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 - Tom Bishop

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 309  Next >
Well, it said hundreds of thousands:

There are 1,058,332 objects in the Tycho Main Catalogue, and these have a median astrometric precision of 7 mas for visual magnitude 9 and below, increasing through 25 mas for visual magnitude 10-11.

Using the ESA's parameter entry table [5], we selected field three (parallax) and specified a range of -919 (min) to -20 (max) mas, over the entire dataset. This produced 262,100 records of negative parallax objects, or 25% of the total.

Next we selected the positive parallax objects via a minimum value of 20 mas and a maximum of 701.5 mas. This resulted in 310,758 records, or 29% of the total.

The remaining 46% of the Tycho Main Catalogue entries can be assumed to possess zero parallax, within the precision of (0 ± 20) mas.

The history of this is interesting...

The above astronomer says that astronomers tend to jump to subjective instrumental errors at the drop of hat. He points out and declares that y Draconis has a large negative parallax and aberration that is impossible to accept, and that this was found and verified by others, by "however and whomever treated the outcome".


Negative parallax can be more of a statistical result rather than an actual measurement. And therefore not evidence against heliocentricism.

According to the author that I quoted the star catalog shows that there were about as many stars in negative parallax as there are positive parallax. Positive = 29% of the total. Negative = 25% of total. Remainder had zero parallax. If true, then there are thousands of stars exhibiting negative parallax. The ones which support your model are correct, and the ones which contradict your model are wrong and errors? Very interesting.

Regarding the 'problem' with the heliocentric model, doesn't the existence of stellar parallax kind of demonstrate that the Earth is orbiting the Sun?  After all if it wasn't then the stars would show no parallax would they.

Some stars exhibit zero parallax, while other stars exhibit positive or negative parallax of about equal distribution. Stars which exhibit ''negative parallax'' travel in a direction contradictory to heliocentrism, and are usually dismissed as "errors".

A careful examination of photographic plates that have been exposed to the same region of sky, but at times that are a few months apart, will reveal the fact that some stars have shifted their position with respect to the 'background' stars. Such stars are assumed to be closer to us than the (effectively) infinitely far away 'background' stars, and the effect is naturally given the name of stellar parallax.


'''Negative Parallax'''

There are 1,058,332 objects in the Tycho Main Catalogue, and these have a median astrometric precision of 7 mas for visual magnitude 9 and below, increasing through 25 mas for visual magnitude 10-11.

Using the ESA's parameter entry table [5], we selected field three (parallax) and specified a range of -919 (min) to -20 (max) mas, over the entire dataset. This produced 262,100 records of negative parallax objects, or 25% of the total.

Next we selected the positive parallax objects via a minimum value of 20 mas and a maximum of 701.5 mas. This resulted in 310,758 records, or 29% of the total.

The remaining 46% of the Tycho Main Catalogue entries can be assumed to possess zero parallax, within the precision of (0 ± 20) mas.

Section 2.2 Contents of the Tycho Catalogue [6] makes the following statement regarding Field T11, "The trigonometric parallax, π, is expressed in units of milliarcsec. The estimated parallax is given for every star, even if it appears to be insignificant or negative (which may arise when the true parallax is smaller than its error)."

A further test was conducted, to see if the stars moving across the astrometric instrument slit were directionally different in the northern celestial hemisphere to what they were in the southern celestial hemisphere. In this case, as well as the parallax field, the declination field was also selected. Of the non-zero-parallax stars in the northern celestial hemisphere (0°N ≤ δ ≤ 90°N), 45% of them had a negative parallax, and in the southern celestial hemisphere (0°S ≤ δ ≤ 90°S), 46% of non-zero objects had a negative parallax. So here again is a very symmetrical distribution that would be typical of a naturally occurring phenomenon.


In Fig. 3, 46% of all stars are located between the limits indicated by the two dotted lines on either side of the mean (the centre point of the stellatum thickness), and from Fig. 2 we see that this would imply 27% of stellatum stars would be closer to us (and thus display positive parallax) and 27% would be further away than the majority (and thus display negative parallax). I.e., 46% are middle stars (as termed in Fig. 2), 27% are inner stars (c.f. 29% from the Tycho Main Catalogue), and 27% are outer stars (c.f. 25% from the Tycho Main Catalogue).


It is an indisputable fact that stellar parallax, like the phases of Venus, has been widely cited as 'proof' that the World orbits the Sun. This is unfortunate, since the phenomenon proves no such thing. The only thing it does prove is that either the World is moving with respect to the stars, or that the stars are moving with respect to the World.

At this the geocentrists usually rest their case, claiming that the adoption of a heliocentric philosophy is just as much a matter of faith as the adoption of a geocentric philosophy. However, this invocation of faith is unnecessary and unjustified, for if it were such a simple choice between the World going around the Sun, or some stars moving slightly in order to conveniently give the appearance of the World going around the Sun, then the heliocentrists would have a point of strong probability (as opposed to a point of proof) in their favour, and geocentrism would indeed become more faith than science. Contrariwise it is worthwhile noting that credibility as regards the sizes of the Sun and Moon discs producing the observed solar eclipse effect that we marvel at sits more comfortably with the intelligent design position that geocentrism tends to imply, rather than with the heliocentrists and their claim of coincidence.

The phenomenon of stellar parallax is not what we have been generally led to believe, because in exactly the same way that Eddington 'proved' Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in 1919 by rejecting, omitting or deleting 60% of his measurement data on the bending of starlight, so modern astrophysics maintains the misconception that parallax 'proves' the Kopernikan philosophy of the World hurtling around the Sun, by ignoring and dismissing the entire dataset of negative parallax measurements.

The ESA, unlike Eddington before them, have kept and filed data values which do not fit in with the ruling model of the universe, and should be commended for so doing, but nevertheless they do seem to dismiss a significant proportion of their measurements rather glibly. Of course, they do say that these may arise due to measurement error, but the number and symmetrical distribution of these values would tend to deny this as being anything other than an exception to the rule.

Furthermore, although angular parallax measurements are small (the largest positive value gives an angle ACB, in Fig. 1, on the order of only 0.7 of an arcsecond), the effect is known to be genuine by way of photographic plates taken at various times over a period of twelve months which clearly show the same slight movement of some stars with respect to the background star field. In other words, stellar parallax is an observable phenomenon that is repeatable, rather than being experimental or statistical errors in measurement.

When the full picture is revealed and considered, therefore, it is clearly geocentrism that has the potential to fully and adequately account for the hundreds of thousands of negative parallax observations that have now been recorded, although it is acknowledged that a detailed explanation is not currently available.

Author information:


Experimental Astronomy
Astrophysical Instrumentation and Methods


Many new instruments for observing astronomical objects at a variety of wavelengths have been and are continually being developed. Consequently, a vast amount of effort is being put into new data analysis techniques to cope with rivers of data collected by these instruments.

Experimental Astronomy is a medium for the publication of papers of contemporary scientific interest on astrophysical instrumentation and methods necessary for the conduct of astronomy at all wavelength fields.

Experimental Astronomy publishes full-length articles, research letters and reviews on developments in detection techniques, instruments, and data analysis and image processing techniques. Occasional special issues are published, giving an in-depth presentation of the instrumentation and/or analysis connected with specific projects, such as satellite experiments or ground-based telescopes, or of specialized techniques.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Flat Earth proof?
« on: August 17, 2019, 10:42:31 PM »
I haven't found anything that would count in my opinion as compelling evidence that the Earth is indeed flat.

Did you internally scream "illusion!!!" "misinterpretation!!!" to everything that you saw? That's one way to do it.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!
« on: August 13, 2019, 06:49:50 AM »
You are referring to this page:

Astronomy is literally a pseudoscience, as it relies on observation and interpretation. says:

Pseudoscience mimics aspects of science while fundamentally denying the scientific method. A useful definition of the scientific method is:

    principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

A key phrase is "testing of hypotheses". We test hypotheses because they can be wrong.

Chemical Times & Trends, Volume 23 says:

"A theory does not become a fact without experimentation and repetition to rule out all other explanations."

Roger Bacon, father of the scientific method said:

"Without experiment, nothing can be adequately known. An argument proves theoretically, but does not give the certitude necessary to remove all doubt; nor will the mind repose in the clear view of truth, unless it f‌inds it by way of experiment."

“The strongest arguments prove nothing, so long as the conclusions are not verified by experience.”

In regards to blueshift and redshift, those theories don't work out in the universe as they do on Earth. The theories need to be modified. Most galaxies we see are redshifted to a degree that doesn't really make sense, and the implication is that we are the center of the universe. The cosmological redshift is known as Hubble’s law, and postulated that the known universe is expanding. Hypothetical mechanisms were put in place to change the observation and its implications based on the experimental science of the redshift and blueshift of light into an undiscovered metric expansion of space and time.

See this quote from Edwin Hubble:
    “ Such a condition (the red shifts) would imply that we occupy a unique position in the universe, analogous, in a sense, to the ancient conception of a central earth. The hypothesis cannot be disproved but it is unwelcome and would be accepted only as a last resort in order to save the phenomena. Therefore, we disregard this possibility and consider the alternative, namely, a distribution which thins out with distance.

    A thinning out would be readily explained in either of two ways. The first is space absorption. If the nebulae were seen through a tenuous haze, they would fade away faster than could be accounted for by distance and red-shifts alone, and the distribution, even if it were uniform, would appear to thin out. The second explanation is a super-system of nebulae, isolated in a larger world, with our own nebula somewhere near the centre. In this case the real distribution would thin out after all the proper corrections had been applied.

    Both explanations seem plausible, but neither is permitted by the observations.

    The apparent departures from uniformity in the World Picture are fully compensated by the minimum possible corrections for redshifts on any interpretation. No margin is left for a thinning out. The true distribution must either be uniform or increase outward, leaving the observer in a unique position.

    But the unwelcome supposition of a favoured location must be avoided at all costs… Such a favoured position, of course, is intolerable… Therefore, in order to restore homogeneity, and to escape the horror of a unique position, the departures from uniformity, which are introduced by the recession factors, must be compensated by the second term representing effects of spatial curvature. There seems to be no other escape. ”
                      — E. Hubble The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p.58

Stephen Hawking said:
    “ "...all this evidence that the universe looks the same whichever direction we look in might seem to suggest there is something special about our place in the universe. In particular, it might seem that if we observe all other galaxies to be moving away from us, then we must be at the center of the universe."

    "There is, however, an alternate explanation: the universe might look the same in every direction as seen from any other galaxy, too. This, as we have seen, was Friedmann’s second assumption. We have no scientific evidence for, or against, this assumption. We believe it only on grounds of modesty: it would be most remarkable if the universe looked the same in every direction around us, but not around other points in the universe." ”
                      —Steven Hawking, A Brief History of Time, p. 42 (Bantam, 1988).

From Paul Davies in Nature:
    “ If the Earth were at the center of the universe, the attraction of the surrounding mass of stars would also produce redshifts wherever we looked! This theory seems quite consistent with our astronomical observations ”

Does believing in a theory "on grounds of modesty" sound scientific to you?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 10, 2019, 04:46:51 PM »
Sort of like of Ptolmy used numerical computations and epicycles to predict the location of the planets?

Flat Earth Community / Re: "Round earth" conspiracy
« on: August 09, 2019, 08:05:23 PM »

"The ends of each arm are actually situated several feet higher off the
ground than their starting point at the center station. That’s to compensate
for the Earth’s curvature."

It says that the ends of each arms are situated several feet off the ground than the center station to "account for the curvature if the earth."

Would it work if the earth was flat? Yes, it is possible to point a laser slightly downwards or upwards on a Flat Earth.

LIGO diagram:

I don't see anything criminal about a laser beam moving slightly upwards or downwards. They had to take steps to aim and align the components at some point. The set up does not appear to be a physical obstacle on a FE.

Laser beams also tend to diverge in size a bit, which may be attemptedly minimized, but still present.

Brief mentions of 'accounting for curvature' is generally insufficient evidence, as it could be either irrelevant for the conversation, mistaken information, or later adjusted.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 07, 2019, 05:19:16 PM »
Interesting, so we should assume then that you have given up on your youtube experiment and are instead hinging on statements like "the earth will provide the spin"? Sounds pretty convincing to me.

Dr. Phillip Ball says that Shapiro's claim was controversial:

In 1962 the American engineer Ascher Shapiro at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claimed that he had consistently produced counter-clockwise vortices in his lab by first allowing the water to settle for 24 hours, dissipating any residual rotational motion, before pulling the plug. The claim sparked controversy: later researchers said that the experiment was extremely sensitive to the precise conditions in which it was conducted. The dispute has never quite been resolved.

Dr. Parasnis of the University of Lulea wrote to New Scientist to inform them of the following:

Letters: In a spin

It is indeed surprising that the myth of a discernible Coriolis force
effect on the water in a bath tub persists. Apart from the weakness of the
force pointed out in the editorial, the myth was experimentally examined
in 1965 by L. M. Trefethen et al in an extremely careful experiment and
found to have no basis (‘The bath-tub vortex in the southern hemisphere’,
Nature, vol 207, p 1085.

D. S. Parasnis University of Lulea, Sweden

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 07, 2019, 12:48:56 AM »
It's not my scrutiny. I don't run the American Scientist website. You should take it up with the scientist if your feelings have been hurt.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Questions after watching documentaries
« on: August 06, 2019, 06:47:22 PM »
Posted this before but these guys did a pretty good experiment which shows the effect.

American Scientist doesn't think that this experiment shows anything.

All things being equal, if you make sure that the water is motionless and no other forces are introduced during the process, Coriolis would be the big winner in the battle royal of forces acting on the liquid draining from that kiddie pool. And for Muller and Sandlin, it worked! They tried their experiment three times in each hemisphere. In each case the water rotated clockwise in the southern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere. Proof! Right?

Well, not so fast. The YouTube experiments were actually based on previous ones done in a laboratory setting. In those highly controlled settings, scientists at MIT in the 1960s were able to show that Coriolis could work on a draining tub. In fact, I have been told that graduate students at MIT still do this experiment today in one of their classes. The major difference between the past examples and the current YouTube version is that one was done in a lab with a fine control over outside forces and the other uses a kiddie pool set up on a plywood platform in a garage or sheltered patio. In the video experiments any number of things may have introduced an outside force that could swamp the comparatively tiny influence from the Earth’s rotation. Temperature differences in the water could create currents; tiny bumps in the texture of the kiddie pool or plywood could guide the flow; the way the valve released the water could steer the movement; and, especially for the outdoor experiment, a slight breeze could push the water along. A systematic error could have led to the same consistent results seen in the videos.

This is not to say these YouTube experiments did not work. It’s just that a lot of other things could have affected the results besides the Earth’s rotation. Of course, regular folks do not have access to the type of laboratories and equipment needed to control for all other factors and allow the Earth’s rotation to determine the outcome. And part of the purpose of these videos is to show viewers an experiment they can recreate on their own.

Maintaining that degree of accessibility while satisfying skeptics like me would involve putting together a larger sample size of experiments similar to the ones made by Muller and Sandlin, done in different locations across both hemispheres. Then we could get a better idea of whether the setup shown in “The Truth about Toilet Swirl” did in fact allow the Coriolis effect to shine. Until then, I’ll remain unconvinced that what we saw truly resulted from the Coriolis effect.

Ultimately, of course, this is nitpicking. The videos were educational, and the explanation of what the Coriolis effect means for air or water moving on Earth was on the money, regardless of whether I completely accept the experiment’s setup.

Therefore, I guess the only thing left to do is to assemble an army of kiddie-pool Coriolis experimenters to figure this out once and for all. If you bring the pool, I’ll supply the water (void in California). The Earth will provide the spin.

The laboratory tests of the Coriolis Effect have been long controversial:

In the 1960s a researcher named Ascher Shapiro claimed that water vortex direction was due to the "Coriolis Effect". The experiments started with bathtubs and then escalated to six foot wide tanks of water: (Archive)

  “ Shapiro’s Bathtub Experiment
by Conor Myhrvold
posted November 1, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Over forty years ago, in the 1960s, the world briefly became captivated with how a bathtub drains. Did something called the Coriolis effect influence the twirling water?

The Earth’s rotation influences how fluids swirl on the planet’s surface. It’s why low-pressure systems in the northern hemisphere twist counterclockwise. This phenomenon, known as the Coriolis effect, is the appearance of an object to deflect to one side in a rotating reference frame. Since it is such a tiny effect on small scales, no one had yet proven that this inertial force actually affects how water leaves a bathtub, despite many previous efforts.

In 1962, the same year that Watson and Crick received their Nobel Prize for the discovery of the double helix, MIT professor Ascher Shapiro, an expert in fluid mechanics, set up an elaborate test to try to change that. Shapiro’s elementary experiment, which started with a bathtub, quickly turned into a complicated and ambitious undertaking that involved a tank six feet wide and six inches deep.

The Coriolis effect at MIT’s latitude, 42°, was just “thirty-millionths that of gravity, which is so small that it will be overcome by filling and even temperature differences and water impurities,” reported one of many newspapers and periodicals that covered the results of Shapiro’s experiment. After much tinkering to cancel out these interferences, and presumably a hefty water bill, Shapiro found the answer: the Coriolis effect does indeed cause a bathtub vortex in the northern hemisphere to swirl counterclockwise.

But even after his results were published in a letter to Nature, Shapiro’s confirmation drew the skepticism of readers. In correspondence with one reader, Shapiro noted: “Many results contradictory to this have been reported in the literature but all of them have involved faulty experiments due to a lack of realization of how sensitive the experiment is.” He was supported, however, by colleagues in the Northern hemisphere who confirmed the counterclockwise bathtub drainage, while those in the Southern hemisphere demonstrated the same effect in the opposite direction—a clockwise flow—just as anticipated.

In a world without electronic communication, where author correspondence was a more prolonged affair, a sort of chivalry existed between a scientist and a popular audience who took an interest in academics. Scrawled with a pencil on back-and-forth correspondences between Shapiro and his fans and housed today within a dusty and faded folder in the MIT archives are the records of reprints being sent, of questions being answered, and of careful and nuanced responses that understated Shapiro’s high standing at MIT. A Ford Professor at the time, and later elevated to Institute professor, Shapiro took time to send article reprints for those who asked for it and to answer mail from inquisitive readers, some of whom promoted dubious questions and claims.

...Who would have thought the swirl of a bathtub would have been a matter of great interest? For a seemingly insignificant problem, the bathtub controversy loomed large in Shapiro’s career until his death in 2004. The first line of his obituary in the Boston Globe read: “Dr. Ascher Shapiro wanted to get a handle on how fluids move whether they were swirling down the bathtub drain, or flowing through the human body.” ”

Controversy because other researchers were getting different and inconsistent results. Shapiro claimed that he could perform the experiment and that all other researchers were wrong.

The below shows that even with extreme care the direction of the vortex can be influenced by very small perturbations such as how the lid is lifted. (Archive)

  “ At Tom Fink’s invitation, Professor Lloyd M. Trefethen of Tufts University, USA, spent a short sabbatical in Mechanical Engineering in 1964/65. Already famous for his work on surface tension phenomena, he led us into a repeat of the experiments on the bathtub vortex that had recently been conducted by Ascher Shapiro at MIT. After much careful design, a circular tank of some 2.4m in diameter and 0.4m depth was constructed and installed in one of the subterranean dungeons of the old Peter Nicol Russell building. Carefully designed procedures and their diligent execution resulted in absolutely conclusive results that were published in Nature (Trefethen, et al, 1965). A re-enactment for the local media was a disaster: Bilger and Tanner muffed the removal of the covering baffles creating a great vortex in the water that then went out the wrong way. ‘Scientists baffled’ cried the media. We even made Time magazine! ”

In Flow, Nature's Patterns, a Tapestry in Three Parts (Archive) by Dr. Phillip Ball (Archive) the author gives an overview on p. 47:

  “ A popular notion says that the rotation of the earth starts the bathtub vortex spinning. But while it is certainly true that this rotation controls the direction of the giant atmospheric vortices of cyclones, which rotate counter-clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and clockwise in the Southern, the influence of the Earth’s rotation on a micro-cyclone in the bath should be extremely weak. Biesel claimed that it cannot be responsible for the bathtub vortex because, contrary to popular belief, they may rotate in either direction at any place on the planet. But is that really so? In 1962 the American engineer Ascher Shapiro at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology claimed that he had consistently produced counter-clockwise vortices in his lab by first allowing the water to settle for 24 hours, dissipating any residual rotational motion, before pulling the plug. The claim sparked controversy: later researchers said that the experiment was extremely sensitive to the precise conditions in which it was conducted. The dispute has never quite been resolved. We do know, however, why a small initial rotation of the liquid develops into a robust vortex. This is due to the movement of the water as it converges on the outlet. In theory this convergence can be completely symmetrical: water moves inwards to the plughole from all directions. But the slightest departure from that symmetrical situation, which could happen at random, may be amplified because of the way fluidflow operates. ”

An abstract at the Physical Society of Japan states:

  “ It has long been controversial whether the Coriolis force due to the rotation of the earth plays a significant role in the generation of the bathtub vortex in small vessels such as bathtubs. ”

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: August 05, 2019, 09:15:08 PM »
Changing shape? Can you show us what you mean?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon diameter
« on: August 04, 2019, 02:32:09 PM »
On the size of some stars being one tenth the size of the Moon, I guess it can be reworded better that it is in reference to the visible apparent diameter of some stars being one tenth the visible disk of the Moon.

See this story which describes that some of the visible stars are truly huge:

" Astronomers dating all the way back to Ptolemy during the second century had determined that the more prominent of those star dots measure somewhere in the range of one-tenth to one-twentieth the diameter that the round moon appears to be. In On the New Star, Kepler said bright stars measure one-tenth the moon’s diameter, Sirius a bit more. "

Under a model with distant stars it would need to be of tremendous proportions, and was one of the early controversies in astronomy. The geocentric model's closer stars seemed more reasonable. Some Copernicans claimed the mystery of God and later ones postulated an optical illusion.

Also see this interesting Scientific American article about the history of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism starting on p.75:

"Copernicus’s revolutionary theory that Earth travels around the sun upended more than a millennium’s worth of scientific and religious wisdom. Most scientists refused to accept this theory for many decades—even after Galileo made his epochal observations with his telescope. Their objections were not only theological. Observational evidence supported a competing cosmology—the “geoheliocentrism” of Tycho Brahe. Copernicus famously said that Earth revolves around the sun. But opposition to this revolutionary idea didn’t come just from the religious authorities. Evidence favored a different cosmology."

Heliocentrism won in the end, of course, but arguably on basis of illusions and other philosophy. Some of the stars are still considered to be large, despite that, although not as large as what angular diameter would suggest, and it is taught today to be entirely reasonable. The articles are worth a read.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon diameter
« on: August 04, 2019, 07:15:20 AM »
I'll take another look for her experiments. It was in one of her "Earth's Observatory" articles.

Until the society (or societies) can come to an agreement on the dimensions and distance of the Sun and Moon under the current FE model, which is different to what Voliva and Blount held, I recommend that the descriptions on the Cosmos page be changed to something like the following:

"The Sun is a sphere which revolves above the Earth on a path known as the ecliptic. Its path moves North-South over the year between the Tropic of Capricorn to the Tropic of Cancer. Its daily cycle is one revolution per 24 hours."

"The Moon is a sphere which revolves above the surface of the Earth in a manner similar to the Sun. It moves at a slightly slower rate of revolution, at about 347.81° per 24 hours, rising and setting 50 minutes later each day. The Moon has a monthly phase cycle, ranging from Full Moon to New Moon."

"The planets are spheres which move above the face of the Earth and across the sky with apparent relationship to the Sun. Known to antequity as 'wandering stars', the planets were once thought to be key to the nature of the Solar System and the Earth's place in it."

"The stars are luminous elements which move in a layer above the Sun and Moon at a rate of about one rotation every 23.93 hours. The stars range in observable sizes approaching one tenth the diameter of the moon, come in various colors--green, purple, blue, orange--as well as various types, such as rapidly flashing pulars."

The planets and stars pages can be written to match the descriptions. Information on Ptolmy and Copernicus's epicycles and views for the planets page with an FE interpretation--the system of the planets is not necessarily the system of the earth. Galleries of the types of stars will help to show that the stars aren't really generic suns like our Sun as commonly thought.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 03, 2019, 10:00:08 PM »
What you posted is using perturbation theory. Do a search for "perturb" in the top quora answer link and the pdf you posted.

You claim that perturbations were only used in the 18th century and then link us to a PDF with a bunch of references to the use of perturbations. Odd logic. Almost as if you just blindly posted the first thing you googled.

It's not enough to find something that says numerical. The perturbation and epicycles methods are also numerical.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: August 03, 2019, 09:38:18 PM »
I'm always bemused that people who believe NASA are faking everything simultaneously believe they are doing so well enough to fool most people on the planet but are also doing their "special FX" so poorly that films from the 60s have better done effects.

Explain the wire seen in the above clip.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Moon diameter
« on: August 03, 2019, 04:21:58 PM »
Some of those numbers are "classic" holdovers from the pre-internet society. I agree that it shouldn't be stated without reference to how it was determined.

The Cosmos page was recently changed from it's previous state by another author. I prefer the original list of links which just gives out information which is known. If we are going to give out a description with figures it should ideally be disclaimed how it was determined and on what axioms.

Lady Blount had an interesting way of determining the size of the Sun which did not involve angular diameter and an assumption of distance. She references experiments in which the angle of the photons from the sun was perfectly vertical over a distance span of 32 miles on earth simultaneously. However, that information seems to be a 404 when I went to look for it recently.

In any event, the way the information is presented in the Wiki should be adjusted to either not describing it, describing it in a more general nature, or showing how if the earth is flat these must be the conslusions about the celestial bodies based on angles or angular diameter.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: August 03, 2019, 03:32:04 PM »
There were two satellites on STS-51A. Syncom is not the satellite deployed in the clip above. Take a look at the full video at the 2:35 minute mark. Syncom is the second satellite deployed, as depicted and stated by narrator.


"The two communications satellites successfully deployed were Anik D2 (on the second day of the mission) and Syncom IV-1, also known as Leasat 1 (on the third day)."

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Skylab
« on: August 02, 2019, 05:57:58 PM »
Although not SKylab, I see a wire in this one:

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 309  Next >