61

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and empyrical demonstration against FE.

« on: July 03, 2014, 08:23:45 PM »

(Remember that I'm an REer, but I do expect that each REer should be reviewing and critiquing all posts.)

I have confirmed your post in several ways. [...], you have a well-established Internet presence and contemporaneous provenance for the photo.

Your Internet presence has independent accolades. Your peers have reviewed and accepted your work.

You pass all the scrutiny I can muster, with top marks.

I don't know exactly what you are talking about. But it sounds like I won some prize.

While there are several very minor problems (For example: apparent FOV is usually measured in degrees, or radians.)

Can you detail the minor problems, that are not typos?

FOV, for digital cameras used in astrophotography, is measured with Arcsec/pixel (or Arcmin/pixel).
This is not "because yes". The reason is because the number of pixels, as well as their size and shape vary from one camera to another.
Now, knowing the apparent FOV of one pixel will let you know the FOV of the whole sensor, and also letting you to measure the size and distance between two objects in the space, such as binary or multiple star systems.
If you know only the FOV of the whole sensor and you cannot know the FOV of each pixel, you cannot measure anything. (well, actually you can measure time passing).

That's the reason why it's better to know the FOV of each pixel instead of only the FOV of the whole sensor.


For direct viewing through the telescope (this is, using your eyes and an eyepiece instead of a digicam), of course you can't measure the number of pixels in your eye, so you can only measure in Acrsec or Arcmin.

62

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon

« on: July 03, 2014, 04:38:25 PM »

When I say "easy to spot" what I assume you'd gather from that is that it is easy to precieve. Especially combined with words like invisible and "patch of darkness".

How is an object that orbits close to the sun "easy to spot" in the night sky? 

Thanks to elongation.
This can show (or hide) Mercury or Venus when you try seeing it. This workd on Round Earth model.
Now, for the Flat Earth model, I can't say for sure, but chances are that planetary elongation could not exist in their Flat Earth model. I'm still investigating and doing calculations and observations, so I can't ensure it right now.

63

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon and empyrical demonstration against FE.

« on: July 03, 2014, 04:36:08 PM »

The image was taken with a galilean telescope (uses lenses) with a focal distance of 1000 milimmeters and an aperture of 100mm.

Did you make a mistake here? I thought the focal distance was the distance from the subject to the subjective lens, in simple terms of course. Please let me know and I'll continue my review of your long post after I understand what you meant. Thanks.

Focal length.

64

Flat Earth Theory / Moon and empyrical demonstration against FE.

« on: July 03, 2014, 03:16:10 PM »

Distance and size to the Moon in your model is wrong. I can prove it and give true information (e.g. anyone can check the validity, and I already did using my own equipment, which I describe below)

Using any stargazer telescope (I own several telescopes of several type), a digital camera and a computer you can easily measure the size of Moon's features like craters, mare, rims, etc...

Let me post a Moon image that I took some some months ago:




In this image, you can see the crater Copernicus, which is a crater that is near the Moon's equator (actually roughtly 150km above the equator). The estimated size of the crater is 93kilometers diameter (is a round crater). There are also other craters, mons and features around, but due to the low budget camera a telescope used, there are plenty of them that can't be seen because they are too small to be seem from this distance with the equipment i describe next. The smaller features that I can see with this telescope and camera is roughtly 4 kilometers diameter. Something smaller will appear only be visible as a very small fuzzy shadow (or light reflection).

You may say that someone made us believe that Copernicus is 93kilometers diameter, or that I'm saying fake information, so let's study the matter to understand if that is true or false:

The image was taken with a galilean telescope (uses lenses) with a focal distance of 1000 milimmeters and an aperture of 100mm.

The image was taken using a digital camera, but let's start supposing we are first looking through that telescope with an eyepiece with a focal lenth of 10 milimeters. (If you don't know what all this means, then please stop reading, since you won't understand a lot of concepts beyond this line)

Now, according to basic optics, using such eyepiece in such telescope, we will be seing objects as if they were 100 times closer to us.
So, focusing the telescope to a tree that is 100 meters away, will look like another tree that is 1 meter away from us.
You can't negate this, since you can check it yourself (I already did, and it is true).

Now, if we focus the telescope to the Moon, if it is 394.400 kilometers away, we will see the moon as if it were at a distance of 3944 kilometers instead of 394.400.

This can't tell us if the Moon if big or small, but just let us measure distances using equivalences when using a digital camera.


Now, let's switch to the camera I used to get the image above. It was a Luna-QHY 5L-II CMOS camera.
This camera has a pixel size of 3.75 microns (squared pixels), a 1/3 inc sensor (8.43 mm squared sensor) and without any binning (binning 1x1 actually)

Now using basic informatics and optics formulae, we got a magnification of x83.58 , and an apparent FOV of 29x29'/pixel.

Now, according to the FE model, the distance Earth-Moon is 15 kilometers and has a 600 meters diameter.
So, if I take a photo with that telescope and that camera, the moon will look as if it were 0.15 kilometers away (150 meters away). As for comparison purposes, if I look at a house that is 150 meters away, I can see every kind of details that are even 1 meter diameter, lets say, a kid playing around. Please, take this into account because it is very important, even when it may seem otherwise.

Now according to RE model, the distance Earth-Moon is 394.400 kilometers and 3475 diameter.
Using the telescope and camera above, it will look like 3944 kilometers away. Now, if I look at a house that is 3944 kilometers away, i can't really see it because it is too small and the distance too big.


But now lets take into account this fact: using that telescope, it is impossible to see craters or features that are roughtly 4 km diameter or less because of the distance and the telescope resolution. This is an evident fact that you can check it's validity if you know a little bit about optics and geometry. But again, doesn't seem to work in your FE model, so in your FE model with a moon at a distance of 15 kilometers, I could see even the american flag or the footsteps of the astronauts, but truth is that I cannot see anything that is smaller than (roughtly) 4 Kilometers.

But when I use any of my high-end telescopes, I can clearly see details from the Moon surface that are even 1 or 2 kilometers size, so not seeing them with the low-budget telescope is not due to the inexistance of such craters features, but due to the lack of telescope quality, while in your FE model, any telescope (even cheap chinese plastic ones) will let us to see moon details that are as small as 1 or 2 meters diameter in size, but this actually doesn't happen.

Conclussion: according to everything exposed and demonstrated previously, the distance from the Earth to the Moon is wrong in your model, as well as its size, since it doesn't match my observation or the observation that anyone can do at their home with the appropriate equipment.

65

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Unipolar, bipolar, disc, square, infinite plane?

« on: July 03, 2014, 09:42:26 AM »

I'm not trying to be a dick either, just guessing how can you explain some facts according to your answer:

I'll go first.

• Unipolar, meaning that the south pole surrounds us.  Magnetic substances align with our north pole, and those magnetic field lines extend out beyond the known earth.  On the bipolar map, compasses and navigation don't make sense, to me.

Where is the magnetic substance?
If it is in the Arctic (north pole), then the magnetic field will become weaker when I move towards the Antarctica, which is not the case.
If it is located all over the surface, my compass arrow won't look towards the Arctic, but towards the top or the bottom of the flat earth surface, depending on where the north magnetic pole is.

• A disc.  Everything in the cosmos moves in circles, navigation on the earth (round or flat) happens in circles.  The earth is a disc, this is certain.

This is actually false. Nothing in the universe moves in circles, not even in elipsys.
Everything that is orbyting another body in the universe is moving in an spiraled movement, coming closer to the central body.
Phobos (one of Mars' satellite) is coming closer to Mars (this movement is very small, you need special equipment to measure it)
Moon is coming closer to the earth each day (this movement is very small, you need special equipment to measure it)
Earth is coming closer to the Sun each day (again, a very small movement, you need special equipment)
Stars are coming closer to the center of their galaxies (again, a very small movement, you need special equipment)

So, nothing moves in circles, disks or ellipses.

The earth being a disk can't be certain if you try to demonstrate it using wrong information.

• It is generally accepted that Antarctica exists.  The disc extends past Antarctica for an unknown expanse.  This territory is dark, cold, inhospitable, may not even support life, and remains unexplored.  It may be infinite.  No edge has ever been seen.
• Antarctica is the mass of land that has been theorized to be a continent covering the southern polar region on a globe.  On the monopole earth it the mass of land that surrounds the inhabited continents we call the earth.  Its total area is unknown and it remains unexplored.  Necessarily, it holds the oceans in.
• The Ice Wall is just a fancy name for Antarctica.  Some claim there is a literal wall of ice that sits on the antarctic land mass - I wouldn't be surprised if there are several, in fact.  It's cold. Be that as it may, the Ice Wall as a whole is essentially just Antarctica.

This may be true or not. Can you show us some empyrical proof of this.

• As the edge (if it exists) is out of reach of the sun, it is unlikely that a ship would ever sail there, as the oceans would be frozen.

A space probe can travel there without risking human lives. There is no need to use a ship.

• There is no evidence for a physical firmament.  Some (like Thork) do like the idea of a firmament but I've never seen anything that would indicate its existence.

In fact, there is. You can see comets moving around, falling to earth and even you can see the ISS floating around during certain nights: http://www.isstracker.com
Without physical firmament, there can't be comets or asteroids falling to earth or the ISS floating in a "non-physical" medium.
The ISS won't be able to float and move in a void space (this is, a space without any kind of matter or energy).

66

Flat Earth Theory / Re: This can't happen if earth is flat

« on: July 03, 2014, 09:11:49 AM »

As an REer, let me assist you on this one.

Thanks for your answer.

First, FEers like to switch "flavors" when convenient. You may receive a FEer reply that claims that your evident facts don't apply to their "flavor".

A fact is a "true and empirically demonstrable event or thing", so no one can negate it. No matter how your flat-earth theories are flavored, they can't go against what I (and anyone) can empiricaly demonstrate, in this case, crossing the south pole.

Tom Bishop, after spending years arguing that Rowbotham had it right: the South Pole is "circumvential" and the an impenetrable "ice wall" surrounds the known Earth, now advocates a "mystic" two-pole model. Please reference the thread I started, "FE Models" now found in "Angry Rantings".

I will take a look at that thread.

Second, you will still find those that hold conspiracy theories: The "Elite" hide the nature of the South Pole, along with FET in general by fraud. Please see my thread in "Flat Earth General" dealing with conspiracy theories. In summary: Since conspiracy theories are not falsifiable, they are not scientific or debatable. A new "special pleading" will be invoked to explain away any evidence that challenges this conspiracy theory.

You or anyone are invited to travel to the south pole and try crossing it, knowing that way if the pole is a wall of ice in a plane or a pole in an spheroid body. There can't be conspiracy for something that anyone can check its validity as simple as travelling there.

67

Flat Earth Theory / This can't happen if earth is flat

« on: July 03, 2014, 12:16:30 AM »

Hi.

Not sure if this was posted somewhere before, but just want to ask how can you explain for your flat earth model:

1- that I can cross the south pole without falling to the void. Lets say, I walk towards the south pole from the Pacific Ocean, I cross the pole and I reach Atlantic ocean. Your flat earth model is against the own nature of these evident facts at first sight.

2- If the Sun is as small as you state (I cannot remember now the size in your model), its gravity will be so small that gravitational lensing due to the Sun's gravity would be impossible to observ, but in fact, it exists and it can be empirically demonstrated, and even ovsersed with an appropriate telescope during an eclypse. How your flat earth model can demonstrate or explain this?

3- Astronomical objects that "orbyt" the solar system from a far distance, such as comets, have a perion in which they can be seen from the earth with just an optical telescope. During their transit near earth, they are visible only in some parts of the earth, for example, they can be seen the first 50 days in the north hemisphere, and the other 50 days in the south (supposing their transit is 100 days). How can you explain or demonstrate for your flat earth model that such objects from that far distance are hidden from certain regions in the earth?

4- In your model there is a contradiction between sun's size and energy irradiated. How can you explain that such a small sun can irradiate energy to reach the zones that are at down or dusk, without destroying the zones that are at mid-day?

5- when I observe certain planets with any of my telescopes, there are days when they seem bigger during a certain period of the year. This period changes each year (maybe in 2014 is during september but in 2015 is during April).
This is because such planet is closer to the earth due to their eliptycal orbyts around the sun (in a round earth heliocentric model), and this can be seen from everywhere in the Earth during that period, no matter the season or any other factors. In a flat earth model, this cannot happen, since a point in the space can't be equidistant to every point in a flat surface, unless your surface is a concave object, and in this case, the distance to Jupiter or any other planet will greatly and noticeablely vary depending on where in the flat earth surface I am. But according to any common observation, the distance to Jupiter at naked-eye or even using a telescope, looks the same even if I am in the north pole or in the equator.

Thanks in advance.