles above the earth and sunset is caused by perspective? Rowbotham's FE model is not the same as the ancient ones.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 15, 2021, 11:56:11 AM
It is only you who assumes the northern hemiplane has anything to do with the history of the theory. Ancient Egyptians would not be particularly subject to the bias you're so brazenly accusing them of, simply due to their location.
I wasn't talking about the ancient Egyptians. They didn't have the global perspective we have. Sure, they traded with other nations but they didn't know about The Americas or Australia, Antarctica or the North Pole. I don't believe there is an ancient Egyptian world map - or it certainly wouldn't be a world map as we know it. [/quote]Entirely irrelevant to your assertion.

I was talking specifically about Rowbotham because from what I understand it was his ENaG book which outlined the "modern" FE model.
Yes - RE'ers babbling away about FET without even a surface-level understanding is a pet peeve of mine.

His model demonstrably works better in the northern hemisphere than it does the southern
You continue to say "works" when you mean "fits my preconceived notions". You're not looking for a model that "works", you're looking for a model that matches RET 1:1, despite RET's internal contradictions.

Well, for a start these flaws aren't imagined.
Of course they are. That's why you end up being off by several millennia and thousands of miles. If you were coming from a place of knowledge, rather than imagination, you wouldn't be quite so far off in everything you say.

And secondly I don't "want" the earth to be any particular shape. If the earth was flat and my GPS worked, international travel still got me where I wanted to go and my satellite TV still worked then the shape of the earth would have no consequence for my life.
That's currently what's occurring, and yet here you are, making things up in the absence of prerequisite knowledge.

No, that thing you said which bears no relation to what I said isn't compelling.
Ah, so now the logical consequences of your imagination "bear no relation" to your warm and fuzzy feelings. Get serious or get the fuck out.

Again, I'm not talking about the ancient FE models. [...] Rowbotham's FE model is not the same as the ancient ones.
You were talking about the reason why FET is north-centric. You claimed it had something to do with Rowbotham. It did not - the north-centric roots of FET predate Rowbotham by millennia. When confronted with new information, the correct move is to adapt your views, not just discard reality in favour of emotion.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 15, 2021, 03:33:16 PM
You continue to say "works" when you mean "fits my preconceived notions". You're not looking for a model that "works", you're looking for a model that matches RET 1:1, despite RET's internal contradictions.
No. By "works" I mean "matches observations". I'm looking for a model which matches observations - aren't you?

Well, for a start these flaws aren't imagined.
Of course they are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oGlx9stITXY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgZa9oZDN5g

Quote
You were talking about the reason why FET is north-centric. You claimed it had something to do with Rowbotham. It did not - the north-centric roots of FET predate Rowbotham by millennia. When confronted with new information, the correct move is to adapt your views, not just discard reality in favour of emotion.
You have yet to demonstrate this claim. So the correct move is to ask you to evidence the claim.
The ancient FE models did not have the north pole at the centre of a disc or Antarctica as an ice wall around the edge. Because they didn't have any concept of those things.
I'm talking about Rowbotham's model which has those features. If he didn't originate that model then fine, replace Rowbotham with whoever did, but it wasn't the ancient Egyptians or the ancient anyone else.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 15, 2021, 04:34:59 PM
No. By "works" I mean "matches observations". I'm looking for a model which matches observations - aren't you?
Indeed - that's why I abandoned RET so long ago.

Well, for a start these flaws aren't imagined.
Of course they are.
[sudden rambling about midnight sun]
Um, okay. I take it you're ready to withdraw your imagined allegation that north-centric FET originated with Rowbotham, then?

You wonder why I accuse you of being dishonest. It's becuase you pull shit like this. You said something dumb. Your reaction to being corrected should be "whoopsie, my bad, moving on...", but instead you a) try to assert that your imagination stands, b) try to deflect from it any time you get close to having your hand forced, c) waste everyone's time and derail the thread to the point where it's gonna fall apart. Drop it. Be honest instead.

You have yet to demonstrate this claim. So the correct move is to ask you to evidence the claim.
Ah, of course. The classic "I made a bullshit claim that you contradicted, so now I'm going to demand that you evidence your counterclaim, while completely ignoring my own lack of evidence." At least pretend that you understand the burden of proof on your dumb assertions.

Do you really need me to teach you basic history? This is completely out of place for the upper fora, we expect you to understand what you're debating before you make accusations [and no, it doesn't matter that you don't like the word "accusation" - behave or begone].

But hey, here's one. Around 300BC (attributed to Dicaearchus of Messana, hopefully we can agree Rowbotham didn't touch this one!), a reasonably good representation of the then-known lands from a Sicilian perspective, and a remarkably sensible representation of north-centric FET:

(https://cdn.catawiki.net/assets/marketing/uploads-files/50275-465d19d19b634b61a888cf363ed69f12505afd67-story_inline_image.jpg)

It's hopeless. You can't make a coherent argument about something you know nothing about, and you're not interested in learning about it. If you wanna prance arout and ramble about whatever you made up the last time you were on the toilet, please do so in CN.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 15, 2021, 05:29:36 PM
No. By "works" I mean "matches observations". I'm looking for a model which matches observations - aren't you?
Indeed - that's why I abandoned RET so long ago.
Yes. What a shame you won't explain in detail what observations led you to that conclusion so others can see what mistakes you have made.

Quote
[sudden rambling about midnight sun]

You said that I am imagining flaws in FET. I've mentioned several flaws. Those videos illustrate one of them.
Those observations match what I would predict on a spherical earth which rotates and whose axis of rotation is tilted such that in each hemisphere's summer you get 24 hour sun at certain latitudes. And, crucially, the sun would rotate in different directions in the north and south, just as those videos show. The FET presented on this website has the sun rotating around the north pole. How then would it rotate around a point in the south in their summer in the opposite direction to the 24 hour sun in the north?

Quote
Um, okay. I take it you're ready to withdraw your imagined allegation that north-centric FET originated with Rowbotham, then?

If the model he presents in ENaG, with the north pole in the middle and a southern ice wall is not his then fine, cheerfully withdrawn.

Quote
Drop it. Be honest instead.

See above.
But I'm going to wager that whoever came up with it lived and made observations in the northern hemisphere. In which case that doesn't change the point I'm making which is that the FET presented on this site works a lot better in the northern hemisphere than it does the southern hemisphere because it originated in the northern hemisphere. And did so at a time when long distance travel and communication was, at best, slow which meant the flaws which are more evident in the south were less obvious at the time.

Quote
The classic "I made a bullshit claim that you contradicted, so now I'm going to demand that you evidence your counterclaim, while completely ignoring my own lack of evidence."

It's pretty reasonable of me to ask you to evidence your claim - it's pretty reasonable for you to ask me the same.

Quote
Around 300BC (attributed to Dicaearchus of Messana, hopefully we can agree Rowbotham didn't touch this one!), a reasonably good representation of the then-known lands from a Sicilian perspective, and a remarkably sensible representation of north-centric FET

So, admittedly my history is terrible. So I had a look in to this and found the map you've posted a picture of and some info about it here:

http://www.myoldmaps.com/maps-from-antiquity-6200-bc/111-dicaearchus-of-messana/111dicaearchus.pdf

So firstly...that's just a map. A map is by definition flat, that doesn't mean it's intended to represent a flat earth.
In fact the above says in the explanation:

Quote
Dicaearchus adopted the ratio of 3:2 for the oikoumene’s extent. He reported distances between certain places and
measured the heights of mountains, which he then compared with the size of the oikoumene to show that they did not significantly affect the earth’s sphericity

My emphasis. And this source:

https://www.krcmar.ca/resource-articles/1990_Summer_How%20the%20Flat%20Earth%20Got%20Round_1.pdf

says:

Quote
Dicaearchus described his version of the world, and was the first to consider the map of the world as part of a sphere. He built upon the discoveries of some of the explorers of the time, and was able to describe a line of latitude from east to west. This line showed how all points on the line saw the noonday sun at equal angles from the zenith.

My emphasis again.
So...Dicaearchus produced an admittedly impressive map for the time of the known world but it's nothing like a world map as we would know it and it doesn't seem like his map was intended to represent a flat Earth anyway.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Kokorikos on November 15, 2021, 07:31:09 PM
A map is by definition flat, that doesn't mean it's intended to represent a flat earth.

Even if this map did represent a flat earth it still is not a north-centric map. I think that it has no relation to any of the FE models proposed in this site, but please correct me if I am wrong.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 15, 2021, 08:45:51 PM
So, in short:

You're trying very hard to make yourself look dishonest. And then you're gonna complain about me noticing it. Stop. Be honest instead.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 16, 2021, 04:39:21 PM
Observations that disprove RET, despite being readily available, will be discarded by you. After all, you neglected to read them, and that might as well mean they weren't there at all. Maybe if we wrote them down for you just one more time, things would change! Yes, this must be it! Just one more explanation, that'll get through to the Man Who Doesn't Read!

I have no idea what observations you are referring to here, what haven't I read?
I have repeatedly asked you for details of the observations you have made which led you to FE belief and you have repeatedly demurred.
Piqued by my interest in this place I've seen a load of YouTube videos with "flat earth proofs". They are without exception people not understanding RET, people making mistakes in their method, misidentifying distant landmarks or making calculation errors.
Which isn't to say RET in the wider sense is "complete", there are anomalies, things we don't understand. But that doesn't mean you need to throw the globe baby out with the bath water. The earth can be a globe without us understanding how everything works.

This would also work better as a critique if you weren't discarding several observations I've mentioned in this thread which disprove FET.

Quote
Maps before the entire Earth was explored will be discarded by you. Damn it if the layout of the continents matches FET and indistinguishably contradicts RET, pattern-recognition can stuff it if it doesn't support your favourite shape of the Earth. After all, they don't show the entire thing, and we couldn't possibly recognise simple facts when they're inconvenient.
Discarded in what way? I looked into the map you mentioned and found two sources which suggested that the creator of it understood the earth was a globe. This map in particular has the shape of Europe fairly accurate, some of Africa to the south and some of Asia to the east. That's how both FET and RET have it. The map is far from perfect but given the time he was working in, it's a pretty good effort. But the layout of the continents which are shown is reasonably consistent with our modern understanding.
The differences between the RE and FE maps only become really apparent when you have a more global view and look at the shape and relative placement of Australia and the Americas. Those aren't on Dicæarchus' map because they weren't known back then.
And as I've said, every map contradicts RET. Because you can't perfectly map the surface of a sphere on to a plane

Quote
It is "pretty reasonable" of me to demand that you back up your claims... but you've stopped short of actually backing them up. Gee, I wonder why that might be.

I guess it's fair to say that my thought that the modern FET works better in the northern hemisphere than the southern one because it was developed in the northern hemisphere is more of an opinion than a fact.

Quote
Even though you now know that the actual origins of FET are pretty close to the Equator, you still insist on your imagination.
Are you still talking about ancient Egypt? Are you claiming that's the origin of FET? Honestly, I don't know if that's true. But when I looked into your comments about Dicæarchus I found two sources which claim he knew the earth was a sphere. And I have in this thread consistently talking about the FE model outlined in ENaG which I would suggest is a different FE model than any ancient one.

Quote
You're trying very hard to make yourself look dishonest. And then you're gonna complain about me noticing it. Stop. Be honest instead.

I'm going to complain about you trying very hard to think of me as dishonest.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 17, 2021, 03:45:29 PM
This would also work better as a critique if you weren't discarding several observations I've mentioned in this thread which disprove FET.
You've done no such thing. You're rambling because you don't understand basic FET, and I'm not too interested in defending whatever model you've imagined. Learn what you're arguing against before arguing against it.

Discarded in what way?
In this way:

That's how both FET and RET have it.
You know this isn't true. You're a relatively bright guy, and you're capable of observing geometric shapes. This only leaves dishonesty or delusion as possible explanations. Again, wasting everyone's time.

And as I've said, every map contradicts RET. Because you can't perfectly map the surface of a sphere on to a plane
Please allow me to remind you: "But erth rund" is not upper fora material. It's great that you think the Earth is round, and I'm very happy for you; but your conviction alone is not a meaningful argument, and does not merit repeating over and over. We know you're a RE'er. Do not spam the upper with it.

I guess it's fair to say that my thought that the modern FET works better in the northern hemisphere than the southern one because it was developed in the northern hemisphere is more of an opinion than a fact.
Yes, it's an opinion that contradicts facts. It can pretty much only stand as something adjacent to a religion.

Honestly, I don't know if that's true. But when I looked into your comments about Dicæarchus I found two sources which claim he knew the earth was a sphere.
I don't see why evidence for FET produced by RE'ers should be taken any less seriously. If anything, I'd expect you to treat your own camp with some generosity.

I'm going to complain about you trying very hard to think of me as dishonest.
There simply is no other explanation. You can't be corrected on matters of fact and still insist on propagating your untruth, ignoring counter-arguments and refusing to provide any evidence of your own. That's the line between feasibly being mistaken and just being a liar. Stop crossing it. Embrace the liberating feeling of honesty.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 18, 2021, 02:21:53 PM
This would also work better as a critique if you weren't discarding several observations I've mentioned in this thread which disprove FET.
You've done no such thing. You're rambling because you don't understand basic FET

OK. Well help me out then. Talk me through how the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic works with your FE model. In the model presented in your Wiki the southern region should be outside the circle the sun makes above the earth at all times. How can it circle around you in the South? I only see 3 possibilities:

1) It doesn't, that video is faked in some way
2) Your FET model is wrong
3) I don't understand your FET model

If it's 3 then fine, help me out. And just saying I need to learn what I'm arguing about is a little unfair when I've searched your Wiki and couldn't find anything about the 24 hour sun in the Antarctic. If it's not mentioned there (unless I missed something) then what else do I have to go on?

Quote
That's how both FET and RET have it.
You know this isn't true.

OK, so first let's be clear about what the "this" is. I said "some of Africa to the south [of Europe] and some of Asia to the east".
I mean...that is how the continents are positioned...isn't it?
I compared Dicaearchus' map with a modern map and the FE one from your Wiki:

(https://i.ibb.co/Tt9cHcZ/Map-Comparison.jpg)

A couple of things here. I'd suggest that Dicaearchus' map is a lot closer to the modern one than it is yours - Spain and India are oriented the same way, for example. In your FE map they are angled about 90 degrees with respect to one another. But in all 3 maps Africa is to the south of Europe, Asia is to the East - in your FE version "East" is defined a little differently.

You called Dicaearchus' map "a remarkably sensible representation of north-centric FET". Am I missing something? His map looks remarkably like a modern map of that part of the world. Obviously I'm making some allowances for the time he was working at, but it's not like he has everything in a completely different place to our current understanding.

Quote
There simply is no other explanation. You can't be corrected on matters of fact and still insist on propagating your untruth, ignoring counter-arguments and refusing to provide any evidence of your own.

I haven't ignored any counter argument. I've dealt with everything you've said. I've conceded the point that my thoughts on the FE theory Rowbotham outlines in ENaG being north-centric because of where he lived is more of an opinion than a fact. I have confessed some ignorance about historic FE models but you have yet to provide evidence that they were north-centric in the same way that Rowbotham's is.

There is another explanation other than me being dishonest - you're not correct, or I don't think you are.
You are stating things as fact without providing sources to back them up and expecting me to just accept you are right about everything.
Any push back and you just accuse me of being dishonest.

You mentioned Dicaearchus - who I admittedly hadn't heard of - so I looked in to that, found his map and noted that it looks pretty much like a modern map. And I did provide evidence - 2 sources which claim he knew the earth was a globe. I have no idea how you can claim that his map is "a remarkably sensible representation of north-centric FET" when it looks so similar to a modern map.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 18, 2021, 06:44:46 PM
OK. Well help me out then.
I am asking you, for the third (I think?) time in this thread, to stop trying to derail it. To be clear: my request is that you drop your line of argumentation in this thread so that it can get back on track; not that you go "b-but I am very right and also reasonable, here is an essay on how righteous I am".

Could you please do that for me? I'd really like to be able to get this sorted with polite requests alone. You give the mods a lot of shit for using more direct methods of tidying things up, but you sure don't respond to the less direct ones. Instead, you make things worse, treating every attempt at setting things right as a personal challenge.

So, c'mon. Show me you can do this.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 22, 2021, 12:59:25 PM
I completely agree on the need to get this back on track. I thought we'd got to an interesting place, particularly with WTF's point on the sun - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18734.msg251176#msg251176 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18734.msg251176#msg251176).

I'd be interested to hear Tom or Pete's views on this.

For example, if you consider 12 noon UTC on an equinox (I used next September and timeanddate.com), then we would expect the sun to be directly overhead the point shown by the red cross on this monopole FE map:

(https://i.ibb.co/7N00NVT/Screenshot-2021-11-22-at-11-47-42.png) (https://ibb.co/k6PP60r)

The circle is 45 degrees latitude radius - so from the discussion and wiki regarding EA, we would expect all points on the circumference of that circle to observe the sun at 45 degrees elevation at 1200 UTC, and in the direction of the centre of the circle. This is true for the point, for example, at 45N 0W - the sun is indeed around 45 degrees elevation at that time, due south. But it falls apart if you stray from that point. If you go to the point in Africa marked by the green arrow, for example, the sun is at an elevation of around 60 degrees at 1200 UTC, not 45. So the sun isn't where it should be according to EA.

If you extend the circle to 90 degrees radius it gets even worse, because one would expect from EA that nighttime would be the area outside of the circle. But it isn't like that at all - all of South America, for example, should be in daylight, and yet the 90 degree circle excludes half of it.

Thoughts? Tom? Pete?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2021, 10:51:02 AM
Actually the Wiki suggests (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox) that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/e/e5/Monopole_Timezones.png/918px-Monopole_Timezones.png)
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 23, 2021, 11:45:09 AM
Actually the Wiki suggests (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox) that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/e/e5/Monopole_Timezones.png/918px-Monopole_Timezones.png)

There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start. I'll try...

Firstly, bending the lines of longitude like that hasn't fixed the problems I alluded to. The 45 degree circle centred on 0N 0W, for example, now lands on the eastern tip of Somalia. At 1200 UTC on next September's equinox in that place the sun will be around 35 degrees elevation, not 45.

The 90 degree circle still doesn't cover all of South America, so your model is saying it will be dark in places when it fact it will be very much daylight.

Next, in the process of trying to correct for some problems, you've introduced more problems. According to your EA model, you are suggesting that Polaris is 6000 miles overhead the North Pole. That means that everybody on a line of longitude running south from the North Pole should view Polaris directly north, at progressively lower elevations until the equator is reached. But now you've curved the lines, so people on, for example the 0 degree meridian won't see Polaris on the same heading. That is completely at odds with what we observe, what conventional science predicts, and what your initial explanation of EA would expect.

You need to back a horse here - you seem to be flitting from map to map as it suits. You can't have one map to explain one phenomenon and another for a different one - they all have to work the same way.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 23, 2021, 03:30:30 PM
Actually the Wiki suggests (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox) that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/e/e5/Monopole_Timezones.png/918px-Monopole_Timezones.png)

What we witness with solar noon completely makes the curved longitude map impossible.  Every point on a given longitude sees solar noon at the same time.  Solar noon occurs when the sun is at it's closest and the observer looks due south or north depending on hemiplane.  The only way for every latitude on a given longitude to see solar noon at the same time is for the line of longitude to be straight, running directly N-S.  This has nothing to do with time zones.  Solar noon doesn't happen at the same time for every location in a given time zone.  Solar noon is specific for every longitude.

In addition, Tom.  That picture  looks great for how longitudes would line up with a spotlight sunrise, but what happens on the sunset end?  The lines of longitude would need to curve the other direction in order to line up with the spotlight at sunset.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2021, 04:36:14 PM
Actually the Wiki suggests (https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox) that this is a better map for the Monopole model in regards to equinox and longitude discussions:

(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/e/e5/Monopole_Timezones.png/918px-Monopole_Timezones.png)

There's so much wrong with that it's hard to know where to start. I'll try...

Firstly, bending the lines of longitude like that hasn't fixed the problems I alluded to. The 45 degree circle centred on 0N 0W, for example, now lands on the eastern tip of Somalia. At 1200 UTC on next September's equinox in that place the sun will be around 35 degrees elevation, not 45.

The 90 degree circle still doesn't cover all of South America, so your model is saying it will be dark in places when it fact it will be very much daylight.

Next, in the process of trying to correct for some problems, you've introduced more problems. According to your EA model, you are suggesting that Polaris is 6000 miles overhead the North Pole. That means that everybody on a line of longitude running south from the North Pole should view Polaris directly north, at progressively lower elevations until the equator is reached. But now you've curved the lines, so people on, for example the 0 degree meridian won't see Polaris on the same heading. That is completely at odds with what we observe, what conventional science predicts, and what your initial explanation of EA would expect.

You need to back a horse here - you seem to be flitting from map to map as it suits. You can't have one map to explain one phenomenon and another for a different one - they all have to work the same way.

Actually the discrepancies you are attempting to point out with a circle are fallacious, as you have neglected to provide any real world observations of anything at all.

Further, you need to think about your arguments more.The direction of North to the observer wouldn't change if the longitude lines were curved. The North Star is still over the North Pole and traveling Eastwards or Westwards in relation to the North Star would take you in a circle. Likewise, if you travel East ot West in relation to the magnetic field lines which eminate from the North you would make a similar circle on that map, as East and West on a compass are at a right angle to North. The direction of North and the makeup of the longitude lines on the surface have nothing to do with each other.

Someone on 0,0 degrees at the equator is on a point. That point does not suggest where the other points of longitude are or where North is. The makeup of the longitude lines is determined by the time of day and time zones, are points unique to the observer's position, and has nothing to do with North.

Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 23, 2021, 05:04:28 PM
Actually the discrepancies you are attempting to point out with a circle are fallacious, as you have neglected to provide any real world observations of anything at all.

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.

Enter 0 longitude in Suncalc.org and then vary the lattitude.  You'll see that culmination time is the same for all latitudes.

Further, you need to think about your arguments more.The direction of North to the observer wouldn't change if the latitude lines were curved. The North Star is still over the North Pole and traveling Eastwards or Westwards in relation to the North Star would take you in a circle. Likewise, if you travel East ot West in relation to the magnetic field lines which eminate from the North you would make a similar circle on that map, as East and West on a compass are at a right angle to North. The direction of North and the makeup of the latitude lines have nothing to do with each other.

My argument's just fine.


The point is not "Where's north?"  The point is that with the sun at any give location, with the exception of directly under it as you travel a curved longitude you are no longer at the closest point to the sun therefore you would not see solar noon at the same time as everyone else on your longitutde.

Someone on 0,0 degrees at the equator is on a point. That point does not suggest where the other points of latitude are or where North is. The makeup of the latitude lines is determined by the time of day and time zones, are points unique to the observer's position, and has nothing to do with North.

You seem to be confusing latitude and longitude.  Latitude has nothing to do with time of day.  Also, Longitude, along with solar noon, has nothing to do with time zones.

And you'll conveniently ignore the fact that the longitude line would have to curve the opposite direction to align with sunset.  Well done.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2021, 05:35:39 PM
Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 23, 2021, 05:43:27 PM
Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Where's your proof that Suncalc.org is false.  You know. You're own actual observations and data that show something different?  That's the point of your own post.  You've supplied no actual data, because you can't, that what is given on Suncalc doesn't match observations.  You simply say, "Suncalc is wrong."  It's a tired argument that no longer has merit.

And you'll continue to not address the issue of the lines of longitude curving the wrong way at sunset.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2021, 06:10:25 PM
Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Where's your proof that Suncalc.org is false.  You know. You're own actual observations and data that show something different?  That's the point of your own post.  You've supplied no actual data, because you can't, that what is given on Suncalc doesn't match observations.  You simply say, "Suncalc is wrong."  It's a tired argument that no longer has merit.

And you'll continue to not address the issue of the lines of longitude curving the wrong way at sunset.

As far as I can tell sites like suncalc are not a collection of observations, and isn't claimed as such. Certainly, it would take a worldwide effort of prolonged observations and there is no record of such an effort. In fact, we once emailed timeanddate on the source of their information and they claimed it was proprietary.

From my own experience, using the live dynamic phone sun locator apps have always been off.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 23, 2021, 06:14:56 PM
Incorrect. I didn't say that anyone is lying here. I said that the observations showing this are absent, and so therefore your argument is as well.

Where's your proof that Suncalc.org is false.  You know. You're own actual observations and data that show something different?  That's the point of your own post.  You've supplied no actual data, because you can't, that what is given on Suncalc doesn't match observations.  You simply say, "Suncalc is wrong."  It's a tired argument that no longer has merit.

And you'll continue to not address the issue of the lines of longitude curving the wrong way at sunset.

As far as I can tell sites like suncalc are not a collection of observations, and isn't claimed as such. Certainly, it would take a worldwide effort of observations and there is no record of such an effort. In fact, we once emailed timeanddate on the source of their information and they claimed it was proprietary.

Form my own experience, using the live dynamic phone sun locator apps have always been off.

So you don't have any actual observations to refute Suncalc.  So, in your own words, your argument is "a desperate argument from a losing position."
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 23, 2021, 09:08:49 PM

Further, you need to think about your arguments more.The direction of North to the observer wouldn't change if the longitude lines were curved.

Indeed it would not. You can draw the lines of longitude as wiggly as you like - it's just a convention.

It's not really clear from your map what modifications you have made, exactly, or why. It sort of looks like you've curved everything, thereby keeping places on the same line of longitude, albeit curved. On closer inspection though, that isn't the case, as places that are generally considered to be on the same line of longitude, like say London, the east coast of Spain, and the previously mentioned 0N 0W point, no longer are - the curved lines they are on are different. But neither do the east coast of Spain and London line up with the North Pole, so a traveller flying towards Polaris would be flying over different places. Maybe you could clarify what, precisely, the intent of the map is - are places supposed to retain their current lat/long position, or are you proposing that our current set of coordinates is wrong? And should places that currently align with Polaris still stay aligned?

But to be honest, there's far, far bigger issues with that map. If it's real world observations you wanted, here's one. According to timeanddate (and https://rl.se/sub-solar-point (https://rl.se/sub-solar-point), the sun is currently directly overhead a position in the pacific around 21S 135W, somewhere near French Polynesia. Hard to pinpoint that exactly on your map, but here's a 90 degree circle centred on that rough location:

(https://i.ibb.co/y006dGp/Screenshot-2021-11-23-at-20-46-06.png) (https://ibb.co/sjjKbkC)

Now you might take issue with my placement of the circle - it's slightly south of what I presume to be the Tropic, which clearly can't be right, but I tried to line it up on the right part of the west coast of South America...it should also be roughly half way to Australia...there's lots of challenges.

In any case, the more important point to note is that, according to your description of EA, it should be dark everywhere outside that circle. But it's currently daytime in Australia, which is miles away on your map. Miles away - it's not even close to the circle. And look, here's a webcam from Sydney:

(https://i.ibb.co/pyLq1Fc/Screenshot-2021-11-23-at-20-54-30.png) (https://ibb.co/YZLgNsm)

...taken from a still from this site - https://webcamsydney.com (https://webcamsydney.com)

How can it be daylight in Sydney if your model is correct?

And before you say...how do you know that sun placement is correct...aside from the fact that it's a well-proven model, backed up from numerous websites and daily observations by millions of people...here's a webcam from the Falklands at the same time. It cannot be daytime simultaneously in both Sydney and the Falklands if your model and map are correct:

(https://i.ibb.co/27YRJnf/Screenshot-2021-11-23-at-21-00-30.png) (https://ibb.co/xS8wZCR)

That webcam is from: http://www.webcams.horizon.co.fk (http://www.webcams.horizon.co.fk)

How would you explain that?





Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2021, 10:00:31 PM
You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMJp0tqWIbc&ab_channel=ChadPrestonOfficial

This is also the reason given for the southern celestial rotation as seen by the observer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsWNsuP-KI&feature=emb_title&ab_channel=CuriousJ


Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: stack on November 23, 2021, 10:09:36 PM
You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area sometimes changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

That first video uses a hemisphere hunk of a glass magnifier, not a dome. If that is representative of reality we'd all be squashed by it. Better would be an upside-down glass bowl.

I didn't think you were a 'domer'. Are you?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 23, 2021, 10:15:37 PM
You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area sometimes changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

That first video uses a hemisphere hunk of a glass magnifier, not a dome. If that is representative of reality we'd all be squashed by it. Better would be an upside-down glass bowl.

I didn't think you were a 'domer'. Are you?

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 23, 2021, 10:19:45 PM
You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMJp0tqWIbc&ab_channel=ChadPrestonOfficial

This is also the reason given for the southern celestial rotation as seen by the observer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsWNsuP-KI&feature=emb_title&ab_channel=CuriousJ

Again, you're fixing one problem, or trying to, and creating another. If that is the case, then the same must also hold true for the stars, which you've previously stated to be at the same altitude as the sun. But the model you've described for a viewer of the stars is completely different to that which you are now relying on for an observer of the sun. You can't have both. Again, pick a horse.

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

Well if you prefer a bipolar model, why are you showing us a monopole map with the curved longitude lines on it?

Again...another horse. Show us precisely what you think the map looks like, and how you think the sun illuminates it.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 23, 2021, 10:23:16 PM
No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

The bi-polar model has the same issue with not agreeing with how solar noon is observed as the curved longitude model.  On the bi-polar model, the sun is not at it's closest distance to each location on a given longitude line.  Thus, solar noon would not be seen at the same time at all locations along a given longitude line the way it is observed to.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2021, 12:25:43 AM
No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

The bi-polar model has the same issue with not agreeing with how solar noon is observed as the curved longitude model.  On the bi-polar model, the sun is not at it's closest distance to each location on a given longitude line.  Thus, solar noon would not be seen at the same time at all locations along a given longitude line the way it is observed to.

Who observed this? So far you have been unable to cite a single observation and keep referring to an online calculator which also does not cite any observations.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 24, 2021, 12:32:49 AM
Who observed this? So far you have been unable to cite a single observation and keep referring to an online calculator which also does not cite any observations.

Lol "Everyone is Wrong and LiEeInG"
That is a desperate argument from a losing position. An argument from a position of strength would have positive evidence for that position.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 24, 2021, 12:35:31 AM
Actually, I said nothing about lying. The problem is that you have no real world data.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on November 24, 2021, 02:05:06 AM
Actually, I said nothing about lying. The problem is that you have no real world data.

Funny.  I see no real world data from you either.  Interestingly, you believe enough of the 'non real world data' that you felt it necessary to put a curved longitude model in the WIKI to attempt to address the fact that the sun rises at the same time continuously along each longitude line on the equinox.  Why would you feel compelled to do that if there wasn't any data to support that fact?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: stack on November 24, 2021, 04:38:23 AM
You are assuming that it's always circular for all times of the year. The wider Flat Earth community generally holds that light curves and behaves as if it were coming through a magnifying dome in the Monopole model, and that the daylight area sometimes changes shape upon the earth as the sun proceeds southwards:

That first video uses a hemisphere hunk of a glass magnifier, not a dome. If that is representative of reality we'd all be squashed by it. Better would be an upside-down glass bowl.

I didn't think you were a 'domer'. Are you?

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

What shape(s) does sunlight take on the bi-polar model?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on November 24, 2021, 12:25:57 PM
No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.
The thing I cannot get my head around in that model is how the sun moves.
So with the monopole model it orbits the north pole effectively, closer to the north pole in the northern summer, further away in the northern winter. I have issues with that - it means the radius of the orbit has to keep changing and therefore the speed has to change to maintain a 24 hour day/might cycle. And that has to reverse every 6 months. No mechanisms for any of this have been even proposed as far as I know.
But at least I understand the model.
With the bi-polar model then what, the sun orbits the north pole for 6 months and then switches to orbit the south pole for 6 months? That would explain the antarctic 24 hour sun I guess but it feels like you're causing a whole lot of other problems there in terms of where the sun is in any way that matches observations.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: SteelyBob on November 28, 2021, 06:00:46 PM

No, I prefer a bi-polar model and don't think the sunlight necessarily takes those shapes. That type of behavior is the general argument for the Monopole model though.

Tom - I’d be really grateful if you explain how the sun illuminates the various parts of your preferred ‘map’, and how that works with your previous explanation of EA
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: drand48 on December 20, 2021, 08:40:04 PM
The answer to that query is that those are not the angles the observers would see since that diagram is an overhead two dimensional scene which inherently assumes that the stars and the observers are at the same altitude. Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, and if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole, the angle the observer sees between the top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.
OK, then, do the math for us and show that two observers would observe the same angle between two stars, based on your theory.

No math = no theory.  Not even a hypothesis.  Just a concept.  Concepts are important, but they aren't very convincing when we have theories where the math holds up and has incredible predictive value. Math people have been using for over 2000 years for certain cases, and for several hundreds of years for navigation.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Gemini Saga on December 28, 2021, 07:34:03 AM
Hi All,

Like many others, I've seen the video of Eric Dubai debunking the gravity, and answering Dave difficult questions (at least this is what seems to be for new Flat Earthers). I thought of sharing with you an experimental way to prove that Gravity doesn’t exist, I am not sure if it will count or not, However, I feel its worth discussion with you all here.

As we know, following the scientific methodology we cannot give a label to a theory that its 100% correct, because if we do so we are actually going to destroy the foundation of the scientific methodology as this methodology is built on continuous learning, meaning there would always be a tiny percentage of doubt regardless of the evidences provided for things which we cannot observe or assumptions we've developed in our minds. I know the subject might seems to taking this a bit far or stretching but anyway let's give it a try. If we use Newton's formula, F= GMM/r^2 where Force equals the constant of gravity is multiplied by the mass of Object 1 and mass of Object 2 divided by the distance between the two masses raised to the second power. If we take this into account, this would mean that the mass of the Earth is so great that the balloon would have no choice but to be attracted to the Earth. Why is that? because we have Object 1 mass pulling on Object 2 mass and vice versa where Object mass 2 pulling on Object mass 1 which we then have to conclude that F1 = F2 and this we all know is wrong, and why its wrong? because the pulling force of both not equal. I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon! Given that, the balloon shouldn’t rise whatsoever but the reality is showing something else, something which Eric mentioned before makes more sense, that Objects follows its density equilibrium

What do you think of the above?

and would also like to pounder on the question, is there a force required! we know that the scientific community considers gravity a force, do we need a force to explain what we observe in the first matter? and if we need, can we 100% say that gravity force consists of pulling factor?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on December 28, 2021, 12:27:12 PM
I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon!
Yes it is.
But also F = ma. So a = F/m.
So that same force has much less effect on the earth, which is massive, than the balloon which is not.

Also, with a balloon one must consider other forces. The wind exerts a force. Not a large force but, again, a = F/m.
So a small mass - like a balloon - can be affected by a small force. Which is why feathers and balloons are blown about by the wind and cannonballs are not.

Quote
What do you think of the above?


I think it shows a misunderstanding of science, which is what I see in a lot of FE people (and a lot of RE people, to be fair, but they’re generally not the ones thinking they know better than scientists)
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Gemini Saga on December 28, 2021, 02:24:30 PM
I mean that the force of the balloon that pulls the Earth is not equal to the force that the Earth pulls on the balloon!
Yes it is.
But also F = ma. So a = F/m.
So that same force has much less effect on the earth, which is massive, than the balloon which is not.

Also, with a balloon one must consider other forces. The wind exerts a force. Not a large force but, again, a = F/m.
So a small mass - like a balloon - can be affected by a small force. Which is why feathers and balloons are blown about by the wind and cannonballs are not.


Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector and that =/ 3 dimensional field. Which means the main axiom of gravity fails the commutative test this is because in gravity math we have there is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. Which I think you are aware of is not found in the universe. The main problem here is the reduction of 3 dimensional densities to 0 dimensional masses. Once a density is reduces to a mass, the mass cannot be returned to the original shape of the density. So we cannot cube a zero and get anything but another zero. This breaks the commutative properties of addition and thus the formula used above should actually be used to disprove gravity > F = GMM/r^2 : Force = The constant of Gravity * (The zero dimensional mass 1 * The zero dimensional mass 2)/ The 3 dimensional length between them squared. So every object pulls every other object. The dimensional problem occurs again.

Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2021, 02:40:17 PM
Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector
Sorry, what makes you think the vector is 2-dimensional?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Gemini Saga on December 28, 2021, 07:27:28 PM
Well don't forget that we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector
Sorry, what makes you think the vector is 2-dimensional?

Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world. To sum it up, any object cannot have mass and not have volume. For example I weight 85kg. Am I overweight or normal for people living in the north? you would come to know that mass tells us nothing of my size so that's why mass should be discarded because it has no dimensions. If we however, replace it with density then we can get an appropriate picture of the natural object in 3 dimensions. Peace
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 28, 2021, 07:35:49 PM
Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world.
Ignoring the fact that this is complete nonsense for a second, mass isn't a vector at all. It's a scalar. So, coming back to your asserion - why do you think the vector is 2-dimensional?

You said it yourself: a zero-dimensional mass times a 2-dimensional vector. It's pretty clear nobody is asking about the mass (yet).
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Gemini Saga on December 29, 2021, 06:43:21 AM
Well because dimensionless mass cannot create a 3 dimensional shape...
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 29, 2021, 09:30:14 PM
Once again - mass isn't a vector at all. A "shape" is not a vector, either.

You said that "we have a zero dimensional mass * a 2 dimensional vector".

I'm not asking about "a zero dimensional mass". It's nonsense, but I'm ignoring it for now. I am asking about the "2 dimensional vector".

What makes you think this vector is 2-dimensional?
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: Kangaroony on January 02, 2022, 05:39:17 PM
...Because in reality mass does not exist in the natural observable world. To sum it up, any object cannot have mass and not have volume. For example I weight 85kg. Am I overweight or normal for people living in the north? you would come to know that mass tells us nothing of my size so that's why mass should be discarded because it has no dimensions. If we however, replace it with density then we can get an appropriate picture of the natural object in 3 dimensions. Peace

Yes; mass does exist in the natural observable world.  If the mass of your body wasn't
observable, then I wouldn't see you as you walked past me on the street.  You have a body
mass of 85kg.  To not see you would require that you had a body mass of 0kg, which is of course
absurd—because you simply wouldn't exist.

Mass is a measure of the amount of matter in an object, and measures the quantity of matter
regardless of both its location in the universe and the gravitational force applied to it. An object's
mass is constant in all circumstances—contrast this with its weight, a force that depends on gravity.

And you're also wrong about me not being able to comprehend your "size" as a human being.  And
BTW, size is not technically a defining scientific term;  you and I have massive sizes in comparison
to an ant for example, but the Earth is of a tiny size in comparison with the sun.  Size, per se, is only
an abstract, relative term.

If you take your argument any further then, you're simply straying into a game of semantics.
Title: Re: Experiment to prove or disprove certain fact of FE theory
Post by: ichoosereality on March 12, 2022, 05:31:57 PM
... in gravity math we have there is a concept called Zero Point Mass. This is a mass without a volume. Which I think you are aware of is not found in the universe.
You said it correctly but then failed to pay attention to your own words.  The idea of a zero point mass (ignoring black holes for now) is in "gravity math", not the physical universe. If you are computing the gravitational force between two objects t and integrate the force calculation over the volume of the objects you will find that a) that is a difficult calculation and b)  that the answer is the same as if you considered each mass to a be a "point mass" at the center of mass of each object.  It's just an extremely useful calculation simplification and not a description of the actual objects.  Usually in such calculations its the trajectory of the center of mass the you are interested in so things like torque created by uneven mass is not typically of interest.