Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ichoosereality

Pages: < Back  1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  Next >
101
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Help me understand how light rays travel
« on: August 30, 2021, 01:37:38 AM »
Everyone likes to talk about how light works above the surface of the water, but I don't think I've ever seen someone bring up the behavior of light under the water.

One of the coolest things I've ever done is cenote diving in Mexico. The best part of the whole experience, is that you get spectacular sun rays through the cracks and crevices to the surface above.
Cool dives!  Is that amazing water clarity the norm?

And of course you are correct about the path of light and refraction.  The refraction occurs at the boundary and the path is straight otherwise.  Our technology exploiting this (lenses) is obviously quite well developed.

102
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 29, 2021, 07:11:25 PM »

I do not preclude the reality of satellites - they are actually built and huge sums of money are seemingly spent on them.  However I do preclude the reality of orbit as we are taught it.

Presumably it is a combination of balloons, aircraft, and terrestrial radio sources which comprise the "satellite" services you mentioned.
I don't think this is possible, let alone actually plausible.

GPS works by the receiver measuring the time it takes to get a signal from a (ever changing) set of satellites.
The proper time differences for those signals could be faked and sent from a plane for example and be correct for a receiver at one location but not for another location even just 100 ft away and both receivers could be equal distant from this fake source so that can not be used.   Or to put it another way, the system works by the distance to the satellites actually being different for different receivers even if only a couple 100 ft apart.  But these fakes stations could not deliver different signals to different receives and the fake sources do not have the distance variation from the receivers that the satellites do.

If you have sat TV you can go to the maintenance/setup screen and see the signal strength and then point the dish around and see the resulting drop in signal strength.  So clearly the source is on a line from you out to the claimed geosynchronous orbit position (22,000 miles high or so). A fake source just a few (or a few 10s of) miles high but on that same line can be imagined for your location, but what about a location 100 miles to the east or west of you?  For them if they point at the fake source you see the position will be wrong for them and the cat will be out of the bag so to speak.  If you have so many such fakes (many thousands) that any spot in the coverage area has a fake on roughly the right sight line for them, then many would get good reception from multiple sources.   We do not observe that so those sources do not exist.  Thus even if some way the titanic cost of maintaining all of that and that the 10s of thousands of folks involved could keep it secret, the technology just doesn't work.

Some satellite resources like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACE_and_GRACE-FO#GRACE_Follow-On while not as well known as GPS and Sat TV are even more obviously unable to be faked with other sources.

Satellites are real and really are in orbit.  The earth is clearly a globe, no other model works for what we observe.

103
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity experiment
« on: August 23, 2021, 05:56:42 AM »

 Any physicist will tell you that there is very little (relatively speaking) warping of the space component of spacetime near the earth. It isn’t massive enough.  For practical purposes, it is flat and what we experience as gravity on earth is due to the warping of the time component. Of course you are free to disagree with the idea, but it is hardly my pet theory. Its pretty mainstream.  At the beginning of the video I linked, the host references numerous other videos that explain the same thing in different ways.  You might try doing some research before making snide comments
Good advice for anyone.  I apologize for the snide comment.  To be honest when I read
"Everything, at all times, is moving through spacetime at c.  Velocity through time + velocity through space=c.  Time dilation means that things move through time faster at higher elevations relative to things at lower elevations.  A stationary object moves through the time dimension at c and through space dimension at 0.  If it begins to move through the space dimension, then its motion through the time dimension must decrease. "
I didn't take much seriously. That is NOT how Throne describes it.  I've never seen any claim that everything is moving a the speed of light.  But I'll take it that Thorne's view is what you were referring too (and I was not very familiar with it myself so thanks for that).


104
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity experiment
« on: August 23, 2021, 02:08:31 AM »
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.

This is incorrect, but commonly taught.  Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old. Often when speaking of gravity colloquially, we are actually talking about gravitation.  Gravity is purely the observation of the phenomenon.  Gravitation is a theoretical cause of the completely real phenomenon.  Handwaving "mass does it" is not a rigorous definition - obviously.

Gravitation is neither rigorously defined nor understood.  It is important to recognize this fact.

Time dilation is rigorously defined, understood and experimentally verified.  Even the FE wiki recognizes that. 
yes time dilation is well documented.

And time dilation is, ultimately. the "cause of gravity".
I am baffled by those who think that they can just throw out random cruft like this and think it should hold equal sway with theories developed over many decades and well supported but rigorous analysis by many researchers.  If you want to push your pet theory, go study for a few years, work in the field for more, get some credentials, and publish in actual scientific forums (of which this is NOT one).

105
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity experiment
« on: August 22, 2021, 08:00:48 PM »
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.
This is incorrect, but commonly taught.  Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old. Often when speaking of gravity colloquially, we are actually talking about gravitation.  Gravity is purely the observation of the phenomenon.  Gravitation is a theoretical cause of the completely real phenomenon.  Handwaving "mass does it" is not a rigorous definition - obviously.

Gravitation is neither rigorously defined nor understood.  It is important to recognize this fact.
We know from the gravity probe B data that space IS warped around the earth as predicted by general relativity.  Why mass warps space is another issue and what ever that turns out to be, there will certainly be a why for that and for that.  We can never get to the end of this chain so to you that seems to mean nothing is defined or understood.
The newtonian approximation for gravitational attraction between two bodies contains only the Gravitional constant, the 2 masses and the distance and it yields the correct result to precisely predict all the movement in our solar system and even of other galaxies. The gravitational force between two masses is precisely defined.   Closing your eyes makes things go away only for you.

And what does "Gravity is actually a natural law millennia old." mean?
Work continues to detect gravity waves (first accomplished in 2015).
Also you should be aware that gravity waves are NOT gravitational waves.  There are semantical tricks being played with the vernacular.
So you just brush aside this work with no support and accuse me of "handwaving".  Please.

As for local variances in weight on earth, yes - those exist.  Beyond that in "outer space"... let's try to keep the conversation a little more "down to earth" for the time being.  As much as I would like to dive head first into your examples - it'll mostly distract for now.
The old "I could completely defeat your argument but..." ploy.  Not exactly convincing.

Experiment is a required step in the scientific method, without exception.
So then for you cosmology, astronomy, ecology, geology, meteorology, paleontology, most of biology, and anything that involves observing the natural world without the ability to conduct an experiment, is not science.  Certainly ruling out the entire process of observing the world and comparing what is observed to the predictions of various theories would be welcomed by FE believers since FE's titanic failures in such comparisons would then be off limits.   (example: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18502.0)  But that is not how science works.

Quote
Light being bent by passing by a large mass was observed in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun. 
That was popularly advertised at the time, and still believed by many today - yes.  This was a marketing stunt for relativity, but really understanding that will take a lot of historical study on your part should you be interested.
Why it was done (and repeated in 1922) does not alter the data the was collected.  So even if you are correct, it does not matter.  What matters is only whenever the data is accurate and I have seen no evidence that it is not.  This same observation is regularly repeated by amateur astronomers https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/testing-general-relativity

106
Flat Earth Theory / Problems with the FE sun
« on: August 21, 2021, 07:17:28 PM »
Some clear indications of the round earth require a bit of effort to observe (like noticing that the stars change as you move north/south requires you to travel a bit).
But issues with the sun can be observed by anyone right where you are.

The FET posits some sort of "spot light sun" that tracks around the claimed disk earth roughly around the equator (a bit north or south depending on the season though what causes this movement is not specified).  The day light illumination provided by this FE sun is going be a round spot fading into darkness and this spot must fit roughly between the center and outer edge of the disk.   So the radius of this spot is roughly half the radius of the disk.  But that means the area of the illuminated spot is only 1/4 the area of the entire disk, yet we observer it to be half.  Doesn't this refute the FE model?

We observe the light / dark transition to be a straight line (usually not due north / south but still a straight line), but the spot the "spot light sun" would cast would be round and thus have a curved light to dark or dark to light transition.  This transition zone will also be much wider than what we observe. The sunrise and sunset times available online for basically any city on earth are based on the globe model and I have never heard of anyone anywhere every claiming they are wrong.   Doesn't this refute the FE model? 

The FET claims that the sun rising and setting behind the horizon is an illusion of perspective where a far distant object appears low on the horizon and as it nears you it appears to rise.  But the perspective illusion explanation does not provide for an equal amount of rise irrespective of the position of the sun.  The track of the sun across the sky changes day to day, but the angular distance we observe the sun travel along that track is the the same for every hour of the day.  But the perspective illusion has a much smaller angular change in the morning or evening than it does at midday.  Doesn't this refute the FE model?

The sun does not appear at sunrise as a tiny dot that grows size but it comes up from behind the horizon and is observed to be larger than it is for the bulk of its trek across the sky and likewise for sunset.  The perception of a large disk size at sunrise or sunset is due to atmospheric distortion, but clearly it is not a tiny dot that grows or shrinks but we observe it (please be extremely careful observing the sun) as roughly the same size throughout its daily passage.  Doesn't this refute the FE model?

107
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Gravity experiment
« on: August 21, 2021, 07:30:41 AM »
Mostly so far so good. What gravity is (that is hypothesized to exist) needs to be both rigorously defined and real to be part of a valid hypothesis (currently it is neither).
Gravity is very well defined as part of general relativity as the warping of space due to mass.
Work continues to detect gravity waves (first accomplished in 2015).  The https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Probe_B experiment (really stunning work) actually measured the warping of space around the earth in 2007.  There is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACE_and_GRACE-FO that uses tiny changes in the orbit of 2 satellites (one getting closer or further from the other) to infer changes in mass below them and when we go look at the earth there, we find what is predicted (mostly being used to find water).  The predictions of special and general relativity on time have also been very well established experimentally thus giving more support for the overall theory.  There is also the observation of stars doing a very tight turn around an object that we can not see, exactly as predicted for a black hole.

That is a simple observatio, not in any way an experiment.
This is a commonly expressed sentiment amount FEers, but its wrong. Science is a methodology involving making observations and then using Bayesian reasoning to estimate how likely it would be to observe that if various theories were true.  There are of course lots of rules and procedures to get good observations including how to do so if what you are observing is a constructed experiment, but clear results do not require such construction.

There is good reason to doubt the existence of gravitational lensing.  Perhaps the most obvious is its absolute lack of any experimental support of any kind.
Light being bent by passing by a large mass was observed in 1919 during a total eclipse of the sun.  The eclipse allowed observations of stars as their observed position was very close to the sun (which we normally could not see).  Calculating the portions of these stars using those observations showed them to be slightly off from calculations when we can see them not near the sun just as Einstein had predicted in 1915.  The light was bent by passing very close to the sun.  Numerous observations of all sorts of gravitational lens effects have been made that conform to just what the theory predicts.  Its quite well established.

108
Flat Earth Theory / What is beyond the south pole?
« on: August 21, 2021, 12:02:40 AM »
There are numerous obvious problems with FET with regard to it not coming close to predicting the observations of the sun, day/night, moon, and stars that we actually see.
But here I'm just asking about the rather fanciful claim that what is past the south pole is not the other side of the planet but a transparent dome, or an infinite frozen plane
The "ice wall" is apparently out of fashion (though it seems to come up often enough).

Flights over the south pole while not common have occurred and those as well as land expeditions across Antartica all end up on the other side of the planet just as the global earth theory predicts.
None has been stopped by the dome, or ended up on a frozen waste land (or hit the ice wall).

There have been circumnavigations of Antartica as well including In 2019 by a robotic sail done ( https://www.noaa.gov/news/saildrone-is-first-to-circumnavigate-antarctica-in-search-for-carbon-dioxide ) which clearly documented its 13,670 mile trip. Less than 1/5th of the 75,000 miles going around the edge of the flat earth would entail.

To be honest the FE is so silly I find it very hard to accept that anyone takes it seriously.

Why do these clear results not soundly refute the FET for its supporters?   The claim is that such support stems from observation and evidence not just belief, but here is evidence that throughly refutes the FE, yet its supporters remain.

109
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 12, 2021, 12:03:27 AM »
To be clear, the Ice Wall is an antiquated term for Antarctica.
Ok, no ice wall just Antarctica.   Excellent.  So what does the FE model claim is "past" the south pole and whatever that is why did
the south pole overflights not find it?

110
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 09, 2021, 09:13:31 PM »
Are you claiming that ice in Antartica implies an ice wall high enough to contain the atmosphere (so 50-60 miles high or so?).
No, and it is rather unclear where you got such a ludicrous idea.

See, this is always the problem with RE zealots - they are oh-so-keen to disprove their own imagination of what FET is, in the absence of actually understanding what they're so confidently opposing. Imagine we did that with RET - oh, how easy it would be not to have to address the actual arguments leveraged by the other side!
relax man. just a simple "no" would suffice.

Why has no one every seen this giant?
Presumably because it doesn't exist. We have no interest in defending your fantasies. You'd do well to (hehe) choose reality over your imagination.
Ok, so what keeps the atmosphere from spilling over the edge?

111
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 09, 2021, 07:56:40 PM »
I, for one, would like to see the FE evidence that the Ice Wall exists
To be clear, the Ice Wall is an antiquated term for Antarctica. I presume you do not dispute the existence of Antarctica, but rather its nature, but please correct me if your contention is actually with the Ice Wall's existence.
Are you claiming that ice in Antartica implies an ice wall high enough to contain the atmosphere (so 50-60 miles high or so?).  That is pretty
obviously different from an "ice shelf".  Why has no one every seen this giant?  Shouldn't we be able to see this, at least by using a telescope, from many places?

112
The fact that there is no reason to trust them in the first place is a start.
There is a big difference between government pronouncements or policy and government funded science.  And you didn't answer my question (and are under no obligation to do so of course) about how you transition from (what I assume was) an acceptance of the std RE model growing up and when you started to investigate FE ideas.

Quote from: ichoosereality
This vast deception would have to include 100s of thousands of scientists and engineers in physics, cosmology, space industries, etc.  Even ignoring the why, how could that be possible?
Or, they are actually detecting a FE in their experiments and have an array of adjunct theories to explain what the science equipment reports.
This is just a cop-out and hand waving.  The observations are exactly what we would expect from a spherical earth, no "array of adjust theories" is needed.

Quote from: ichoosereality
Science is a methodology, not an ideology.
If it works for figuring out atomic interactions (which you are using at this moment to read this) then it works for figuring out planetary interactions.  Mistakes are of course made and you can always question a result but over the long haul the methodology works amazingly well (its really the only way we have to find out about the world).  Why would it work in some physical (hard science) domains but not others?

Well, it doesn't work for either atomic interactions or planetary interactions. The three body problem applies to particle physics and astronomy - https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_Problem
So how do you think microelectronics came about?   All domains have unanswered questions, some even known to be unanswerable (e.g. uncertainty).  In no way do these invalidate the field of knowledge in which they are contained.

Quote from: ichoosereality
It seems to me that there are threads on this very site that clearly show what we observe is perfectly explained by a RE and can not be explained by a FE.  That is how science works (Bayesian reasoning).
We've discussed all of it and it's in the Wiki. Not sure what left there is to say on the matter.
You may view it as nothing left to say, but looking at the wiki on this site its not remotely convincing.  It seems oriented to folks who have already made up their mind and are looking for crutches to support their false views.  There are threads in this forum that are unanswered.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
Incredulity is a weak argument. It is certainly not a strong argument.
You keep claiming this is the common RE argument but this very site has plenty of specific rebuttals of FE claims. 

Quote from: ichoosereality
What additional data has been collected that supports a FE?
See the Wiki.
Its all laser experiments, and they are all fatally flawed due to a lack of understanding of how lasers behave in the atmosphere (they diverge).  What makes you think they are credible?
see https://flatearth.ws/laser

113
It was quite the journey. First, I accepted that it was possible that the authorities could be lying to us for some reason. Next, I decided that a FE was possible. Finally, after much internal struggle, I came to the shocking conclusion that a FE was probable.
Thanks Tom.  Now for a few questions:

Do you recall what lead you to even ask if "authorities" had been lying about space exploration for the past 70 years?   I assume you grew up accepting the RE.  Its also not just "the authorities".
This vast deception would have to include 100s of thousands of scientists and engineers in physics, cosmology, space industries, etc.  Even ignoring the why, how could that be possible?

2. My next goal was to decide if FE was possible, independent of any argument someone might have in favor of it
I do not know what this means.   You seem to want to use science in some areas but then ignore it for others.  To me that can not work.  Science is a methodology, not an ideology.
If it works for figuring out atomic interactions (which you are using at this moment to read this) then it works for figuring out planetary interactions.  Mistakes are of course made and you can always question a result but over the long haul the methodology works amazingly well (its really the only way we have to find out about the world).  Why would it work in some physical (hard science) domains but not others?

The RE arguments were fairly weak when assessed critically and couldn't preclude the possibility of a FE. Seek further evidence, or ask a question against the narrative, and it all falls apart.
It seems to me that there are threads on this very site that clearly show what we observe is perfectly explained by a RE and can not be explained by a FE.  That is how science works (Bayesian reasoning).

The main thing the RE have going for them in support of their arguments is their personal incredulity, which only erodes as the years pass and additional data is collected.
I can understand how folks get annoyed with FE arguments (frankly they are silly), but to say that the RE arguments are weak because of this reaction is simply wrong as I see it (agin looking even at this site).
The only reason I stopped by this site is that it is so clear FE is wrong, I wanted to understand how/why people ever accept it.  If people can be mislead on something so clear, in what other areas can they be lead astray?
What additional data has been collected that supports a FE?

114
I'm not trying to be flip here, I'm asking the FE believers to do something difficult.  That is to examine why you believe something.
It is clear (as can be seen in other threads on this very site) that no FE theory explains the observations of our world that any of us can make and we haven't even gotten into the vast amount of more technical scientific data and fundamental physics theory around gravitation, relativity, etc.  If you do not accept that, and use that as your main reason, that's fine (let me know) but please do not use this thread to debate the scientific viability of FE, there are other threads dealing with that.  Plus of course there is the impossible level of conspiracy a FE view requires.

So if you are a FE believer, how did you come to this point of view?   Can you recall when you first started to think this way and why?

Beyond that why do you continue to believe it?

115
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 08, 2021, 02:07:24 AM »
Of course you don't believe it, you're in too deep. The matrix has too much of a hold on you mate  ;D

No model of a flat earth can explain the world we see (and that anyone can see if you just look, the path of the sun, the visible stars, the day/night line, no south pole ice wall every seen, and on and on).
FE proponents can not explain how space tech (GPS, sat phones, comm sats, earth monitoring sats) actualy function as claimed providing correct data.
FE proponents can not explain how the 10s or 100s of thousands of people involved in this conspiracy for the last 70 years or so have managed to keep it secret withou a single person spilling the beans.

And you claim others are "in too deep"?  Look in the mirror.

116
I am stating there is going to be interference with line of sight caused by objects arising from the earth with these stars and it is an impossibility for it to be otherwise.

Why does it matter?  Forget the stars that you might not see due to obstructions, being generous cal that 20 degrees up from the horizon in all directions.  Focus on the 140 degrees you can easily see in all directions.  What is the explanation of why the stars in that region change as you move north/south such that at far north compared to far south latitude they are completely different.  Exactly what you expect when changing your position on a sphere, exactly NOT what you expect when doing so on a plane.
The angle of the view certainly changes, and you certainly are viewing them from a different direction. Sounds more like a celestial sphere to me.

As I explained earlier, one would expect to see different things overhead as you move on the flat earth plane.
As longitude varies at a far southern latitude (i.e. around the south pole) the stars are the same, despite according to the FE model that those places are very far apart (around the circumference of the disk), so the notion that you are just to far away to see the stars overhead does not hold.  Further even with a big telescope you can not see stars that have fallen below the horizon compared to a different north/south position.  The FE model does not begin to explain what we see.

Of course with a telescope you should also be able to see the sun from the night portion of the earth since its also not far away.  Clearly just after "sunset" if it really i just moving too far away to be seen with the naked eye you could see it with a telescope. But we can not since it is being hidden by the planet.  The FE model simply does not work.

117
I am stating there is going to be interference with line of sight caused by objects arising from the earth with these stars and it is an impossibility for it to be otherwise.

Why does it matter?  Forget the stars that you might not see due to obstructions, being generous cal that 20 degrees up from the horizon in all directions.  Focus on the 140 degrees you can easily see in all directions.  What is the explanation of why the stars in that region change as you move north/south such that at far north compared to far south latitude they are completely different.  Exactly what you expect when changing your position on a sphere, exactly NOT what you expect when doing so on a plane.

118
Flat Earth Theory / Re: I'm new here! A bunch of generic questions?
« on: August 06, 2021, 11:26:02 PM »
The modern method is just the same method as Eratosthenes' method, and uses Eratosthenes' same assumptions.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Measuring-the-Earth-Modernized-1673316

Quote
In its modern form, the method requires the following elements: two stations on the same meridian of longitude, which play the same parts as Aswan and Alexandria in the method of Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 276–c. 194 BC); a precise determination of the angular height of a designated star at the same time from the two stations; and two perfectly level and accurately measured baselines a few kilometres long near each station. What was new 2,000 years after Eratosthenes was the accuracy of the stellar positions and the measured distance between the stations, accomplished through the use of the baselines.

It would be a better argument if it wasn't just the same thing done again.
On the contrary, its STILL a good argument (there are many others of course as well).

119
The night sky seen from the northern and southern hemispheres is radially different.  No matter how powerful your telescope you can not see stars that are on the other side of the planet from your position.  That is what we observe and it makes perfect sense for a ball earth.  But why would it be true for a flat earth?
Despite the height of an object above our heads, it will eventually be obscured by objects arising from the flat earth plane.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Okay, let me elucidate.

A plane is flying from N to S.

You do not see it immediately due to clouds between you and the plane, but can hear it.

Then, it appears to you from between the clouds, then disappears again briefly, but reappears.

As it makes its way further S, it disappears behind a ten foot tall tree immediately behind you, then reappears briefly, only to disappear behind a water tower 1/2 mile away from you.
Then it finally disappears from your sight behind a distant line of low level clouds 10 miles down range of your position.
In the far north or far south the stars are completely different. How can you explain that for a flat earth?
That has nothing to do with the shape of the earth.

I would expect to see different things over my head as I move about, even in a 10x12 room.

All clutter on the horizon can be ignored by only looking at the sky say 20 degrees up from all horizons.  We're observing on a  clear night so clouds are not an issue.  We'll observe at midnight each night so the daily rotation of the earth (or the universe in the FE mode) is not important.  If you start in the far north and travel south you will observe stars seemingly to rotate over your head so some fall below the norther horizon and new ones emerge from the southern horizon.  At the two north/south extremes of your trip the night sky will be radically different.  This effect is observed the wold over and has been since people have been looking at the night sky.

Even in your 10x12 room you would expect to see the entire ceiling form anywhere in the room.  Even in the FE model the stars are a lot farther way than the ceiling in a small room yet as we move north/south the entire sky, not just what is directly over our heads changes.

Clearly the shape of the earth has everything to do with it.

120
I want to know why it doesn't look completely different every night if we're spinning around through space like they say we are. All that supposed movement still the position of the stars remains pretty much the same each night. Something about that seems off if you ask me.

The stars don't look COMPLETELY different because, in the big scheme of things, we're hardly moving at all. We spin around once every 24 hours or so, cycle around the Sun once every 365 days, but in galactic terms, we're a drop in the ocean. A grain of sand on a big beach.

But Orion is still there isn't it? Just strikes me as odd that we're supposedly going in circles around the sun which in turn is spinning around the galaxy which also is likely doing something similar and all the time our night sky never seems to change that much.

I refer again to my last statement, now bolded.

I can only suggest you think bigger. Our little circuit around the Sun is a minor blip, a nothingness in galactic terms.

The closest stars are about 10 light years away, most of the stars in the night sky are between 10 and 100 light years away, but lets use 10.  The distance from on end of earths orbit to the other is 600 milling miles.  So if you do the math, I think that comes out to the closest stars being about 100,000 times further away then the maxim different view positions of the earth.  So if you have an unobstructed view of an object 1 mile away and move about 1/2 an inch (about 1/100,000th of a mile) left or right, would you expect your view of that object to change?  And the is using the maximum difference at the extreme ends of an orbit for the analogy..  Day to day the difference for viewing an object 1 mile away would be very roughly 185 times less or around 7/100ths of an inch.

By using precise instrumentation differences CAN be seen and plotting the orbits of galaxies (which you can't see with the naked eye) around each other is part of the evidence for dark matter.

10 LY = 5.8E13 miles, call it 60 trillion
earth orbit diameter 600 million 6E8 miles

Pages: < Back  1 ... 4 5 [6] 7  Next >