The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: foobar on April 14, 2024, 12:26:29 PM
-
I propose the following experiment:
- If Sigma Octantis does not move at the night time, can we assume it does not move appreciably in 24-hours (although it does move a bit with the seasons).
- Suppose a South American observer notes the compass bearing towards Sigma Octantis. Sigma Octantis is hard to find, but it should be obvious in a 15 minute long-exposure photo, as the only star that doesn't move. Once that is located by both observers, they can compare the other constellations to make sure they "match up".
- Suppose the same night (but not the exact same time) a South African observe also makes the same measurement using the same method.
Could we use this to test a monople flat-earth? If both measurements are due south and we assume Sigma Octantis never moves (has anyone ever seen it move?) then South America and South Africa can't be at the edge of a disc earth. This would provide evidence for a bipolar flat-earth or a round-earth.
-
If Sigma Octantis does not move at the night time
Relative to what?
-
If Sigma Octantis does not move at the night time
Relative to what?
Relative to earth.
The angle between compass South and Sigma Octantis and the angle between Sigma Octantis and the horizon (altitudinal angle) doesn't change appreciably within one night. It doesn't rise or set; it just gets brighter and dimmer, fading to nothing when the sun is out.
-
Relative to earth.
That seems rather impossible under the RE model, and if it were true, it would directly conflict with your proposed outcome.
On FE, I don't see how your experiment accounts for EA.
-
Relative to earth.
That seems rather impossible under the RE model, and if it were true, it would directly conflict with your proposed outcome.
In RE a star directly in line with earths axis of rotation would not appear to move (e.g., Polaris in the northern hemisphere).
On FE, I don't see how your experiment accounts for EA.
EA only affects the attitudinal angle not the compass bearing; EA proposes that light bends up (towards zenith) relative to the disc not Eastward or Westward. Is this correct?
-
In the Bi-Polar model (https://wiki.tfes.org/Bi-Polar_Model) this is explained by the existence of two poles.
However, the Monopole model persists, and it would be interesting to try to debunk the explanation for it.
There might be a time when two of the three southern continent locations such as South America and Africa see the night stars at the same time, but never all three (South America, Africa and Australia) at the same time.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
Here is summer on June 21, 2021 with added green marker for "a star":
(https://i.imgur.com/KGGqBJt.jpg)
Translating it to a Flat Earth Monopole map, with relative location:
(https://i.imgur.com/2wymA7i.jpg)
The star is close enough to those two locations to be in range so that the star could be visible at the same time from both locations.
As seen above, it is possible in some situations for two locations to see the same star at the same time. If the star is encircling the Earth like the Sun, then different observers will observe that star when it is night for that observer.
When each observer South America and Africa in the above diagram looks in a general sense to the south, they see the that star swirling around a southern celestial pole. The true star is displaced from due South for each observer, but it could be shifted to be more due South for the observer through the below light mechanism.
Logically it makes more sense that there is only one mechanism for multiple phenomena, rather than multiple mechanisms for multiple phenomena. In the Monopole model the appearance of the South Celestial Pole could be related to the seasons. On a Monopole Model the seasonal daylight patterns, where wide extents of the Earth receive daylight when the Sun moves to the South, can be explained with a magnifying dome model where the light creates broad shapes at different positions. Since we do not live in a perfect world, it does not necessarily follow that the Sun's area of light will make a circular shape at all times, or that the light of the Sun will necessarily engulf all of the Earth at once. If the light is shining through imperfect affecting phenomena it may bend upwards and widen into a non-circular shape. The upwards bending of light here also explains the general phenomena of night and day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrL1IVMr0CU
In the above, the seasonal daylight patterns of the Flat Earth Monopole Model are satisfactorily, and coincidentally, simulated with a magnifying dome.
If light behaves as if it were coming through a dome magnifying glass, another interesting aspect is that it is seen that the view from the underside of the dome can create an effect which could create a southern celestial system.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWsWNsuP-KI
The Southern Celestial system is artificial, and only encompasses the stars around the true area of stars.
Since the stars are rotating over the Earth like the Sun, the night sky is over South America and Australia at different times, observers in those areas will see the same stars spinning around their observed South Celestial Pole when it is night for those areas. In the case of Africa and South America, they may be close enough together that the stars they see are the same stars, except moved more towards the South for each observer and located on one part or side of the apparent ring of stars than the other.
-
The above YouTube video re-posted by Tom (and within the Wiki) is a highly inaccurate model to reference as any kind of mechanism or basis for atmospheric phenomena:
- The model uses a solid glass dome magnifying lens; Earth's atmosphere does not consist of solid magnifying glass material.
- The local spotlight Sun is being represented by a flashlight whose diameter is about 1:1 scale the size of the Earth. If the flat Earth plane is let's say 8,000 miles in diameter and the size of the local Sun is 30 miles in diameter, than the scale of the small spotlight Sun to the flat Earth plane should be 1:266.
-
It's a model which seems to fit the patterns of light. A model is a proposed possible construct which explains occurrences, which may exist as a purely mathematical scheme, or a physical example as above. No one is proposing that the atmosphere is made of glass. There could be a number of mechanisms for this that are not glass. If you can find where I stated that the atmosphere was made of glass, please point it out.
Desktop and physical models are used all the time, to demonstrate that a pattern of phenomena exists with a consistent mechanism. The task here is to show that this model does not explain it. Pointing out that the atmosphere is not made of glass is not sufficient for this, as the behavior of light through the heavens and atmolayer are unknown variables for our purposes. You should attack this by showing that this configuration of light bending does not explain it, as this model could be expressed by a series of equations as equally as a physical glass magnifying dome.
-
It's a model which seems to fit the patterns of light. A model is a proposed possible construct which explains occurrences, which may exist as a purely mathematical scheme, or a physical example as above. No one is proposing that the atmosphere is made of glass. There could be a number of mechanisms for this that are not glass. If you can find where I stated that the atmosphere was made of glass, please point it out.
Desktop and physical models are used all the time, to demonstrate that a pattern of phenomena exists with a consistent mechanism. The task here is to show that this model does not explain it. Pointing out that the atmosphere is not made of glass is not sufficient for this, as the behavior of light through the heavens and atmolayer are unknown variables for our purposes. No one has studied large area light paths in a controlled setting (except for arguably Samuel Rowbotham (https://wiki.tfes.org/Experimental_Evidence#Experiment_Two)). The interest here is that there is a configuration of light bending that can explain this. You should attack this by showing that this configuration of light bending does not explain it.
Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?
Do you think the updated model would show the same patterns of light?
-
Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?
In this question of "more accurately represented" you are making assumptions about how the light from the celestial bodies behave. This is the very thing in question. Hence, no scheme can be discarded because of what you are assuming in your head.
-
Since our atmosphere is not made of solid magnifying glass material and the local Sun is only about 30 miles in diameter (per FET), what would your prediction be if the model was updated to not consist of a solid piece of magnifying glass and the local Sun was more accurately represented as about 1:266 scale to that of the Flat Earth plane?
In this question of "more accurately represented" you are making assumptions about how the light from the celestial bodies behave. This is the very thing in question. Hence, no scheme can be discarded because of what you are assuming in your head.
"More accurately represented" simply means not using solid magnifying glass to simulate our atmosphere and updating the scale of the small spotlight Sun to be consistent with FET and not be a large spotlight Sun that is 1:1 scale to the flat Earth plane.
If there is an opportunity to have a better model... than such opportunities to pursue and use a better model should be done. I think you and I would both agree on this.
In terms of how light from celestial bodies behaves, I haven't made any assumptions... my question to you was: if the model was updated to be consistent with a small spotlight Sun (as per FET) and an atmosphere that is not made of solid magnifying glass material (as you and I both agree on) than what would be your prediction in terms of light patterns?
-
It does not matter that the model is made out of glass or if it is made out of mathematical equations for how the light behaves. It's a model - a representation of a scheme. If it were a mathematical equation, would you be asking where the equations are in the universe? That would obviously be very silly to do that. Hence, it does not matter if it is made of glass or not.
-
Unlike user Mahogany, I'm willing to accept the glass-dome as a hypothetical desktop-sized analogy to reality.
However, the first video shows the dome centered over the north pole, and the second video shows the dome centered over the equator.
-
The star is close enough to those two locations to be in range so that the star could be visible at the same time from both locations.
As seen above, it is possible in some situations for two locations to see the same star at the same time. If the star is encircling the Earth like the Sun, then different observers will observe that star when it is night for that observer.
When each observer South America and Africa in the above diagram looks in a general sense to the south, they see the that star swirling around a southern celestial pole. The true star is displaced from due South for each observer, but it could be shifted to be more due South for the observer through the below light mechanism.
General sense to the south? In South America they'd be looking East to see that star, in Africa they'd be looking West.
(https://i.ibb.co/W5btRmC/monopolestar.jpg)
And as the stars rotate the star would move west to east, it wouldn't be a static star above the pole as it would be on a globe. The bi-polar model may solve some of this but then I've no idea how the sun is supposed to move in that model.
Logically it makes more sense that there is only one mechanism for multiple phenomena, rather than multiple mechanisms for multiple phenomena.
Well, I agree. This is where the simplicity of the globe model is quite elegant. It explains day and night, the seasons, the consistent angular size of the sun, etc, etc. In FE you need multiple mechanisms to explain all this - you need some magnification effect to explain the consistent angular size, you need EA to explain sunset. The way the radius of the sun's orbit keeps changing, and the corresponding speed changing to maintain a consistent 24 hour day/night cycle, why the radius is increasing for 6 months and then starts decreasing. All those things need other mechanisms which have no real explanation.
When Andrew Wiles solved Fermat's Last Theorum his initial version had a problem in which I doubt many people in the world understand. I saw a documentary in which he described his efforts to fix it, he said it was like trying to fit a carpet in a room it's too big for - every time you flatten down one corner, it pops up in the other corner. He eventually sorted it out, but FE feels a bit like that. Overall the monopole model seems the one which works best, certainly in the northern hemisphere. But it causes problems in the south - the lines of longitude should keep increasing, but they don't. Antarctica has been explored and circumnavigated. Flights in the southern hemisphere which you can track in real time make no sense on the FE map. The Bi-Polar model may solve some of these issues, but then you get into a whole world of other problems about how the sun and stars move.
-
Both of Tom's videos are nonsense.
First, if all of the celestial bodies are inside the dome then shining lights on the dome from outside is meaningless. That's neither here nor there though to their problems.
The first video is simply magician's sleight of hand and optics. What we want to see is not what the top of the dome looks like but what the map looks like. The video never shows this. To see what is really going on the camera should be either able to view the map underneath or be viewing the bottom of the glass. Optically, the shadow on the exterior of the dome is due to the fact that the light angle is causing all of the light to be reflected back in. It's how a fiber optic cable works. At the proper angle, light is reflected back into the core off the cladding as it propagates down the fiber. All we are seeing is this optical property of the light angle causing all the light to be reflected back into the dome which causes the outer shell of the dome to be dark. You can see this by being able to slightly view the map and times when the magician is causing a shadow as well as you can see a bright outline on the paper, opposite the light, where the light would be shining at a nearly 90 degree angle to the edge of the dome and passing out.
In the second video, the lights should be directly above the camera circling like a clock not off to the side to match the FE model.
Neither video is in any way an valid representation of what is happening on a flat earth.
-
Where is Sigma Octantus?
If the earth is a spheroid. light travels straight in a vacuum, and Sigma Octantus is a star 294 light years away and 1 degree off a line extended from the south pole, then all over the southern hemisphere it will be visible at any point in the southern hemisphere almost directly south and at an angle above the horizon equal to the latitude of the observer's location. This is explained in textbooks, web sites, videos, etc, consistently and unambiguously. Navigators have used this and observers have confirmed this. In this respect, the earth appears round and the geometry is consistent. Any RE will tell the exact same story. In this respect, the earth appears to be round.
If the earth is flat, we know the light is bending but do not know why or how. The bending can only be determined by what bending needs to occur for the round appearance to actually be flat. We don't know whether there is one pole or two. We don't know why at the same time people in the north see entirely different stars than people in the south. Since we don't know how the light bends, we don't know where Sigma Octantus actually is.
It is not just the azimuth of Sigma Octantus but also elevation (angle above the horizon). It is stated above (hypothesized? speculated?) that SIgma Octantus is directly above the south pole in the bi-polar model. Since Sigma Octantus is on the horizon when viewed from the equator, that makes it appear to be directly on the south pole while far to the south it appears to be far above it. So the light bends vertically as well as horizontally.
In the monopole disc model Sigma Octantus is in every direction, always directly opposite to the north pole. Seems like it would be visible from the northern hemisphere. It has the same elevation problem as bi-polar model.
So that leaves us with: RE has an explanation that is known, consistent with observations, and identical in all RE info sources. FE does not know which model and has no equations, explanations, or verification experiments to explain observations. Yet some believe the earth is flat. Sure would like to hear the details of EA, but so far the definition is "whatever it has to be to make the appearance of RE be actually FE".
Interestingly, if we know the light bends in various directions but do not know exactly how, Sigma Octantus could be anywhere. I claim that to know where Sigma Octantus is, we have to know the forces and equations of how the light bends. If it does not bend, the earth is round.
I hope we can all agree with everything I said above. Please advise if I said anything that isn't true.
-
There might be a time when two of the three southern continent locations such as South America and Africa see the night stars at the same time, but never all three (South America, Africa and Australia) at the same time.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
Here is summer on June 21, 2021 with added green marker for "a star":
(https://i.imgur.com/KGGqBJt.jpg)
Nice cherry picking of data. You've been shown before that this isn't true.
From the same website:
(https://i.imgur.com/ilTTHqA.jpg)
Now locate the star between the southern tip of Aftica and Madagascar on your monopole map and all three continents can view it at the same time except that South America and Australia will be looking nowhere near south as happens in reality.
-
It does not matter that the model is made out of glass or if it is made out of mathematical equations for how the light behaves. It's a model - a representation of a scheme. If it were a mathematical equation, would you be asking where the equations are in the universe? That would obviously be very silly to do that. Hence, it does not matter if it is made of glass or not.
Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.
-
There might be a time when two of the three southern continent locations such as South America and Africa see the night stars at the same time, but never all three (South America, Africa and Australia) at the same time.
https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html
Here is summer on June 21, 2021 with added green marker for "a star":
(https://i.imgur.com/KGGqBJt.jpg)
Nice cherry picking of data. You've been shown before that this isn't true.
From the same website:
(https://i.imgur.com/ilTTHqA.jpg)
Now locate the star between the southern tip of Aftica and Madagascar on your monopole map and all three continents can view it at the same time except that South America and Australia will be looking nowhere near south as happens in reality.
And you can keep claiming that Octantis can be seen at all three locations at the same time and that is simply a lie. There is no verified instance of this ever happening.
-
Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.
In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.
-
Your statement seems kind of ridiculous. Using a desktop solid glass magnifying dome as an acceptable model scheme to show how light behaves upon the flat Earth's surface would be like someone launching a desktop model rocket in their backyard and explaining that to be an acceptable model scheme to show how a rocket engine behaves in the vacuum of space.
In what way, exactly, would the two be alike? Please detail the necessary aspects of both RET and FET to underline your argument.
The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.
In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model. Some FE models have firmament domes and some models do not; some FE models are represented as an infinite plane and other models are not; some FE models are represented as mono-pole and other models are not; some models are represented with Antarctica being a ring of ice around the perimeter of the flat earth plane with the North Pole in the center, while other models are not, etc.
-
The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.
What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.
In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.
Ah, right...
Please let me remind you that the FET subforum is not intended for newcomers with no understanding of the model. If you're not ready to post here yet, please exercise some self-restraint and let the rest of us discuss in peace.
-
The two are alike in that both would use highly inaccurate model setup's as a claimed "acceptable" model scheme.
What makes you believe the FE representation would be "highly inaccurate"? What discrepancies from FE have you observed in Tom's proposed representation? Please be specific - statements like "it's wrong because it's inaccurate" are not very helpful here.
In terms of other specific aspects of FET vs. RET it's difficult to know what to use as a basis for comparison, since there is no unifying FE model.
Ah, right...
Please let me remind you that the FET subforum is not intended for newcomers with no understanding of the model. If you're not ready to post here yet, please exercise some self-restraint and let the rest of us discuss in peace.
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane. My question to Tom was what would his prediction be regarding light patterns if the Earth's atmosphere was not incorrectly represented as a solid piece of magnifying glass (because the Earth's atmosphere is not solid glass) and the spotlight Sun was not incorrectly represented as 1:1 scale the size of the flat Earth plane (because FET does not have the local Sun this large in scale).
In terms of my comment about there not being a unified FE model, I am only referencing what is stated in the FES Wiki. The Wiki states "here is a picture of a proposed, but certainly not definitive, Flat Earth. Other maps representing various Flat Earth models can be found on our Flat Earth Maps page." The Layout of Continents section further goes on to describe the main point of contention among Flat Earthers regarding the several theories concerning the nature and extent of Antarctica. Images of various different Flat Earth geographic models are then shown. This leads me to conclude that there is not a unifying FE model.
-
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.
And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.
So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.
Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.
-
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.
And what about these factors, in your opinion, makes the depiction "highly inaccurate"? Please highlight a specific contradiction with what's observed under FET. So far, you have suggested that a scaled-down model of FET that makes reasonable adjustments for the consequences of scaling down would be "like" someone creating a scaled-down model of RET that fails to make the same adjustments. At face value, your argument disproves itself - it proposes the same things as the problem and as the solution.
So, I am offering you a chance to fix the errors in your argumentation. It's possible that you have a point there somewhere, but that you've obfuscated it with your inadequate presentation.
Do not simply repeat your incomplete argument - I've read it the first time. Instead, fill the gaps and make yourself clear.
We may be crossing wires and apologize if it's coming across as trying to obfuscate.
I have been referring to the Model Setup as being "highly inaccurate".
I noticed that you are questioning me about the Depiction as being "highly inaccurate".
It could very well be that light patterns do behave as Depicted in the YouTube video. Regardless, I was only referring to the need for a better model setup, where Earth's atmosphere is not represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and the Sun was more accurately represented in scale as per FET.
In my own example, it could very well be that rocket engines perform and "push" in a vacuum. I would also be referring to the need for a better model setup, if someone were to try and represent the vacuum of space using air (i.e. launching a model rocket in their backyard).
This site has been better than most all of the nonsense Facebook sites I've seen where debate doesn't even seem to occur; I don't want to get kicked off of TFES. Am only trying to understand and have good spirited debate.
-
As I mentioned to Tom, the desktop model setup in the YouTube video is highly inaccurate because A) the Earth's atmosphere is being represented by a solid piece of magnifying glass and B) the local spotlight Sun is represented as being very large in scale (almost 1:1 scale using a flashlight) to the diameter of the flat earth plane.
Where do you come up with the idea the source of the light used in the video is on a scale of 1:1 to the map?