### 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 - somerled

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16  Next >
1
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: June 22, 2020, 04:40:11 PM »
"I think it's because latitude/longitude have just become forever associated with the globe and that's what's causing the problem for those who don't believe in the globe."

You've answered your own question there. Plane measurements associated with a globe through spherical calculations . That's the objection.

"Fundamentally (if you live in the northern hemisphere), your latitude is easily determined. It's simply the altitude of Polaris from your location. It's not an absolute value in miles, km or light years, because to determine that you'd need to know how far away Polaris is and in times past, that wasn't possible to determine. What we do instead is measure the angle from the horizon to the star, because that's easily done and doesn't require you to know any distances."

Point 1 . You assume Polaris is known to be a vast distance and point 2 - you assume that in past times the distance to Polaris wasn't possible to measure .

See Brahe's model for the distance to the stars for one example and I'm sure triangulation of distance has been around for a long time .

Point 3. We do not measure elevation of Polaris from the horizon - we measure elevation from the horizontal plane

If you make a post containing assumptions you are confusing the issue.

2
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: June 22, 2020, 11:18:26 AM »
I don't get your point . Last line of your OP .

"So is that it? Are latitude/longitude OK by themselves, but the distances are not? What are the actual objections?"

I have put forward the objections . Why should FE accept an ellipsoid model coordinate system as being suitable to describe earth ?

GPS and the globe are not latitude longitude systems of earth ,  yet they are offered up as proof of a globe because by RE . Why do you think that doesn't deserve objection ?

RE is fond of telling us FE distances don't add up on their imaginary model . This is why the distances are important .

Your last sentence makes no sense - can't fathom that out.

3
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: June 21, 2020, 04:21:26 PM »
The kneeling down gesture is the governments attempt to control public opinion and promote its agenda . No human should kneel before another . We all matter .

Anyone who refuses to kneel will be branded a racist . That's the point of that . The psychopaths in control want you to live in fear.

4
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: June 21, 2020, 04:02:55 PM »
Yeah nice , we agree about the equipment and methodology , and you are correct this is indeed compatible with flat or globe earth .
I disagree with your next bit. The set of geometric observations you make will tell you , without preconception , which shape is a better fit for a model of earth .

On a perfect sphere with the pole star at immense distance , light rays would be parallel to the axis of the globe and all degrees of latitude should be equal distance apart since they are governed by the curve of the sphere.

On an oblate sphere ,same distant polestar,  degrees of latitude will lengthen to the North.

On a plain degrees of latitude will shorten to the North only if the polestar is relatively close .

It's probably impossible to get true accurate readings due to the diffraction /diffusion etc caused by the air but the general shape should be discernable.

5
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: June 21, 2020, 01:39:59 PM »
It's not far left press advancing BLM - all I see is tptb and their mouthpiece media advancing this shit. Have to admit I've not read any Left wing press for a fair few years - what passes for it these days ?
Football is also very shit imho . Money laundering scheme for the greedy criminals. Watch rugby league .
Lilly livered liberalism isn't left wing .

6
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: June 21, 2020, 12:55:51 PM »
Take a reading at 30N , take a reading from 29N , measure accurately the distance between the points - and carry it on like so .

7
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: June 21, 2020, 11:15:39 AM »
Picking out the extremism of the Left isn't hard to do when they are the party of rioters, criminals, and deviants who hate America.

But yes, they do it too. See the violent race riots instigated by the Left over Geroge Floyed, where in reality very few unarmed black men are killed each year, and usually at a number equal or less than unarmed white men.

The trouble I have Tom is that the American left is extremely right wing ha. Your politics over there are a mystery to me .

8
##### Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Black Lives Matter
« on: June 21, 2020, 10:54:21 AM »
The people who enslave other people are the problem . The rich greedy fuckin parasitic race enslave humanity regardless of colour . BLM and those opposing " far right" groups are used by the RGFPR to divide and conquer.

People just don't see the real enemy.

9
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: June 21, 2020, 08:25:25 AM »
Latitude is determined by measure of the angle of pole star above the horizontal plane form position of measure , not the horizon . The plane is found by plumbline and level , the angle of elevation by sextant and quadrant .

Use the stars to determine the meridian . Zenith sector, transit scope , survey instruments . You need to see the pole star . It's not visible during daylight which is why I wouldn't use the sun . Every star will cross the meridian at it's zenith . You will then have a meridian along which you will also have observed and measured degrees of latitude given by the pole star - that point above the geographical N point . Call it whatever you want .

These observations will reveal the shape of earth according to these measurements of latitude along that meridian . It's all survey of land and sky .

You can then plot other meridian position using the fact that the sun completes it's 360 degree journey in 24 hrs. Also will be able to check any predictions.

This is all in the North where the pole star is visible . Once that's done we can move south.

10
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: June 20, 2020, 06:13:03 PM »
Point C is the pole star. Where is N - S on your diagram

11
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: June 20, 2020, 10:27:35 AM »

"degrees of latitude along a meridian" has no meaning on FE. As mentioned earlier, where would you draw the angle between the two vectors?
[/quote]

A meridian is any straight line from N to S - not hard to understand .

Just to make my position clear .

I am not taking a FE or RE stance on latitude . A survey of length of successive degrees of latitude along a meridian , with respect to the pole star , will give a clear indication of the shape of the land . It's just geometry . If you don't know the distance to the pole then it can be calculated from those results .

This is the point , the results are determined by measurement not theory. Any coordinate system will give unique values to each point but if want them to conform to the real shape of earth then you have to deduce that shape .

No, I get that. I think I understand your position well enough. Without wishing to put words in your mouth, I'd say you were happy enough to accept my proposition 1) - that you can use latitude/longitude in either model to pinpoint an exact position and as for 2) potentially you can determine whether or not you can calculate accurate distance from latitude/longitude, well then, that can be checked/investigated by taking survey measurements along a meridian.

As I said, I was hoping to get a range of opinions from flat earthers on 1) & 2) separately, but not much engagement so far.

For proposition 1 i'd have to say no . What your saying ,it seems to me , is that you can use any coordinate system . Well you can , and it is true that each will give unique results . But there is only one coordinate system which can rightly be called a latitude/longitude coordinate system - the angle of latitude as measured from the pole star . All other coordinate systems are based on math models - not reality .

Pole star latitude/longitude system cannot fit both FE or RE model . It will fit only one .

You can distort the results of survey by applying a set of calculations which will enable you to map earth as any shape you wish but it won't be reality .

12
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: Latitude and longitude - please enlighten me
« on: June 19, 2020, 11:01:00 AM »
Just to make my position clear .

I am not taking a FE or RE stance on latitude . A survey of length of successive degrees of latitude along a meridian , with respect to the pole star , will give a clear indication of the shape of the land . It's just geometry . If you don't know the distance to the pole then it can be calculated from those results .

This is the point , the results are determined by measurement not theory. Any coordinate system will give unique values to each point but if want them to conform to the real shape of earth then you have to deduce that shape .

13
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 16, 2020, 02:25:36 PM »
Yes of course the light from stars gets 'jiggled around' as your link says. But that has nothing to do with the cyclical movement or aberration of starlight and that article doesn't suggest it does. The word aberration doesn't appear once in that article.

If you'd care to look up Stellar aberration yourself you will discover that there are many websites which describe it as the same thing. It is caused by the orbit of the Earth around the Sun.

It isn't unusual for FE to try and twist or misconstrue the information contained in science based websites to try and make it seem to fall more in line with what they want to believe.

Here is a description of what aberration of starlight is and how it is caused.

I know the theory. It's wrong . The aberration is caused by the suns yearly journey across the tropics and the magnetic fields.
That gives us the seasons and the aberration. More evidence of the plane .

In the mainstream explanations it's strange how earths orbit is depicted as a plane around the sun when it should be shown as a corkscrew as the solar system spirals through the cosmos . It's not cyclical in globe theory but is in FE .

14
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 16, 2020, 07:24:43 AM »
Quote
Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

How does the geocentric model explain things better in your opinion then?

I would be interested to know then for example how you would account for the widely observed and measured annual aberration of starlight if the Earth is not orbiting the Sun as you will obviously claim.  No doubt you will just say that has just been fabricated or made up somehow. The FE account for the nature of the stars (vague as it is) would make the RE account for what causes the aberration impossible. But then the amount of aberration of stars varies with their location on the sky. Exactly in line with predictions based on the heliocentric model.

Quote
you don't measure things with videos or photographs

For an explanation of aberration see the work of Cleo Loi -around 2014/15 . She did say at the time that astronomical observations need to be revisited in the light of this discovery .

Star light passing through plasma tubes in upper atmolayers is distorted . Light is affected by these plasma fields.
Star position changes due to this field.

I should imagine the journey of the sun around and across the plane has an effect too. Good place to start .

15
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 15, 2020, 06:49:45 PM »
You are getting to the point AATW . If you did an experiment that proved earth to be a globe in your opinion then that experiment should be repeatable and predictive and doable by anyone with the means to do so. Then anyone can see that you are correct . That's the scientific method and how science advances - through experiment . Why do you need a peer review ?

Well, you need to do two things. Firstly you need to verify the method used. If you're doing observations of the horizon, say, over water and you haven't taken refraction into account then you may have drawn the wrong conclusions. I might well repeat your experiment and get the same results as you but if the method itself is flawed then the conclusion drawn from the results is still invalid.
And secondly yes, repeating the experiment can be part of peer review.
When Andrew Wiles finally proved Fermat's Last Theorum his paper was reviewed and a problem was found with it. He later fixed it but the point is the maths world didn't just take his word for it, like in science they checked his workings.

Quote
The heliocentric model was not introduced with any new data or experiment

It was introduced as a better explanation for the retrograde motion of planets. You're right in that it wasn't new information but as telescopes got better and observations more accurate it became clearer that this explanation better matched observations than the geocentric model.

Quote
We have never measured any curve

Just demonstrably not true. Plenty of photos and video of the globe earth from multiple sources and even a horizon line on a beach a few miles out to see is evidence of curve - a sharp line always indicates that either that's the end of the object or the object is changing angle so you can't see any more of it. A sharp horizon line, the distance to that horizon line increasing with altitude and things sinking behind that horizon lines are all evidence of a curve.

Quote
or detected any rotation

You might want to tell that to the Coriolis and Eotvos effects, Foucault pendulums and ring laser gyroscopes.
The weight of objects varying at different latitudes is evidence of rotation as are the the way star trails go in different directions at different latitudes.

TL;DR, the reason FE is not coherent and contains a lot of contradictory ideas is that you don't open up your work for peer review.
At best you might discuss your work within the FE community, but that is not proper peer review as that is made up of people who are not scientists. Peer review and cross-checking each other's work is a vital step in making progress.

Your statement that the heliocentric model explains things better is just opinion .

Your statement "Just demonstrably not true" about the fact we have never measured the curve is very silly - you don't measure things with videos or photographs or saying "Oooh look - is that a curve on the horizon".

Coriolis effect is caused by the sun as it moves around the plain .

Eotvos effect and other stuff associated with gravity . See prof M Allais work ( started in 1954 ) on the  Foucault pendulum which proves that the gravitational/cosmological model is wrong , supported by other studies by professors Jevardin , Antonescu , Ratu . All reach the same conclusion . All these experimental results buried and ignored by the peer system in order to maintain the untenable heliocentric model .

Look up syzygy effects if interested.

You could also look up professor Fred Hoyle and his chums . See what they have to say about cosmology .

All distinguished scientists whose work is sidelined as science stagnates.

16
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 14, 2020, 04:37:26 PM »
You are getting to the point AATW . If you did an experiment that proved earth to be a globe in your opinion then that experiment should be repeatable and predictive and doable by anyone with the means to do so. Then anyone can see that you are correct . That's the scientific method and how science advances - through experiment . Why do you need a peer review ?

The OP contained a link to a thought experiment - a mathematical daydream . Why is that considered to be science ? Who can be the judge on theoretic bs? How can that OP theory paper be peer reviewed?

The heliocentric model was not introduced with any new data or experiment . We have never measured any curve or detected any rotation but science carries on as though these basic assumptions are truths. The only research carried out thus has to include these assumptions - it's why the current cosmological model doesn't conform to reality - it's all theory where anything can be imagined . It's not science .

17
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 13, 2020, 06:26:32 PM »
Peer review is not any part of the scientific method. Repeatable experiment and observation with predictable results are .

In the OP , if the two theoretical bozos, who somehow got their mathematical masturbations into a physics journal, wanted to show the earth wasn't infamously flat then all they had to do was go out and survey the curvature and publish their results. But fkn no ! "We'll sit on our arrises and fink about it". Modern science .

Start with the assumption earth is a globe - use circular arguments to prove something that cannot be possible since your applying globe theory to something that's not a globe.
An ancient Greek whos mythical experiment has two solutions , this reportedly from a book by the fictional author Cleomedes who we know feck all about . That's the old peer reviewed mainstream theoretical (imaginary) science for you .

It's dishonesty. And no one knows how the universe works.

18
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 13, 2020, 04:23:50 PM »
To pass a school exam you basically have to repeat what you are told by the teacher , that's all .
The point is that the pupil can excel the teachers .

Mainstream science is unable to advance since the peer review system stifles all knowledge gained by experiment that is contrary to the paradigm , and the paradigm then exists only in progressively senseless theory .

19
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 13, 2020, 01:09:45 PM »
Peer review , peer pressure , appeal to authority. Not the scientific way whichever way you put it.

The whole point of the peer review system is to protect the paradigm.

20
##### Flat Earth Theory / Re: RE's representation of FE: Dishonesty or Ignorance?
« on: June 12, 2020, 03:46:01 PM »
Peer review , also known as peer pressure , is a method of control of scientific endeavour.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16  Next >