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 - RazaTD

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3]
41
Raza the flight distances do check out on this map.   Stack asked me this question the first time I introduced this map and I confirmed NY to Alaska is 4000 miles on this map as is generally accepted to be the distance.

Regarding the pole stars, I did follow closely the debates everyone had on how there can be two rotating sets of stars on a flat map.   Tom introduced a video showing how a Dome above a flat earth can help part the stars and have them circle in two distinct groups.

Id go further and say that my understanding is that people in the south can observe some stars near them and people in the North can observe a higher set of stars in the sky.   The dome helps magnify these effects.

And keep in mind,  my map is different then the map you talked about in your other thread.   This is a south Antarctic based projection, not a North pole one which is more commonly talked about.

Id go even further and say that the high altitude stars visible in the northern hemisphere are actually located closer to inner earth but the star light actually bends around the dome and gives the illusion of it being behind observers and over the artic circle.  The Milky Way bends around the dome if you've seen time lapse photos of it,  it's a dramatic effect.

This bending also accounts for why people in the North can see polaris from much of the world in winter.   Just like the sun's rays wrap around the dome to give them 24 hour sunlight in summer,  so do the stars (or planets) lights in winter.   Not all night,  as there is no 24 hour darkness in the habitable north (save 1 day maybe)  But admittedly,  there's not too much data on the far reaches of the north anyway to compare data as easily as you guys did for the southern hemisphere.

How does light bend to give the illusion of a celestial pole? On your map, I’m assuming the center is the South Pole and this has the southern celestial pole but how does the northern celestial pole works?

In the more traditional north centered flat Earth map, in the other thread, Tom tried to explain it away using crepuscular and anti crepuscular rays. That explanation was shaky but even more glaring issue was the ability of people on different continents to look at their own south directions (remember, different places on a flat Earth) and still see the same stars. I remember stack or someone else found a time of year when conditions are dark enough to see stars from Australia, tip of South America, and tip of Africa.

How do you explain that? On the Globe earth, South Pole is a single point. People looking south from all of those three locations are converging at a singular point. Therefore, they can easily see the same set of stars.

This issue was not resolved by the way and Tom has now abandoned that thread presumably because it’s not really recoverable without also bending logic. In a yet another thread about a similar discussion I believe the flat Earth proponents had to change wiki because of this issue.

42
These are good questions.  I attempted to reconcile these problems in the map below.  You'll notice that I shrunk all latitudes and longitudes below 30d north by 50% and increased latitude and longutudes by 150% above 60d north.  I also increased the distance between 60w to 30w and correspondingly150e to 120e.  This helps to modify and provide more accurate landmasses that we measure today,  identical in the most popular fly over areas.   Greenland, South America, Australia, and China are directly affected by this. 

I drew an exact map to size in another post called "new world map (south centered)".  This one is my best attempt at Photoshop on an android.

If your starting point is the 3D Globe Earth map and you are creating a 2D Flat Earth map, you will always face a loss of information. There is no way around it. You can do different projections to take different forms of the loss of information (distortion in distances, shapes, sizes etc) but there will always be a loss of information.
The 3D Globe Earth map is fiction.

All maps are flat.

Period.

When you take something that is flat to begin with and try to make it into a sphere, that is where the idiocy begins.

The Flat Earth map is a projection of the 3D Globe map. There are many flaws with this projection as it should be expected because of the loss of information that is incurs. There is a lot wrong with the Flat Earth map as it is presented. A lot of the flight distances and times don’t match up with reality. There is no single South Pole (see my thread about the issue of Southern Celestial pole related to this).

None of these issues happen with the Globe Earth map because it reflects reality without loss of information.

43
It’s because the flat earth map is just a projections of the globe onto a plane. Just like any projection of a 3D surface onto a 2D surface, it faces loss of information. In this case the distances are distorted. North of equator is contracted and South of equator is expanded (as far as I understand). The flat earth community has yet to create a map of the Earth.

44
Flat Earth Theory / Re: [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 23, 2021, 02:38:52 PM »
I do wonder at the fascination with Sigma Octantis

'Fascination' is probably not quite the right word for it, but I tend to focus on Sig Oct because it has the unique property of being stationary, and perfectly shows the latitude of the observer without needing complex navigation tables etc. This avoids all discussion of movement, which I think tends to distract from the key points of the debate - I don't need a star chart to tell you where to look to see it, as all I need is your latitude and to tell you to look south at the appropriate elevation. Yes, it's hard to see, but it's still there. It also avoids tedious confusion regarding the Southern Cross being visible in parts of the northern hemisphere. I've seen this used as an argument to the effect that the southern pole can in fact be viewed from the northern hemisphere, which is not correct - the southern cross has a declination of around -60, and so would be expected to be visible in the southern 30 degrees or so of the northern hemisphere.

The stationary property of sig oct is perfect for the point being made here, which is that it is visible from all parts of the southern hemisphere - as I showed in my post above, at brief periods, it's even visible in three different continents at the same time. There is no credible explanation for that within FET, and I'm disappointed that Tom hasn't risen to the challenge of addressing this point.

I am trying to think what possible explanation the FE proponents can come up with but honestly nothing short of magic comes to me. I wouldn't want to be in their spot  8)

I would like to invite Tom Bishop and Pete Svarrior to take up this challenge  ;)

45
I am also worried that the mono polar flat earth model is unable to explain this. I have recently asked in another thread about this issue maybe some people from there might have better ideas.

46
Flat Earth Theory / [ELI5] Southern Celestial Pole
« on: January 15, 2021, 05:43:13 AM »
The existence of a Southern Celestial Pole is an easily observable fact and is not disputed anywhere. However, looking at the typical flat earth model with stars on the dome or something similar, I really don't see how it could ever rationalize the second pole.

Please don't troll and say the Southern Celestial Pole is fake.

I read the wiki and it is not satisfactory. The mono polar flat earth can't explain the second pole and the bi polar flat earth only explains the poles (I can't find information about other phenomenon on it)

47
Flat Earth Theory / [EXPLANATION NEEDED] Clouds lit from underside
« on: June 08, 2018, 05:42:52 PM »
Short Introduction

I've been following Flat Earth for about a few weeks and I've spotted some mighty errors that have been explained with complete disregard to the rest of the Flat Earth Conjecture and this often ends up explaining that particular phenomenon but debunking the rest of the conjecture.

I believe the question I'm going to ask is one of them.

The Question

I've personally witnessed and seen a dozens of pictures (on the web) of the clouds being lit from underneath by the sunlight. According to the basic Flat Earth Conjecture, the Sun is floating way above the clouds and therefore, to my knowledge, something like this should be impossible on the Flat Earth.

I'm pretty positive that there is actually no sane explanation for this but to prove me wrong is up to the Flat Earthers. Just in case you're not able to find the photos of the exact phenomenon I'm talking about, I'll attach an image.



In this remarkable photograph, you can see that not only are the clouds lit from underside but they have the Mountain's shadow casted over them. I believe this is quite impossible to achieve with Flat Earth.

The Globe Explanation

On the Globe, this phenomenon occurs because of the rotation of the Earth about it's axis. During the dusk, the Sun sinks into the horizon but you can make it reappear if you go higher. The height at which the clouds are, the Sun is still shining.

This is easily provable by videos shot on Burj Khalifa, a tower so tall, you can watch two sun sets a day by ascending.

Pages: < Back  1 2 [3]