-
The issue of long haul southern flights has been contentious in that the numbers don't seem to work well with the standard azimuthal projection.
I have an idea for settling this once and for all, resulting in some very solid evidence either way. 2 methods:
1: A well known and trusted member of TFES tries to take the nonstop flight between Santiago and Sydney and journals everything faithfully; times, regular photos out the windows on both sides. This is expensive but the Society could chip in?
2: Find two trusted flatearth supporters to help, one in Santiago or who can get there, one in Sydney. Get Sydney to find the flight (if it is found to not even exist as some argue then the argument is won straight away) watch it take off and note it's tail numbers. Get him/her to contact Santiago just before the flight plan says it's going to land; if it doesn't, RE is in trouble.
Cheap fun day project for all involved!
-
Here is an example of the flat earth thinking on this topic.
This video in particular by Nina aka "Zetetic Flat Earth" ( Restricted in some countries, If it doesn't come up on YT, it's also on Vimeo at https://vimeo.com/138874902 )
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k7_AxiYC8g
Start watching at 11:20 since it has specific flight time information is worth looking at further.
The video author has obviously never bought international tickets and doesn't understand the one free stop option. This is where you buy a ticket from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo, and you can nominate a single stop over, which you get to choose from whatever options are available, in this case one of the options is to fly BA and spend a few days in London.
Why not read the lines above where it clearly says SAA offers a direct flight. Or even notice the little inset map, which shows the flight route?
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/560x271q90/r/537/9xmsz4.png)
Instead of trying to find out why you would fly to London, the video author with pre-conceived notions in mind starts a train of thought that is just plain stupid, suggesting that this is the round earth way to fly from Johannesburg to Sao Paulo .. WTF?
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/330x294q90/r/901/FCU7Gk.png)
And then goes on to point out that the flat earth model using the Gleason map, makes more sense.. well no it doesn't just goes to show how stupid the author is.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/560x326q90/r/908/0iey6o.png)
Here is the real flight path on Google Earth.
(https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/428x294q90/r/537/cZRP6S.png)
And here are the real flight arrival and departure times.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img907/9118/a74ywU.png)
Sao Paulo is UTC-3:00 and Johannesburg is UTC+2:00 , so departs at 9:00PM UTC and arrives 5:25AM the following morning, that's 8 hours 25 minutes flying time.
If I'm being generous I'm guessing the author of the video has made an honest mistake, I can sympathize, but it is so easy to check these sort of facts before going to commit to a video, for that sake of the hundreds of gullible fools who will just accept it as being true and so the misinformation and the lies propagate.
-
Here is the real flight path on Google Earth.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/428x294q90/r/537/cZRP6S.png
Google Earth is hardly an authority on actual flight paths. Did the programmers of this application sit on these flights?
And here are the real flight arrival and departure times.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img907/9118/a74ywU.png)
Sao Paulo is UTC-3:00 and Johannesburg is UTC+2:00 , so departs at 9:00PM UTC and arrives 5:25AM the following morning, that's 8 hours 25 minutes flying time.
Actually, those are NOT real flight arrival and departure times. These are estimates for future flights, generated by a third party travel company.
Flights are very often delayed or rerouted. We were looking at some stats on the .org site and saw that over 1/4th of all worldwide flights are delayed.
-
Actually, those are NOT real flight arrival and departure times. These are estimates for future flights, generated by a third party travel company.
Actually, if you take the trouble to go to the FIDS systems and look at the actual departure and arrival times, they are mostly a reasonable match for the scheduled departure and arrivals.
As an example here is that SAA223 flight, landed over 2 hours ago. Departed GRU 18:54 scheduled 18:30 Arrived JNB 07:12 scheduled 07:10
(http://imageshack.com/a/img911/2658/kPYXkw.png)
-
Here is the real flight path on Google Earth.
https://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/428x294q90/r/537/cZRP6S.png
Google Earth is hardly an authority on actual flight paths. Did the programmers of this application sit on these flights?
We know that Google Earth, Google Maps, and its ilk, merely plots a path between the two points you tell it to.
And here are the real flight arrival and departure times.
(http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img907/9118/a74ywU.png)
Sao Paulo is UTC-3:00 and Johannesburg is UTC+2:00 , so departs at 9:00PM UTC and arrives 5:25AM the following morning, that's 8 hours 25 minutes flying time.
Actually, those are NOT "real" flight arrival and departure times. These are estimates for future flights, generated by a third party travel company based on the limited information they have.
Flights are very often delayed or rerouted. We were looking at some stats on the .org site and saw what over 1/4th of all worldwide flights are delayed.
How does that rule out the source he gave you? So, 3/4th of flights are not delayed, and among those, the flight mentioned can't be one of them?
-
How does that rule out the source he gave you? So, 3/4th of flights are not delayed, and among those, the flight mentioned can't be one of them?
The source was presented as "real flight arrival and departure times". This is untrue. It is a flight estimate by a third party company. This piece of evidence is totally invalid.
-
Actually, those are NOT real flight arrival and departure times. These are estimates for future flights, generated by a third party travel company.
Actually, if you take the trouble to go to the FIDS systems and look at the actual departure and arrival times, they are mostly a reasonable match for the scheduled departure and arrivals.
As an example here is that SAA223 flight, landed over 2 hours ago. Departed GRU 18:54 scheduled 18:30 Arrived JNB 07:12 scheduled 07:10
(http://imageshack.com/a/img911/2658/kPYXkw.png)
Good.
Now find a flight going the "long way" around the earth so we can tell how big the earth is and whether it matches up to your ball model.
-
Actually, those are NOT real flight arrival and departure times. These are estimates for future flights, generated by a third party travel company.
Actually, if you take the trouble to go to the FIDS systems and look at the actual departure and arrival times, they are mostly a reasonable match for the scheduled departure and arrivals.
As an example here is that SAA223 flight, landed over 2 hours ago. Departed GRU 18:54 scheduled 18:30 Arrived JNB 07:12 scheduled 07:10
(http://imageshack.com/a/img911/2658/kPYXkw.png)
Good.
Now find a flight going the "long way" around the earth so we can tell how big the earth is and whether it matches up to your ball model.
Dear Tom,
Not yet. Let's first summarize. We agree that the flight time is roughly 8:30h. Let's also agree on the average speed of the plane. What's your estimate of the planes cruise speed?
-
Now find a flight going the "long way" around the earth so we can tell how big the earth is and whether it matches up to your ball model.
Yep, it does.
The Google Earth great circle distances are a reasonable match for all the flight paths I checked, flight times might vary more because of jet streams, but nothing substantial.
Why not just admit that the popular flat earth map, that people like "Zetetic Flat Earth" are using is wrong?
We all know a real flat earth map doesn't exist. After 200 years, you'd think someone might have advanced the cause.
PS. Nina's crazy thought processes are yet another example of the "Zetetic Method"
-
Now find a flight going the "long way" around the earth so we can tell how big the earth is and whether it matches up to your ball model.
Yep, it does.
Oh that settles it. "Go find a flight going the long way and see if it matches your model!" You: "It does!"
Nice. How can we possibly refute such strong evidence? ::)
-
Now find a flight going the "long way" around the earth so we can tell how big the earth is and whether it matches up to your ball model.
Yep, it does.
Oh that settles it. "Go find a flight going the long way and see if it matches your model!" You: "It does!"
Nice. How can we possibly refute such strong evidence? ::)
You could refute it by showing me a flat earth map that works for the southern hemisphere.
-
You could refute it by showing me a flat earth map that works for the southern hemisphere.
Actually, on further thought, I'll amend that statement.
Since the globe map distances work correctly, and further since it's impossible to map a globe directly to a flat surface without distortion, then it follows that it is logically impossible to produce a flat earth map that measures distances correctly. So a flat earth map is impossible.
Ergo the earth is not flat.
On the other hand, if the earth really was flat, then producing a two dimensional map of the whole earth with correct distances would be trivial, at least compared to a globe.
-
You could refute it by showing me a flat earth map that works for the southern hemisphere.
On the other hand, if the earth really was flat, then producing a two dimensional map of the whole earth with correct distances would be trivial, at least compared to a globe.
Actually wouldn't it be easier to get proper distances and better measurements if the earth was indeed flat? Unless I misunderstand what you meant.
It appears that most of the flat maps that we have are projections from a globe map. At least in the past.
I like these types of open discussions. It makes my blood pump in the mornings. Haha
-
You could refute it by showing me a flat earth map that works for the southern hemisphere.
On the other hand, if the earth really was flat, then producing a two dimensional map of the whole earth with correct distances would be trivial, at least compared to a globe.
Actually wouldn't it be easier to get proper distances and better measurements if the earth was indeed flat? Unless I misunderstand what you meant.
It appears that most of the flat maps that we have are projections from a globe map. At least in the past.
I like these types of open discussions. It makes my blood pump in the mornings. Haha
https://youtu.be/r3G_04zol1U
This guy started a series where he tried to make an accurate flat Earth map. I must applaud him for really trying to make sense of it and actually figure it out for himself. Watch all 5 videos.
-
https://youtu.be/r3G_04zol1U
This guy started a series where he tried to make an accurate flat Earth map. I must applaud him for really trying to make sense of it and actually figure it out for himself. Watch all 5 videos.
[/quote]
I highly doubt he will be able to make this map as he is describing. In his own admission it is impossible to make some of the trips in the time/distances he has already described in some of the existing flat earth models.
It is already past New Years and still no update. I guess he has realized by now that it is impossible to make the distances between flight routes work on a flat earth model.
Maybe he "debunked" his own idealisms lol.
-
This is all very natural and is part of the Flat Earth proponent's evolution to the more advanced bi-polar models of the earth.
The reason for the misconception with the classic mono-pole model is because FET's foundational work, Earth Not a Globe, was written at a time before the south pole was discovered. This is described in The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918) (http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf) at around page 30.
-
This is all very natural and is part of the Flat Earth proponent's evolution to the more advanced bi-polar models of the earth.
The reason for the misconception with the classic mono-pole model is because FET's foundational work, Earth Not a Globe, was written at a time before the south pole was discovered. This is described in The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918) (http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf) at around page 30.
Question: Do you actually believe any of this yourself? Honestly?
How can you ever prove that you're not just trolling?
-
This is all very natural and is part of the Flat Earth proponent's evolution to the more advanced bi-polar models of the earth.
The reason for the misconception with the classic mono-pole model is because FET's foundational work, Earth Not a Globe, was written at a time before the south pole was discovered. This is described in The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918) (http://library.tfes.org/library/Sea-Earth%20Globe.pdf) at around page 30.
What is natural? that distances do not make any sense on a flat earth map? What does the south pole not being discovered have anything to do with the map that he is trying to create?
Why do you come here?
-
I linked a source. You should read it before engaging me on the subject.
-
Sorry I just dont understand your point.
-
Sorry I just dont understand your point.
If you made an effort to understand, perhaps you would.
-
I did read it. I don't believe you actually understand it. It doesn't explain the earlier video
The author makes a lot of mistakes and assumptions in this book.
Everything published is not fact. Thats why there is a section called Fiction in the book stores and library.
The point I was trying to make, is that an Accurate map of the FLAT earth is just simply not possible.
Using the flight times of airline flights and distances posted you will not be able to lay out the pieces on the map properly and accurately.
A flight from lets say the southern part of South America to Australia would take roughly four times the distance and time to travel than it actually currently does on a round earth. So it will be hard to scale things on the flat earth map, if you are placing based on time it takes to fly from city to city, you will find that a globe makes more sense than a flat earth map.
-
Also, just like I said, the author of the video in which he was creating a Precise scale flat earth map, has officially scrapped his map, and attempted to start over.
https://youtu.be/0TkNSUwSXxY
HAHA!!
I doubt he will be successful by starting with the south pole up either...
-
Also, just like I said, the author of the video in which he was creating a Precise scale flat earth map, has officially scrapped his map, and attempted to start over.
HAHA!!
I doubt he will be successful by starting with the south pole up either...
He's done more since. First flathead ever to openly admit he was wrong? More guts than the rest of them put together! He's still got some nutty ideas but have to respect him for this recent foray into reason.
-
I respect his attempts. I never discount that. However I can gaurantee that he will not succeed.
He realized this halfway through making the current Map that it wouldnt work, and that he had to work it a different way.
Because the issues that FE'ers have with the flat earth model is not about the Northern Hemisphere, it is about the Southern Hemisphere..
-
I did read it. I don't believe you actually understand it. It doesn't explain the earlier video
The author makes a lot of mistakes and assumptions in this book.
Everything published is not fact. Thats why there is a section called Fiction in the book stores and library.
The point I was trying to make, is that an Accurate map of the FLAT earth is just simply not possible.
Using the flight times of airline flights and distances posted you will not be able to lay out the pieces on the map properly and accurately.
A flight from lets say the southern part of South America to Australia would take roughly four times the distance and time to travel than it actually currently does on a round earth. So it will be hard to scale things on the flat earth map, if you are placing based on time it takes to fly from city to city, you will find that a globe makes more sense than a flat earth map.
The author of the video isn't using the Flat Earth model in the book I linked.
-
the flat earth model in the book you linked does not work either. ::)
-
Sorry I just dont understand your point.
If you made an effort to understand, perhaps you would.
I will take the time look in a bit more detail later, but on a cursory glance this but struck me as a bit weird!
On page 32 of "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918)" I came on this bit:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sea-Earth%20Globe%20-%20extract%20p32_zpslxbrfe6x.png)
In this it is stated that the parallax of Alpha Centauri 0.75" of arc. Then it says that the Lick telescope with a resolving power of 0.5" should be able to resolve a disk. This is basically rubbish as the parallax of a star is the apparent change in position of the star when the earth moves through the mean distance from the earth to the sun - Actually the (total position change over 6 months)/2.
Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all, and in fact what we call Alpha Centauri is in reality three stars, the largest being Alpha Centauri A with an estimated diameter of 1.2 times our sun. This makes the anglular size of the disk about 0.009" of arc, way below the resolving power of the Lick telescope.
I am afraid I can find such a glaring error on a quick reading means I am not going to waste time over it!
Surely if you can't get something a bit more accurate an up to date you will make the Society into a laughing stock.
-
Sorry I just dont understand your point.
If you made an effort to understand, perhaps you would.
I will take the time look in a bit more detail later, but on a cursory glance this but struck me as a bit weird!
On page 32 of "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918)" I came on this bit:
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Sea-Earth%20Globe%20-%20extract%20p32_zpslxbrfe6x.png)
In this it is stated that the parallax of Alpha Centauri 0.75" of arc. Then it says that the Lick telescope with a resolving power of 0.5" should be able to resolve a disk. This is basically rubbish as the parallax of a star is the apparent change in position of the star when the earth moves through the mean distance from the earth to the sun - Actually the (total position change over 6 months)/2.
Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all, and in fact what we call Alpha Centauri is in reality three stars, the largest being Alpha Centauri A with an estimated diameter of 1.2 times our sun. This makes the anglular size of the disk about 0.009" of arc, way below the resolving power of the Lick telescope.
I am afraid I can find such a glaring error on a quick reading means I am not going to waste time over it!
Surely if you can't get something a bit more accurate an up to date you will make the Society into a laughing stock.
Take it up with your Round Earth scientist Alfred Russel Wallace:
https://books.google.com/books?id=P6QRAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA98&ots=p_tSnbMt2X&dq=wallace%20%22The%20fact%20that%20there%20are%20no%20stars%20with%20visible%20discs%22&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=wallace%20%22The%20fact%20that%20there%20are%20no%20stars%20with%20visible%20discs%22&f=false
-
We are taking it up with you. Since you are a "Zetetic Council Member" as it may seem.
Why are you refusing to answer direct questions?
-
Why would I be involved? AR Wallace is the source for that figure in the book.
-
But you are the one quoting his information. You are posting it either erroneously or as evidence to support your point.
Why is it that you feel his information is worth mentioning?
-
But you are the one quoting his information. You are posting it either erroneously or as evidence to support your point.
Why is it that you feel his information is worth mentioning?
I did not quote his information to make a point.
I was asked to defend the points made by a Round Earth scientist. I questioned why.
-
Sorry I just dont understand your point.
If you made an effort to understand, perhaps you would.
I will take the time look in a bit more detail later, but on a cursory glance this but struck me as a bit weird!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In this it is stated that the parallax of Alpha Centauri 0.75" of arc. Then it says that the Lick telescope with a resolving power of 0.5" should be able to resolve a disk. This is basically rubbish as the parallax of a star is the apparent change in position of the star when the earth moves through the mean distance from the earth to the sun - Actually the (total position change over 6 months)/2.
Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all, and in fact what we call Alpha Centauri is in reality three stars, the largest being Alpha Centauri A with an estimated diameter of 1.2 times our sun. This makes the anglular size of the disk about 0.009" of arc, way below the resolving power of the Lick telescope.
I am afraid I can find such a glaring error on a quick reading means I am not going to waste time over it!
Surely if you can't get something a bit more accurate an up to date you will make the Society into a laughing stock.
Take it up with your Round Earth scientist Alfred Russel Wallace:
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Absolutely NOTHING to take up! On this point I have no argument with Wallace!
Your "authority" is simply factually WRONG.
Please address to issue! Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all.
Your reference (over a century old!) "The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions (Zetetes, 1918)" claims that the size of Alpha Centauri can be determined from its parallax 0.75" of arc.
Here is a repeat of the extract:
. . . . . . the astronomers to immeasurable distances away from us, for the credit and convenience of their theories - yet not so far but that they profess to be able to find a parallax for many of them. The star Alpha Centauri is said to be one of the nearest to us, and it has been given a parallax of 0" 75. But if it were a sun of such a size, even though it were many times farther off than it is said to be, it would shew in the Lick telescope a distinct disc of at least half a second; so that the contention of Sir A. R. Wallace is here justified :- "The fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size." - Fortnightly Review.
Yes, the astronomers "profess to be able to find a parallax for many of them", but then he goes on to say "But if it were a sun of such a size". Nothing could be further from the truth. The parallax of a star has nothing whatever to do with the size of the star.
As a matter of fact what we call Alpha Centauri is made up up three stars of very different sizes!
The largest is Alpha Centauri A with an estimated diameter of 1.2 times our sun.
This makes the anglular size of the disk about 0.009" of arc, way below the resolving power of the Lick telescope.
I stress again the parallax of a star is purely measure of its distance and stars with a measurable parallax are the only ones whose distances can be "measured", though with an accuracy rapidly falling off with distance. With space based telescopes the parallax of many further objects is being determined.
I have absolutely argument with the statement of Sir A. R. Wallace is here justified :- "The fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size."
Just accept that on this point your reference is wrong, and is simply ignorant on some simple astronomical facts.
-
Please address to issue! Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all.
Actually, it does. A closer body would parallax more than a distant body. If our sun is an "average star" as claimed by astronomers, it can be calculated about how big an average star that exhibits parallax should be.
I have absolutely argument with the statement of Sir A. R. Wallace is here justified :- "The fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size."
The author of The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions is basing the text on the writings of AR Wallace. We can see in the link I provided (https://books.google.com/books?id=P6QRAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA98&ots=p_tSnbMt2X&dq=wallace%20%22The%20fact%20that%20there%20are%20no%20stars%20with%20visible%20discs%22&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=wallace%20%22The%20fact%20that%20there%20are%20no%20stars%20with%20visible%20discs%22&f=false) AR Wallace indeed argues that the stars should be around half a second.
I am afraid you will have to take your demands for answers to AR Wallace supporters, or perhaps some Round Earth forum. I have no idea why the stars don't fit your Round Earth model.
-
Please address to issue! Parallax has NOTHING to do with the size of the star at all.
Actually, it does. A closer body would parallax more than a distant body. If our sun is an "average star" as claimed by astronomers, it can be calculated about how big an average star that exhibits parallax should be.
I repeat Parallax is purely a measure of the distance to a star. A star at that distance can be of any size.
For example look at the stars of the Alpha Centauri cluster:
(http://en.es-static.us/upl/2009/06/Alpha_Centauri_relative_sizes.png)
A comparison of the sizes and colors of the stars in the Alpha Centauri system
with our sun. Via Wikimedia Commons.
Alpha Centauri A (distance 4.37 ly) and Alpha Centauri B (distance 4.37 ly) form a binary pair. Proxima Centauri, the tiny one is the closest (known) star to earth at a distance of about 4.24 ly and it doubtful whether it is even part of the same system.
So, while these three stars have a similar parallax, they are very different in size.
It is obvious that if all these stars were closer to us they would have a larger parallax and would appear larger.
But, my beef with "Sea-Earth Globe, etc" is that in that it assumes that one can calculate the apparent size from the parallax.
"The star Alpha Centauri is said to be one of the nearest to us, and it has been given a parallax of 0" 75. But if it were a sun of such a size".
That is quite incorrect as the apparent size simply cannot be inferred from the parallax - however you try to bend my words!
I have absolutely argument with the statement of Sir A. R. Wallace is here justified :- "The fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size."
The author of The Sea-Earth Globe and its Monstrous Hypothetical Motions is basing the text on the writings of AR Wallace. We can see in the link I provided (https://books.google.com/books?id=P6QRAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA98&ots=p_tSnbMt2X&dq=wallace%20%22The%20fact%20that%20there%20are%20no%20stars%20with%20visible%20discs%22&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q=wallace%20%22The%20fact%20that%20there%20are%20no%20stars%20with%20visible%20discs%22&f=false) AR Wallace indeed argues that the stars should be around half a second.
I am afraid you will have to take your demands for answers to AR Wallace supporters, or perhaps some Round Earth forum. I have no idea why the stars don't fit your Round Earth model.
My "Round Earth model"? - you are the one with a Round Earth, mine is a Globe Earth!
I don't really see how Wallace's statement is in any way in conflict with the globe earth. He is doscussing the Nebula Hypothesis and my be relevant to a cosmologist, but of no relevance to flat or globe earth!
See it a bit more of that quote.
The late Mr. Ranyard remarks that if the Nebular Hypothesis is true, and our sun once extended as far as the orbit of Neptune, then, among the millions of visible suns there ought to be some now to be found in every stage of development. But any sun having a diameter at all approaching this size, and situated as far off as a hundred times the distance of Alpha Centauri, would be seen by the Lick telescope to have a disc half a second in diameter. Hence the fact that there are no stars with visible discs proves that there are no suns of the required size, and adds another argument, though not perhaps a strong one, against the acceptance of the Nebular Hypothesis.
"AR Wallace indeed argues that the stars should be around half a second", yes stars as big as the diameter of Neptunes Orbit!
OK, so what relevance does this have back on earth?
-
I repeat Parallax is purely a measure of the distance to a star. A star at that distance can be of any size.
Please follow along:
1. It is thought that our sun is an average star
2. Closer bodies parallax more than distant bodies
3. If the sun were to parallax as much as stars like Alpha Centauri, it has been computed that it should have a diameter of 0.5 degrees
4. Since the Alpha Centauri stars are much smaller than 0.5 degrees, yet still exhibits the parallax it does, the Round Earth model comes into question.
5. The fact that there are no stars, who parallax to the degree that they do, which have a diameter of 0.5 degrees, it can be concluded that either the Sun is unique in that all other stars are tiny in comparison or that the underlying model is incorrect.
Again, please take this to a Round Earth forum if you are seeking answers. We would not be able to tell you why the observations don't match your model.
-
I repeat Parallax is purely a measure of the distance to a star. A star at that distance can be of any size.
Please follow along:
1. It is thought that our sun is an average star
OK, I'll follow on! Yes, the sun is a reasonably average star.
2. Closer bodies parallax more than distant bodies
Here we deviate a bit. Saying stars "parallax" seems an odd way to put it. Parallax is defined as the
the angle subtended at a star by the mean radius of the Earth's orbit around the Sun.
it is often quoted in mas, which stands for milli-arcseconds.
So, parallax is simply a measurement made on a star.
3. If the sun were to parallax as much as stars like Alpha Centauri, it has been computed that it should have a diameter of 0.5 degrees
So, saying "If the sun were to parallax" is quite meaningless! The sun simply cannot parallax. Surely from the definition you can see that.
4. Since the Alpha Centauri stars are much smaller than 0.5 degrees, yet still exhibits the parallax it does, the Round Earth model comes into question.
Well no, that is not what was said. Read a bit earlier from Wallace, and I believe you will see he says that if the sun extended out to the orbit of Neptune it would show a disc of about 0.5° at the distance of α Centauri etc (I am not quoting exactly as I am doing it from memory)
Then you say "the Round Earth model comes into question". No, not at all! What is called into question was not the Globe Earth, but Wallace's "Nebula Theory".
You must realise that Cosmology was very much in its infancy when this was written!
But, in any case the Globe Theory does not depend on Cosmology in any way. I am certainly no cosmologist. I read a bit on some of it with interest, but I don't really have any "belief" in particular theories.
5. The fact that there are no stars, who parallax to the degree that they do, which have a diameter of 0.5 degrees, it can be concluded that either the Sun is unique in that all other stars are tiny in comparison or that the underlying model is incorrect.
Nothing of the sort! When Wallace says "there are no stars", he is saying that there are no stars with diameters out to Neptune's orbit! I did mean to check on some of Wallace's figures there, but haven't had the time yet. I'm afraid I don't keep things like the diameter of Neptune's orbit in my head.
Again "the underlying model" is Wallace's nebula theory, and might be of interest to a cosmologist, but is of no relevance to the Globe model.
Again, please take this to a Round Earth forum if you are seeking answers. We would not be able to tell you why the observations don't match your model.
I am not looking for answers that I have not found and please tell me
why observations Wallace may or may not have made about his "nebula theory" might affect the validity of the Globe Earth.