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 - newhorizons

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >
1
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 23, 2019, 06:59:45 AM »
Quote
when the bible talks about the world being established, and un-moving, it is talking (in some way) about the presence of the lord on the earth

And I am inclined to believe it is just talking about the way people perceived the world to be at the time. Nothing more. There is no question that the world certainly was established at the time the bible was written, and there is no question people would not have felt any direction motion relating to the Earth (other than the odd Earthquake of course) and so to them it would have seemed to be un-moving.

Nothing to do with the presence of the lord or anything such like.  That's just an interpretation that people today choose to have. 

2
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Which is right?
« on: August 22, 2019, 09:00:54 PM »
So that leaves me struggling to identify any consistencies in FE theory then that you can actually start to build a model on. The only consistent thing among FE models is that they are inconsistent with what they agree about.

For example there is no evidence at all so far as I can tell that suggests there is any kind of physical dome over the Earth which supports the celestial bodies.  As a staunch round Earther I find the suggestion that there is ludicrous.  Back in antiquity I can understand it because our ancestors didn't understand the nature of space as we do now. As I mentioned in a previous discussion they could only interpret that sky as they saw it with nothing else other than their own eyes.  The sky looks like a dome but that is purely a perspective effect. Perspective is something that FE'ers seem to be quite keen on.

3
Flat Earth Theory / Which is right?
« on: August 21, 2019, 10:14:02 PM »
Under the discussion thread about Investigating FE Jupiter, Sandokhan wrote...

Quote
We know for sure that no aircrafts fly above 9 km, therefore the first dome must be located very close to this altitude, perhaps 10-12 km.

Yet in FE Wiki under the section about the constant speed of the Sun it states..

Quote
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.

45,000ft is just over 13.7km but according to Sandokhan an aircraft cannot reach 45,000ft. He seems pretty sure of himself because we 'know for sure'. 

So which is right... ?

4
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!
« on: August 21, 2019, 06:59:25 PM »
I must admit before I came across this website I had not heard a term such as pseudoscience. The only thing that I can think of which 'literally' meets the description of a 'pseudo' science is astrology.  You have predictions of a sort but there is absolutely no scientific basis for it.

Anyway I digress. I'm not sure how you can physically manipulate something that is light years away. Of course everything you say is absolutely true and when you think about what astronomers can do perched on the tops of mountains with modern telescopes, I'm sure they would not take too kindly to being described as 'pseudo astronomers'. It does show a rather ignorant attitude towards what astronomy is about these days and a complete disconnection with what astronomy is about today.  Tom seems to place more significance on astronomy as it was in the past instead of how it is today.

Such comments as are made in FE Wiki used to really make me angry but now I just dismiss them. Nothing can change my love for what is a fascinating and ever changing branch of science.

5
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 21, 2019, 04:13:36 PM »
Take yourself back to the time of the bible for a moment.  What observations or evidence did the people who lived at the time have about what shape the Earth is?  Only what their own eyes could show them. They observed all the same natural celestial events in the sky that we do but they had absolutely no idea what was happening or what caused them. Their only tool beyond their own eyes was their imagination. They could see things happen but they had no control over them, they couldn't predict them and so those factors combined essentially led them unavoidably to the conclusion that some 'thing' was behind it all. 

That thing must be something well beyond what humans could understand (at the time) and therefore it must be more powerful than any human. That to me is how the concept of God came about. Even today if something cannot be explained by the known laws of nature then it placed under the umbrella of 'power of God'. The Higgs Boson was referred to as the God Particle before it was discovered by the LHC.

We understand a lot more about the power of nature and the laws of physics now and so events and phenomenon that once were simply attributed to the power of God are now better understood. Some of the mystery attached to these things is now clearer in our minds. That is not to say we would now declare ourselves to know everything. Far from it and that is what makes science fun. The quest for knowledge. There are a few things that we can safely conclude now, regardless of what you say the bible says or the word of God says and one those I would contend is that the Earth ain't flat. Dismiss me or disagree with me as much as you like but its true.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Can FE disprove the RE explanation of Gravity?
« on: August 21, 2019, 03:19:58 PM »
Quote
I don't think anyone is arguing with that. Well, I'm certainly not. Copernicus didn't start by proving the geocentric model false, he simply proposed a model which he believed worked better.

Over time it became adopted because people agreed it did work better with observations.
That's how progress has been made with scientific models down the centuries.

I agree. However FE theorists obviously must think differently otherwise what is the point of FE theory? Science is not about proving anything right or wrong. Rather it is about producing the theory or model which most widely fits with real world experience. It doesn't conclude that the Earth is flat because it looks flat. It takes into account that not everything in nature is actually exactly as it seems at first glance.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 20, 2019, 10:58:51 PM »
So what would you define the 'word of God' to be exactly than?  If something exists then it must be able to be defined.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 10:21:18 PM »
It could equally be argued that the Earth is not stationary based on modern observations.  Back in the days that the bible relates to the resources available to determine the nature of the Universe and whether the Earth is stationary and the centre of it all were far more limited.  To what could be directly observed in fact.

Clearly the bible is important and significant to you. I assume you are a religious person and that being the case I respect that.  I just see these things differently to you.

Quote
If the earth is stationary that provides a lot of support to the models of the universe in which the earth is stationary.

And of course it follows from that, if the Earth is not stationary that provides a lot of support to models of the Universe in which the Earth is not stationary.  I would personally say there is more evidence to suggest the latter is true compared to the former.

9
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 09:54:46 PM »
Whatever... but what whether word of man or word of God, what has that got to do with whether the Earth appeared to be stationary or not?

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 09:36:35 PM »
To those around during biblical times the Earth would have appeared to be stationary just as it does to us today. So for them it was an entirely reasonable conclusion.  We now know that it isn't stationary.

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 08:47:36 PM »
Quote
What if a person is born and, when his brain creates images out of "refracted" light beams they don't appear out of place our out of position at all. That person has a much more significantly advanced visual cortex than your average human

I should imagine there has been more than one person born up to now where there is an abnormality in the communication between eye and brain which gives them a different interpretation of what we call normal vision. At least I think that's what you are getting at.  Without the brain our vision would be upside down because the single bi-convex lens in the human eye inverts the image.  Evolution has led to that image being turned the 'right way up'. So it is only because the vast majority of people see 'up' and 'down' in the same way that we have come to call that 'normal'.

As you may be aware our perception of what is 'upside down' or not is based on our normal everyday experience.  As soon as you lose the horizon from you field of view (as you do when you peer through an astronomical telescope) then your awareness of direction vanishes.  An astronomical telescope naturally produces an inverted image but that doesn't matter because there is no 'upside down' in space. An image of Saturn for example looks identical regardless of whether north is at the top or south is at the top.

Regarding the bible... I repeat what I said before. A long time Christian was quite open in telling me that the bible should be regarded as a text of spiritual guidance to be taken with a broad context rather than a description of life to be taken literally.

12
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!
« on: August 19, 2019, 08:37:12 PM »
The scientific method is about reaching conclusions based on identified trends from data collection.  A scientist does not start off with a belief and then throw out as incorrect any data that doesn't seem to fit that belief. Rather it is the opposite way around. We will collect data first and then build a theory or model that best fits that data.  If at any time new data seems to show that the theories or models are inaccurate or can be improved further then that is taken in account as appropriate. Which of these sounds more like FE theory and which sounds like RE theory to you?

Of course there will be erroneous observations but taking in the holistic picture or trend it is quite apparent when a pattern is forming. Take eclipsing variables, cepheid variables and the HR diagram as examples.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 04:53:36 PM »
I'm not the one questioning whether refraction exists or not.  I am simply telling iamcpc that I have been familiar with what I recognise as the refraction of light for over 40 years so I don't understand his need to question whether refraction exists or not.

If what I recognise as the refraction of light actually isn't refraction after all then perhaps he could explain to me how refracting telescopes work.

14
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why should the Earth be flat?
« on: August 19, 2019, 04:19:43 PM »
Quote
First off I don't know that it exists. It's impossible to know something is 100% true.

So what criteria or conditions need to exist then for you to say you actually know something?  The fact that I have been using refracting telescopes which rely on the concept known as refraction of light to work gives me a clue about its existence.

15
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 19, 2019, 11:02:53 AM »
Agreed the author should have used a different color for the text labelling sub-headings but the descriptions before where it says 'visual facts' explains which values are calculated or estimated. Those for parallax are not among them.

Its amazing to think satellites can now measure parallax angles down to a few milliarc seconds. GAIA is set to produce the most detailed ever 3D map of the Milky Way Galaxy. A friend of mine works at E2V, the company involved in designing and building the cameras on board GAIA. He was in the team that lab tested the prototype chips. Biggest chip array I have ever seen!

16
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 19, 2019, 08:58:44 AM »
Are the quoted figures for the parallax measurements shown in red?

I think you will find the only estimated or calculated values are those for radius and temperature.

17
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 18, 2019, 09:39:55 PM »
Tom,

You state in your earlier post that an astronomer in the article that your link to (mid 19th century?) mentions that the star Gamma (Y) Daconis shows a large negative parallax.  There are several other descriptions of this star (assuming that is the star you mean, also known as Eltanin) which seem to offer a different view on this.  For example...

https://www.universeguide.com/star/eltanin

It actually quotes two different parallax measurements spaced 10 years apart.  The figures are given towards the end of the page.  You will appreciate that an angle of just a few milli (thousandths of) arc seconds is very small and would be extremely difficult to measure with the kind of equipment available to an astronomer in the mid 1850s so it is no wonder he struggled.


Just noticed... I think the article in your link was actually published in 1902.  Makes no difference though... to my case stated above.

Related to the topic of stellar parallax, I note it states in FE Wiki,

Quote
Firstly, we must understand that the stars in FE are small and a few thousand miles above the sea level of the earth. This change in distance compared to RE figures is due to an adjusted astronomical parallax on a Flat Earth. The angle of stellar parallax changes, as it does with the sun, when the earth is assumed to be a flat surface.

We should actually understand that the stars are neither small or just a few thousand miles away. They might need to be for FE theory to work but in reality they are not and astronomers have got good evidence to show that they are not.   Secondly... solar parallax?  How does that work since we don't need parallax to work out the distance of the Sun?

18
Flat Earth Theory / Re: On the subject of astronomy I beg to differ!
« on: August 18, 2019, 07:55:07 PM »
Experiment/observation...  does it really matter? Astronomy is about observing and interpreting the Universe as a whole. Studying the data from celestial bodies which mainly comes to us from the light we receive from them.

As I alluded to previously, amateur astronomers study the subject in so many different ways. Some simply read about the subject others equip themselves with telescopes and cameras and head outside and observe the Universe for themselves. Whatever the case it is what we learn about the Universe that matters and a truth that cannot be denied is that millions of astronomers all over the world love the subject and share the passion they get from it.

What you call it is immaterial to me. But please, do not belittle it as interest in astronomy is as large and as widespread as the subject it studies.

19
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 18, 2019, 07:19:54 PM »
Your history link Tom makes for interesting reading.  From a quick glance I would say that particular document dates to about the mid 19th century. Given the choice between what that says and the data obtained from the GAIA satellite I think I know which option I would choose.  How about you?

What garygreen says makes complete sense and provides a very clear explanation as to why these errors that produce apparent -ve parallaxes occur.

20
Flat Earth Investigations / Re: Problems with the Heliocentric Model
« on: August 18, 2019, 04:46:12 PM »
Hundreds of thousands is still a very small number when it comes to stellar populations.

The GAIA satellite is set to measure around a billion stars and that is still less than 1% of the estimated population of the Milky Way.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 5  Next >