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 - GreatATuin

Pages: [1] 2  Next >
1
Interestingly, Tom posted then removed this diagram:


Maybe because it could be used to show that the actual angle difference between the blue and red lines is quite small?

2
There is an equinox article in the Wiki.

See the links at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

They offer no explanation on how the Sun's light could create such strange shapes on a flat Earth.

The animation you posted shows that the discrepancy is the southern midnight sun that wraps around the Earth. That takes us to Antarctica, where all the information comes from the government, and is not necessarily the best source of information.

You don't even need to go that far to find a discrepancy. Draw a line from Sydney to Ushuaia (daytime in both cities). The line crosses parts of the world in North America that can't see the Sun at this time. How does the light of the Sun create a concave shape?

Quote

Alternatively, the southern midnight sun is possible in the bipolar model.


Cherry-picking, how convenient. Also, the bipolar model basically assumes the Pacific Ocean is a hoax.

Round earth doesn't need a different model for each observation.

3
There is an equinox article in the Wiki.

See the links at the end of https://wiki.tfes.org/Sunrise_and_Sunset

They offer no explanation on how the Sun's light could create such strange shapes on a flat Earth.

4
On a map that looks like the polar azimuthal equidistant projection, which seems to be the hypothesis you're working with, it actually looks even worse around the December solstice:



(gif taken from this site)

See this exact time for example: https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/sunearth.html?iso=20211221T0845

Sun at zenith above Madagascar, day in Ushuaia as well as in all of Australia, night in North America, night anywhere north of the 68th parallel. Not easy to explain in a FE model.

5
None of the explanations above, or the video above, tell us how something can tilt to perspective without us seeing different sides of it. Distance has nothing to do with it. It will occur at all scales.



I honestly can't tell what you are trying to prove with your Rubik's cubes lines, and how it relates to the Moon tilt illusion. Which is just that: an illusion. There is no problem with the way the Moon appears to us in the night sky.

6
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eclipse from a Plane
« on: March 27, 2020, 11:03:57 AM »
Indeed, I can't see a problem.

Most of these photos seems to be of the March 2015 eclipse. Many eclipse enthusiats boarded chartered flights or even private jets to see and photograph the eclipse.

They did so because they knew exactly when and where the eclipse would happen. Such predictions are all, without any exception, based on a round earth model. The first accurate prediction was made by Halley (yes, the comet guy) in 1715, thanks to Newton's findings.

7
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eötvös Effect
« on: March 26, 2020, 01:29:57 PM »

Quote
If RE could actually show its claims, they would have done that long ago
Well, they have. All you're doing is either calling it fake, misunderstanding it or hand waving it away for various spurious reasons.
It's very easy to "prove" yourself right if you ignore or call fake all the evidence showing you to be wrong.

Bonus points for those who disregard centuries of scientific research and experiments, and then claim their opponents suffer from confirmation bias. I really loved that one.

8
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Eötvös Effect
« on: March 25, 2020, 07:06:40 PM »
Too bad you edited your post before I sent that answer. Anyway, all the experiments you quoted are at much lower speeds. 25 m/s as in the Wikipedia article is about 90 km/h or 55mph. A plane is about 10 times faster.

There is an online calculator: http://walter.bislins.ch/bloge/index.asp?page=Centrifugal+and+Gravitational+Acceleration+in+an+Aircraft

But it's a shame you edited, I really love the way you quoted a website whose title is "100 Proofs that the Earth is a Globe" (https://www.mezzacotta.net/100proofs/archives/482).

9
Yet, in the southern U.S., Venus is visible at 45 degrees -- WAY up in the night sky, after sundown for at least two months STRAIGHT. Tonight, Venus is visible for as long FOUR HOURS after sunset. That means I can see it til ONE O'CLOCK in the morning.

No, you can't. The sun sets much earlier than 9pm. I tried on https://www.heavens-above.com/skychart2.aspx with Austin, TX. With that data I get a sunset at about 7:45pm with Venus at about 46º and disappearing over the horizon around 11:20pm. Note that you could actually see Venus even higher in the sky earlier in the day if you know where to look: it's bright enough to be visible in broad daylight.

Quote

How is this possible when the Earth is turned AWAY FROM THE SUN COMPLETELY at night time??
cc8e837a4219a1a5ab.jpg[/img]

This is actually perfectly consistent: Venus is currently at its maximum elongation of about 47º with the Sun. Being able to see it with the Sun well below the horizon is therefore totally expected, exactly how long depends on your latitude. Seen from Earth, Venus more or less appears to follow the Sun on the ecliptic, which means it will rise and set a few hours later than the Sun.

Quote
Now, come with all your Ad Hominem attacks on my person, since you can't attack my arguments and let's all have it.

Your arguments are invalid.

10
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 24, 2020, 11:06:15 PM »
Because maps of the whole world are not necessary.

This is very interesting: because you have no need for them, no one should ever need them nor make them? Or just be curious enough to map it for the sake of science?

Wouldn't a map of the whole world be useful to discuss the shape of the world, which is, as far as I know, the raison d'être of this forum?

11
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 23, 2020, 09:17:34 PM »

To represent all or part of the world. Do you mean a map can only be used to plan an itinerary? It's a very common use indeed, but certainly not the only one.
The only legitimate reason to use a map is to plan a trip.

Go tell, for example, weather forecasters or seismologists they have no business using a map.

Quote
Quote
A round earth is, by definition, not flat. To make a flat map of a world that's not flat, you need a transformation. This transformation is called a map projection. There are many different map projections, and which one you choose depends largely on what you want to do with it. None of them is really more wrong or more accurate than another - they are just different representations of the same thing.
Well, I would think when you guys come up with one that you guys agree upon, then it might be time for you guys to come demanding one we guys agree upon.

Has anyone "disagreed" with the Mercator projection used by Bing and Google Maps?

12
You fail to understand that there is not really a "tilt". The Moon appears exactly the way it's supposed to appear. You intuitively expect to be able to draw a straight line from the Moon to the position of the Sun in the sky, perpendicular to the terminator. But this expectation, albeit intuitive, is false. Because of perspective.
Actually, far be it from me to argue with one of my RE brethren, but actually the moon tilt illusion is, as the name suggests, an illusion.#
When you observe the effect you can stretch a piece of string from the moon, perpendicular to the terminator, and you'll see that contrary to the way it appears there is a straight line between the moon and sun

Indeed, by "straight line" I meant a line that appears straight on a 2d projection such as a photograph.

The important point being that there is no need to explain how a tilt happens, because there is no tilt - as you rightly said, it's just the illusion of a tilt.

13
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 23, 2020, 01:52:07 PM »

Please show one of the entire world.
Why?

What is a legitimate purpose of a map?

To represent all or part of the world. Do you mean a map can only be used to plan an itinerary? It's a very common use indeed, but certainly not the only one.

In our case, we want to have a representation of the world. Making a flat map of a flat Earth should be extremely easy, even trivial. You'd just have to scale down the real thing. Why isn't there a map of the flat Earth that every FE'r agrees upon then?

Quote
Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.
As if you have any

PERSONAL

idea of the shapes of any country.

You don't.

I was asking about sizes, not shapes. You can get a personal idea of the size of a country by travelling to this country.

Quote
Quote
As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth?
Yes, there are some flat earthers who don't agree on a flat earth, believing it to be concave at the edges.
No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.
As if RE agrees on a world map...

A round earth is, by definition, not flat. To make a flat map of a world that's not flat, you need a transformation. This transformation is called a map projection. There are many different map projections, and which one you choose depends largely on what you want to do with it. None of them is really more wrong or more accurate than another - they are just different representations of the same thing.

15
We already have the math with the actual RE distances.

I agree that things should not turn much to persoective. The Moon would actually turn negligibly to perspective in RE, less than 2 degrees.

So how can you get it to turn 45 degrees to perspective, without seeing different sides of the Moon's day and night?

How can a pencil or a Rubix Cube tilt to perspective without seeing different sides of it?

You flatly refuse to answer.

You fail to understand that there is not really a "tilt". The Moon appears exactly the way it's supposed to appear. You intuitively expect to be able to draw a straight line from the Moon to the position of the Sun in the sky, perpendicular to the terminator. But this expectation, albeit intuitive, is false. Because of perspective.

How could we explain a tilt when it's not there?

16
The general response to this is to claim that the physical Moon is not tilting, but that it is only the Moon's day and night that tilts to perspective. This is also incorrect, for the same reasons previously discussed, since one would have to see different parts of the Moon's day and night:



The same issue occurs. The Moon Phase diagram I provided previously shows that different observers would have to be viewing different parts of the Full Moon.

The only thing your previous diagram shows is that you have not understood the round Earth model. As previously mentioned, the Moon appears to move in the sky mostly because of the Earth's rotation, not of its own movement : it orbits the Earth in about 4 weeks. The orbit of the Moon around the Earth is what causes phases.

For example, let's say the Moon is in M1. E8 E1 and E2 see a full quarter, E3 and E7 see a Moon that is rising or setting. As the Earth spins, everyone will see the Moon rise and set - but they will all see a first quarter, only slightly fuller as time goes by and the Moon moves on its orbit. The Moon is far enough for everyone to see the same side, but the orientation will depend on the latitude.

A few days later, the Moon is in M8, and the same happens : everyone sees a waxing gibbous rise and set. Etc.

The so-called "tilt" is not involved to explain the phases. It's not even really a tilt : just the illusion of a tilt.

Quote
So, how does this work with "extreme perspective" as the answer to this?

It's still just perspective. And it only has to account for the angle of the terminator, not the phases. I'm not sure what "extreme" perspective is, or if it even means anything, or if the word "extreme" is just there for dramatic effect. Maybe this video was already mentioned, but I think it explains quite well what is going on. Perspective can play some tricks on our brains.

17
The star map will look different depending on your latitude, and include different stars. Two good sites with star maps are https://staratlas.com/ and https://www.heavens-above.com/ . You can check their accuracy by comparing the night sky at your location with the data they provide.

I wish you the best of luck in your project, but I don't see how you could make that work with a flat earth and account for the fact we see different stars at different latitudes. I'd be very curious to see the final result.

18
So you have never seen a satellite cross the night sky?  In the exact position that it is supposed to be?
I don't know about exact position, but yes I have seen a satellite cross the sky.

In case you're interested: https://www.heavens-above.com/ will give you a list of satellites you can see in the sky for any date and any given location, including the ISS. You'll know the exact time and position in the sky.

19
The Moon tilt illusion is just that - an illusion. It happens because the Sun is much further away from us than the Moon.

You can get the exact same "tilt" on a Ping-Pong ball when the Moon is visible during the day : https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-resources/what-are-the-phases-of-the-moon/

The phases of the Moon, and its apparent movement, are perfectly explained in a round earth model. As well as the apparent movement of the rest of the night sky, which is almost identical. As well as the fact that we see different stars at different latitudes. I still have to see a flat earth model that could be compatible with what we see in the skies, let alone explain it.

20
Flat Earth Theory / Re: What is agreed upon?
« on: March 20, 2020, 05:13:07 PM »
Anyone can look at the lines on their monitor and clearly see the one depicted on the landmass of Norway is bent more than the one over the ME and Africa.

They can also clearly see they do not represent a linear shape over a flat surface of an x/y plane.
Correct. Because Google Maps, as you zoom out, correctly depicts the earth as a sphere. So over longer distances you will see lines bending.
Well, you weren't using a flat map then.

Why would you try and use a non-flat map to argue with me over flat maps?

So, we're back to the original point.

If Google Maps and Bing are not flat maps, and you finally realize they're a projection of a sphere in two dimensions... Please show us an actual, and accurate, map of the flat earth.

And if possible, to get back once again to the origin of this thread - agreed upon among flat earthers. According to the FAQ of TFES, such a thing does not exist. Why would it be so hard to make a flat map of a flat earth?
Allow me to clarify.

All maps that are presented on paper and utilize linear measures for scaling are accurate.

There are plenty of accurate flat maps like this.

Please show one of the entire world.

Then compare the sizes of, say, Greenland vs Brazil, India, Australia. Or Svalbard vs Sri Lanka. Or Iceland vs Gabon. Let's see if it matches reality. If it does, let's see if there are other problems.

Quote
As far as the OP is concerned, I already answered that question.

Nearly all flat earthers agree the earth is not a globe.

Wait - have you just written that some flat earthers don't agree on the very principle of a flat earth? No wonder it will be hard to agree on a map then.

Pages: [1] 2  Next >