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.

Topics - shootingstar

Pages: [1]
Flat Earth Theory / Suns lit area of the flat Earth
« on: January 20, 2019, 11:35:24 AM »
FEW states that the Suns area of light is elliptical.  Why not circular unless the Sun is somehow shining down on the Earth from an angle with directed beam like a stage light?   For the light from the Sun to be confined to a specific area, like the lighthouse analogy that FEW suggests, then this would need some kind of reflector and director in order to send the light into a specific direction.

Flat Earth Theory / Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: January 20, 2019, 11:29:34 AM »
It is acknowledged by FET through observation that the Sun and Moon and planets are all round.  So my question to you then quite simply is why should the Earth be flat?

Flat Earth Theory / Lunar libration
« on: January 19, 2019, 09:48:00 PM »
Not sure if this is covered by FEW. Can't find any reference.  There is a slight wobble of the Moon in both longitude and latitude over the course of the month. This allows us to see a total of 60% of the surface of the Moon as seen from R Earth.  How would that be accounted for in FE theory?

Flat Earth Theory / Evidence for Universal Accelerator force
« on: January 18, 2019, 11:29:14 PM »
I would like to know what actual evidence is there that the UA is what keeps us on the ground as opposed to conventional gravity.  Since both would have the same effect why should we favour UA over gravity. Or is it a case of the UA has simply been created to make the effect of gravity work for a flat Earth model?

Flat Earth Theory / Another FEW Question...
« on: January 14, 2019, 12:51:44 PM »
Again under the FAQ page it states...

The Earth is not a planet by definition, as it sits at the center of our solar system above which the planets and the Sun revolve

According to whose definition is the Earth not a planet and what proof (not opinions) have you got for this statement as it stands?

Flat Earth Theory / Star coordinate systems
« on: January 13, 2019, 12:27:32 PM »
In astronomy we use a coordinate system called Right Ascension (RA) and declination (Dec) to describe a point in the sky. Call it the celestial coordinate system. RA is measured W-E according to the 24hr clock with 15 degrees of sky equating to 1h RA (15x24=360). Dec is measured by angular distance from the NCP (=90N declination) while the celestial equator is 0 degrees declination.

Needless to say declination circles in the northern hemisphere get smaller and smaller in radius until they come to the point of the NCP. Any stars which have a declination equal to the observers latitude or greater never set and so are called circumpolar.

The same applies in the southern hemisphere as well but how do we account for the declination circles getting smaller in the southern hemisphere because on a flat Earth, the latitude circles are still getting bigger as we pass south of the equator. To take a latitude at random, say 50 degrees south, those observers would see all the stars with a declination of -50 degrees or more (closer to the SCP) as circumpolar and so they would be visible all year round.

FEW under the FAQ page shows a diagram of the Sun moving in a circle centred on the north pole. The radius of the circle varies with the seasons through the year.

It is easy to draw a simple diagram and write a statement to the effect of
When the sun is further away from the North Pole, it's winter in the northern hemiplane (or hemisphere) and summer in the south. A more simplistic picture can be found below.

Anyone could have drawn a diagram and attached a label to it. Not hard to do.  Now explain to me how this actually works in the real world. We have our observation, now lets identify a cause for what we see. What is the mechanism that makes the Sun go around the NP and vary its distance from the NP. Angular momentum (or circular motion if you prefer) needs to have a force driving it so what is the force or forces in this case?  FE hypothesis doesn't accept the existence of gravity and even if it did I cannot see a source of any such gravitational force (a mass of some kind) in this case.  There would need to be a very large mass (much more massive than the Sun itself) located over the NP and I cannot find any evidence for the existence of any such mass.

For Flat Earthers to be sure that this is true they must know what mechanism this is otherwise this sort of motion cannot be proved and is therefore unfounded.

Flat Earth Theory / Shifting constellations page in FE Wiki
« on: January 12, 2019, 08:41:47 PM »
The page opens with this statement...

Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth

You say that these measurements hare based on Rowbotham. He lived well over a century ago so what measures of observations have been made more recently to verify his figures? You surely don't just rely on one persons estimates.  Does that mean that all stars are the same distance away and if so how do you account for the differences in brightness and colour in the stars?  What does adjusted astronomical parallax mean?  Do flat Earther understand exactly what method is used by astronomers to measure stellar parallax as accurately as possible?

I quite agree that they are not worlds.  After all, stars are not worlds are they.

Flat Earth Investigations / Astronomical patterns
« on: January 12, 2019, 03:37:51 PM »
Tom is often describing astronomy as largely based on patterns.  I won't disagree with that. For a start there are 88 constellations in the sky which are perceived patterns of stars in the sky. Many were created in ancient times as Tom mentions by Arabic and Chinese astronomers of the time.  As well as their connections to mythology we can also use these patterns in the present day as a guide to finding objects in the sky. We call it 'star hopping'.

Since we observe the same phenomenen and events in the sky today that our ancestors would have seen, clearly there are different types of patterns going on as well. Early time keeping methods were based on such patterns. Occasionally of course there would be a non-regular event visible in the sky such as the appearance of a bright comet or even the odd supernova. Astronomers in 1054 noted the appearance of a brilliant new 'star' in the constellation Taurus which was located close to where the cresent Moon was at the time. The supernova was visible in broad daylight at its brightest. Today we observe that same supernova in the form of the Crab Nebula. Modern (20th century) measurements show how the gas is still expanding outwards.

Today the patterns we observe are explained through mathematics and this has allowed us to predict astronomical events of many types down to accuracies of a minute or less. Many aspects of mathematics are quite generally based on patterns.

Returning briefly to star patterns again, I wondered how the celestial sphere fits into FE theory.  The north celestial pole sits over the north pole of the Earth. The south celestial pole of the sky sits over the south pole of the Earth. You can see star trail circles getting smaller and smaller in radius until they converge at the south celestial pole.  So the southern hemisphere stars behave in exactly the same way as the northern hemisphere stars but effective in reverse. 

Flat Earth Investigations / Seeing the curvature of the Earth directly
« on: January 10, 2019, 02:54:09 PM »
One of the most common responses given by flat Earth believers to the FAQ 'Why do you believe the Earth is flat?' is because it looks flat. I believe that Tom once answered this question along the lines of

"If I emerged from my cave for the very first time and looked at the mammoths cavorting on a broad expanse of tundra, I surely wouldn't quickly assume I was standing on a sphere"

I quite agree with that comment. I am pretty sure many of the present day indiginous tribes of remote parts of the world who have never travelled more than a few miles away from their settlements would agree too if the question was put to them.  They have not been educated with any skills and knowledge beyond what they need to survive day to day and year to year. As long as those people can catch food, have shelter and can live their lives in relative safety and comfort I am sure it doesn't matter to them what shape or size the planet they live on is.

The perception of the world that these people have is limited to their experience of it. If we were to show them photos or videos of big cities, high mountains, the polar regions or even the oceans they would seem completely alien to them. Why? Because they have never experienced them. I have a limited view of the world from my window and if I had never read a book, switched on my radio, TV, or computer then my knowledge of the world would be limited to what I can see. Would that give me justification to assume whatever I see outside of my window is much the same as what everyone else in the world sees outside of their windows?  How does someone who is blind from birth prove the Earth is round or flat.  The answer is they can't so they have to rely on information given to them by others. Why should they believe or trust what they are told?

Those who say that the Earth is round will give a measured value of the diameter of the Earth of 8000 miles give or take a few. That equates to a circumference of 26,000 miles again, give or take a few. A civilian airliner will cruise at an altitude of about 38,000ft. That is about 0.1% of 8000 miles.  Not enough to make visible any curvature of the Earth to the naked eye. Especially when you take into account that from 38,000ft you don't have a clear view (or should I say a clear enough view) to make an accurate judgement of what shape the Earth surface looks.

Given flat Earth believers don't acknowledge that anyone has been higher than about that altitude they have no reason to believe the Earth has a curved surface. They haven't seen it for themselves. RET believers on the other hand will take into account the images and video taken by astronauts on the ISS. The ISS is orbitting at an average height of 250 miles which is 3.1% of the diameter of Earth, or 31x the height of a civilian airliner at 38,000ft. That brings in enough of the Earths surface at once to now see the curvature. If seeing is believing then quite clearly they have good reason to believe the Earth is round.  They have seen a view of the Earth that many of us will never have and never will.

Flat Earth Theory / Moon size and distance
« on: January 09, 2019, 11:37:58 PM »
A discussion about this was started some time ago in the projects forum.  It was suggested that this is a topic that should be discussed elsewhere.

FE wiki states very clearly that FET considers the Moon to have a diameter of 32 miles and is 3000 miles away.   These figures are both very specific so that would suggest they have been measured.  Can I ask what method was used?

Flat Earth Theory / Another matter of perspective
« on: January 06, 2019, 06:43:27 PM »
Disappearing ships on the horizon is often used and disputed as evidence for the curvature of the Earth surface. RE believers contend that the gradual 'sinking' of the ship into the sea on the horizon is proof of curvature whereas FE believers will contend that this is due to light refraction effects etc.

I was thinking about this from a different approach. The Burj Khalifa is the tallest man-made structure in the world. I believe from base to tip of spire it is about 2,717ft high give or take a bit. Looking from above the tower the spire forms a line that takes you vertically down the centre of the building and so forms a line XY say where x is at ground level. I stand at the base of the tower and start to move away from it (direction unimportant). If XY is the opposite side of a triangle and XZ is the horizontal line that represents my distance from it. If I am moving away from the tower across an infinitely flat plane of the Earths surface then by simple trigonometry I should be able to calculate how high the tower should look from whatever distance I am from it.

If on the other hand I am walking away from it along a curved surface then not only will the tower will look shorter at a given distance but I would also see the tower appearing to tip away from me due to the curved path I am following. The height of the tower means that this would be quite easy to test out from quite a distance away without atmospheric refraction becoming a significant issue.

Flat Earth Theory / Solar spotlight
« on: January 05, 2019, 12:48:37 AM »
FE wiki tells us that the Sun shines down on the flat Earth like a spotlight. Illuminating part of the surface to create day time.

How does that work then when the Sun is spherical and emits light over its whole surface. Why the sudden 'cut off' where daylight ends?

Flat Earth Theory / FET 'Season'
« on: January 01, 2019, 09:21:00 AM »
Going through FET Wiki I would like to ask a couple of questions...

Day and night cycles are easily explained on a flat earth. The sun moves in circles around the North Pole. When it is over your head, it's day. When it's not, it's night. The light of the sun is confined to a limited area and its light acts like a spotlight upon the earth. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth. The apparent effect of the sun rising and setting is usually explained as a perspective effect.

So firstly what makes the Sun move in a circle around the North Pole and why should the direction of sunlight be directed in any particular direction for something that is a sphere and emits light uniformly from all points on its 'surface'.  Thirdly what makes the Suns distance from the North Pole vary to create impression of seasons? 

The quoted statement from the FAQ page states what happens but not why.  RET on the other hand accounts very easily for all of this.

Flat Earth Theory / Near Earth Asteroids
« on: December 30, 2018, 10:44:10 AM »
If everything in the sky is circling above a flat Earth, then how do NEAs pose a danger to a flat Earth? These are asteroids whose orbital path has been observed, tracked and calculated to cross the orbit of Earth. Thus theoretically endangering a collision at some point in the future.

There are scans of the sky being made constantly for these NEAs and the website contains a list of several together with the time of their closest approach to Earth. Distances quoted in terms of LD or lunar dstance.

The way FE Wiki describes the FET I cannot see how any asteroids could present such a threat to Earth as they would remain forever above the Earth. In fact unless I have overlooked it I cannot find any mention of asteroids in FE Wiki.

Flat Earth Theory / Earth rotation slowing down
« on: December 30, 2018, 10:09:08 AM »
Another aspect of the Earths history that geologists have discovered by analysing ancient rock deposit patterns is that the Earths rotation in the past was faster than it is today and this trend continues. That means that in future there will be less days in a year than there are today.

We (RET) believers explain this as being due to a collision with another forming planet early in the history of the solar system. Another body collided with the still forming Earth and deflected off it. In much the same way as two snooker balls colliding and then deflecting off each other. This left the Earth spinning much more rapidly than prior to the collision and 'wobbling' on its axis like a spinning top. Since then the rate of the Earths spin has been gradually slowing down to the point where today the period of rotation is close to 24h but in future (long term future) the rate of spin will decrease further as the Earth continues to slow down and stablise. The collision itself was almost the end of the body that became Earth but some of the debris that was left over and recombined to form the Moon. The collision avoided the Earths core (one likely reason the Earth managed to recover) which has a different material make up to the mantle and crust. That explains why lunar rock samples compare closely to Earth mantle material but not core material. According to the physics of collisions between bodies that means the Moon should also be moving away from the Earth and observations and measurements have confirmed this. 

I know that the way of FET is to take a more direct or literal approach. You like to use the term empirical (meaning as things appear). A flat Earth theorist would say the Sun must rotate about a central Earth because to them it looks like it does. To take things on face value as it were.  That is fine if that satisfies you. But take in the bigger picture and look outside of the box and the cracks in such a model soon start to appear. Mathematics is a hugely useful tool in science and one cannot argue with mathematical models. That is not to say though that we can get the maths wrong.  Put the wrong information in at the start and the resulting output will also be wrong. Correct mathematical models can reveal predictions even before they can be confirmed through observation or experiment.

FET talks about the motions of the stars, planets and Sun.  But new comets and asteroids are being discovered all the time by the likes of the PANSTARRS programme and even amateur astronomers with their own equipment. Where do they come from in FET?

Flat Earth Theory / The Stars main page in FE Wiki
« on: December 30, 2018, 09:24:20 AM »
As someone who has been fascinated by astronomy and physics for a large part of my life I find the Stars page of FE wiki quite heavy reading. That being the case I should think that a lot of people with an interest in FET but less of a scientific mind would also find it somewhat confusing.

So I wonder if someone with the know how could perhaps simplify it a bit and also explain how the gradual change in star positions due to precession is explained in FET.  For example in 50,000 years or so, Polaris will no longer be the 'Pole Star' but Vega will instead.

Also this talk about the Sun circling the Earth in the way that FET talks about concerns me because we know it doesn't. The common barycentre is actually located at a point in space which lies within the volume of the Sun itself. FE people seem to think that changing nature and make the Sun orbit the Earth is acceptable in order to make it fit in with the theory they believe in rather than adapting their theory accordingly.

Pages: [1]