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 - Yamato

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >
Isn't the point here that in the video the shadowed part of the moon is on the top instead of the bottom as it would be to the observer in your diagram?

Ok, forget my first illustration.

Both the Moon and the Sun move in the same direction, so if the Moon is going down in the video, it means that it is becoming night.

The face of the Moon that is being illuminated is looking down towards the horizon, so the Sun at below the horizon and we can see its light being reflected by the Moon, so the shadowed part of the Moon is correct.

Also it is importand to know the location of the video, which the author says it is mexico. This is important because the Moon orbits roughtly around the Earth Ecuator, not from North to South, so someone in in the Equator will see the Moon in a different possition and rotation than other in Canada, respect the zenit.
For example, someone in Mexico will see the Moon pass almost above their heads, while I see in my city the Moon displaced to the west part of the firmament. Actually, where I live, i see the moon like this:

instead of

Hope this solves the problem.

When the moon is eclipsed we know that the sun, earth, and moon are completely aligned.
False. They are only completely aligned during a minute time period during totality (and then only rarely and from a very small area of observation). All the video shows is a partial eclipse. You fail.

That's why I posted this illustration:

In fact, a Selenehelion can't happen if the eclipse is from the Umbra because then the sunlight can't reach the moon.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: July 09, 2014, 08:15:45 AM »
So, my image with my nickname has more validity than a image by the NASA?

I'm surprised you even have to ask this question.

Maybe I'm part of the conspirational society? How can you know?

Several photos released by NASA say otherwise. For example, take this picture of the "Orion Nebula".

NASA has admitted to "enhancing" this photo with computers. To the naked eye, the nebula looks very dull... but after some NASA magic it suddenly looks like a tier 10 wizard spell. NASA does this with several photos. Hardly "perfectly valid".

Enhancing ≠ Modifying, in this context.

What they do, and what every astronomer does is Image Staking.

Stacked images doesn't mean "photoshoped" in the sense you mean.
I do it, and my images are as valid as what I see with my eyes, if not even more valid. The image of the Moon that I posted on the other thread, is also enhanced by stacking. I have more images, if you want them.
BTW, in the moon image I posted before, you can see the alignment marks in the borders of the image. I could cover them with black mspaint strokes, but I don't mind them to stay there.

And also use of filters to capture light from different wavelengths that your naked eye can't, so I don't understand what's wrong with it:

Something of this invalidates an image? Then you must go gack to XVI century man...

I'm not ignorant of the photo editing process. I explained what was done to the photo in my last post. I want to know what is behind the brushstrokes. Why are you avoiding the question?

Why is everyone avoiding this question?

You clearly didn't read the article by Emily Lackdawalla, otherwise, it's impossible you missed, in the second paragraph:

"you'll see the brush strokes on the night side of Dione where I painted out some misalignment in the three component images that resulted from Dione's apparent motion across Titan in the time that separated the three frames"

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: July 08, 2014, 08:43:01 PM »
I would accept a photograph of you standing next to your telescope holding a piece of paper with your username on it. Its not too much to ask. Most everyone has something capable of taking pictures.

Your sarcastic response doesn't help your case. If anything it just seems like you're pulling everyone's leg.

So, my image with my nickname has more validity than a image by the NASA?

Ok, here you go:

Now without jokes, I will take it tomorrow, today is a bit late to assemble everything.

Now I guess what showing my telescope can solve anyway.  ???



If the moon is as high as it is in the video and if the sun hasn't even risen yet until the moon is much closer to the horizon toward the end of the video, then I don't see the problem. Since there is no evidence of what is going on with the apparent position of the sun other than the fact that it looks like dawn, then what else can be said?

In the OP video is becoming night because both the Moon and Sun follow the same direction, so if the Moon is coming closer to the horizon, then the Sun is going to set or is already set. It is impossible that it is becoming day.

Maybe this is the problem why Tom Bishop doesn't understand a shit? I really don't understand...

BTW, for a Lunar eclipse, there is no need that the moon is just behind the earth in the umbra part. If the Moon is in the penumbra, it will be a partial eclipse.

I think I posted this image 10000 times already:

In the video, the Moon can be in the penumbra and we got an eclypse. Tom Bishop talks about 0.5 degrees, but 0.5 degrees of atmosferic refraction is very little and in the most optimal conditions. In normal conditions can vary significatively from 0.6 to 2, 3 or even 4.

Other than that, we don't know the exact angle in the vide, so a error of 0.5 in any estimation is a lot.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: July 08, 2014, 08:09:54 PM »
Very impressive. I would really like to see a picture of this supposed telescope you created. A work order form or receipt for all the work would also be very helpful in confirming your claims. I look forward to seeing them.

I would swear that FE'ers in this forum don't accept images as a proof...  ::)

This is my telescope:

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: July 08, 2014, 07:43:27 AM »
What did you make the telescope out of? Pre-made materials, I'm guessing?

They are made out of metal, crystal and mirrors. No plastic involved in the telescope itself.

The crystal part were designed by me and made by an artisan. The artisan doesn't know what the crystal is for. He just crafts the things according to the specifications.
The metal parts were designed by me and two other friends, and crafted by another person. The other person knew it was for a telescope, so he could tamper them, but after they were made, they were according to our calculations, so no possible tampering.
The mirrors the same as the crystal.

The whole thing was finally assembled by me and the persons who designed the metal parts.

The only premade thing that I use is the tripod, mount, motorization system, and other electronical and mecanical parts that do not interfere with the telescope performance at all. Well, I lie, the painting in the inner and outer part of the telescopes were "premade".

Thanks for answering.

Yes. They have them already. They are called kaleidoscopes.

No. The reason why a kaleidoscope can't show you stars where they want are:

- They don't have a lenses/mirrors system that comes any close to the one in a telescope
- They can't magnificate anything as a real telescope can
- They doesn't have enough apperture to let enough light to enter to allow us to see the most dimmer stars
- A telescope doesn't have any bead or thing inside to interfere the view
- They (kaleidoscopes) doesn't have enough strength to support the weight of the lenses and mirrors that any high-end telescope has before bending and breaking appart.
- They never show different sky objects in the predicted possition by the "conspirational" laws
- ...


Also, about the kaleidoscopes. Kaleidoscope technology could very easily be modified into a telescope that seemingly shows you a false night sky. There are YouTube videos all over showing you how to build one yourself.

You must be a genius to convert this

into that:

I'm sure you're missing the point, but I suspect that giving you the opportunity to play the "whack-a-mole" game is the best way for you to learn. Queue up "Yakety Sax":

Kid's logic

A = C
B = C
A ≠ B

Then A and B can't be C at the same time.

It is very easy to smash the two-pole model.

About the gravity, whatever be the case, the FE can't work (I'm working on thi now).

I aldeady demonstrated that the FE is wrong when talking about the Sun and the Moon, no mater if the moon reflects light or is self-luminiscent.
You can read my thread about how it is impossible to see the moon during night.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:53:17 PM »
Sure. I'm also coming at it an angle where we disregard EA. The point I want to make here is that even without EA, and even with moonshrimp, the observations are inconsistent with FE models.

I'm not sure what are you saying. Are you talking about the Bishop constant? Otherwise, I don't understand you.
It's not complicated. You seem to be smart enough to understand the simple things I've mentioned.

EA + sun illumination = no moon
EA + moon illumination = no moon

Those were your points

In addition I said that:

No EA + sun illumination = missing phases in some locations
No EA + moon illumination = missing phases in some locations

I agree with you. I've added to it saying that even without EA, FE predictions don't match observation. Mostly because I didn't understand your point about EA at first but now I do. So both of our contentions are basically showing that FET in regard to the moon are false.

Ah, ok, nice, I didn't understand well what you wrote. It's my english is quite bad  :-[

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: July 07, 2014, 08:48:28 PM »

Your predictions are made using the "laws" that the Conspiracy gave you. Then they tamper with the telescopes so you can't dispute the "laws".

The "laws" that  the Conspiracy gave me adapt to what my eyes can see each night and day.

I assembled my high end telescopes. Nobody could tamper them.

Someone needs to stop this.
The amount of nonsense by Sir Bishop is reaching epic heights

The astronomical refraction is about 1 minute of arc when the object observed is in a heigh far from the horizon, for example, the zenit.

When the object observed is near the horizon, the refraction can come up to 30 minutes of arc (0.5º). This is the "optimal" situation, since there are many factors than can make the refraction to change, such as pollution, humidity, and others. In a normal situation, you can estimate around 40 or 50 minutes of arc, and in worst conditions, you can expect up to 60 or 70 minutes of arc

In the video you show us, the moon seems pretty close to the horizon, the pollution is quite high, so it is perfectly possible that the moon has already been set minutes ago, so those 0.5 degrees that you think are nothing, are in fact a noticeable amount.

And if you want to know more about this:

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« on: July 07, 2014, 05:16:18 PM »
Sure. I'm also coming at it an angle where we disregard EA. The point I want to make here is that even without EA, and even with moonshrimp, the observations are inconsistent with FE models.

I'm not sure what are you saying. Are you talking about the Bishop constant? Otherwise, I don't understand you.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« on: July 07, 2014, 05:00:51 PM »

If self illuminating then some phases from some locations are never observed.


The moon phase doesn't mind here.
We are talking about the light emited by the Moon if it was self-luminous, can't reach certain parts of the earth because of the the light acceleration upwards.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:39:30 PM »
Edit: actually I think the op was saying we would never see the moon. I'm not so sure about that, but some phases in some locations would never be seen.

Sorry I saw your edit after posting my previous message:
It's clear that the Sun light NEVER reach beyond the terminator. Since the Moon is at the same height over the surface as the Sun, then the light from the Sun will never reach the Moon during night (beyond the terminator), so you can't see the moon at all, no matter full moon, or quarter or whatever.

That, if the Moon is not self-luminous.

But in case the Moon is self-luminous, the thing is wrost (read my previous answer just there up)

Flat Earth Theory / Re: The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« on: July 07, 2014, 04:35:27 PM »
Actually, some FE'ers (including the eminent Samuel Birley Rowbotham of Earth Not a Globe fame) believe that the moon is self-luminous and has no need for solar illumination.

(I edited the message to correct typos only)

Ok, let's accept then, that the Moon is self-luminous:

we have that the light bends up and becomes "invisible" for anyone, when the photons have traveled ~6300 Km from the Sun.

Because your Flat Earth is a disc instead of a sphere, we can easily calculate the maximun surface illuminated by the sun:

Where r is the radius of the illumination circle. Because the illumination circle goes from the Arctic to the Antartic, this circle has a diameter equal to the radius of the Earth: 6300 Km, we need the half of this, which is 3150 Km:

This value area is the area that the sun can illuminate at most. Everything outside this area is considered night in any FE model flavor.

Now, lets say it is full moon, so the Moon should be seen from every place that is night, i.e. everywhere that is not being illuminated by the sun.

Lets (wrongly) suppose again that the moon has a light magnitude equal to the one by the Sun, so the self-luminous moon will illuminate a surface of equal dimensions as the sun during the day (which obviously is false, but lets give the FE a huge error margin).

Now, lets calculate the total surface of the earth as a flat disk, basically a circle:

we use the same circle formula, but in this case, r is the radius of the earth:

Now, we have the total earth surface.

If we now deduct the "day" and the "night" area from the total earth area we have the next:

What this means? This means that we have an area of ~62 millions of Km^2 where not the moon, nor the sun can be seen, no matter how try you hard, but according to any observation, when it is full moon, it can be seen from anywhere during night!!!

So I don't mind if the Moon if self-luminous because we are on the same gap as before, which is the FE contradicting itself even taking different flavors of your hypothesys.

Maybe we need another Moon to illuminate that enigmatic area?

Mind giving an explanation, Sir Markjo?

Arts & Entertainment / Re: FES Book Club
« on: July 07, 2014, 02:03:05 PM »
Does manga counts as "book"?
I would say that manga with many chapters can count as a book if you stick them all together.

If so, then I finished just yesterday reading...

Sun-Ken Rock

If you have the chance to read it, do it.

Flat Earth Theory / The FE model can't have Moon during night.
« on: July 07, 2014, 11:47:34 AM »
(Message edited to correct some typos and fix a pair of issues)

Yes. You read well.

The FE model uses a light hypothesys that allows us demonstrate that the Moon can't be seen during night.

We will cover several aspects from the FE model and use several of their hypothesys.

Lets knee deep into the thing:

First, I will review what FE model says about the Day and Night cycles, and how they work, if their earth was flat:

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 sun acts like a spotlight and shines downward as it moves. The picture below illustrates how the sun moves and also how seasons work on a flat earth.

According to this, and if the earth were flat, then the sun could be seen always, even if it is night, because there would be no possible obstacle for the rays of the sun to travel to the infinite.
Because we cannot see the sun during night, the FE model proposes a solution for this.

According to the FE model, the rays of light from the Sun bend up, so they can't reach our eyes beyond the terminator.

Quoting what the FE wiki says:

Electromagnetic Accelerator
The Electromagnetic Accelerator Theory calls for light to be "bent" upwards as it travels towards the earth. The path of light is a parabolic arc. It is commonly abbreviated to EA.

Day/Night with Electromagnetic Accelerator
When the sun is too far away rays are bent in a parabolic arc before they reach earth, resulting in night time.

The Electromagnetic Accelerator (EA from now on) is compatible with the Night and Day cycles, and it even can give an explanation why the sun can't be seen from a place at night.

But, how do we can calculate the Y position of a photon while traveling?

The FE model kindly gives us a formula to calculate this:


where X and Y are the position of the photon; c the speed of light in a vacuun, and β is the Bishop constant, that gives the magnitude of the acceleration.

This formula per-se, doesn't make any sense, since in the FE model as depicted in the wiki, doesn't exist gravity as "attraction between two bodies due to their mass", and the formula talks about accelerating a ray of light, but the only way to accelerate the light is to change its relative distance from an object with mass that has gravitational force, but since the FE model the gravity is not an attraction force, then the photons can't accelerate in either direction.

There is also the Davis Model, where it is stated that the Earth do have gravitational force as everyone knows today, and it is an atraction force. In this case, there is gravitational force, so if the photons are being accelerated upwards, it means that there is a gravitational force in the firmament that is able to bend the light. The only way that a mass can bend the light, is if it's gravity is infinite (yes, like in a black hole), so in this case, the existence of the earth itself is a contradiction, because if the light is bent up by infinite gravity, then the source of gravity is close enought to attract everything that has mass and is near the source of light!!!

This, automatically invalidates the EA and everything derived from it. But since I'm not trying to demonstrate that now, lets just simply accept that the photons accelerate because they have a rocket attached to them.

In either case, the Sun illuminates from the Arctic to the Antarctic, which is a distance of ~6300 Km.
This means that a photon that starts travelling from the Sun, parallel to the earth surface, can be seen by a person that is at the same heigh as the sun (4828 Km), and at a maximun distance of ~3150 Km from the Sun.

The meaning of this is that, beyond ~3150 Km from the sun there is no light from the sun at all. Otherwise, we would be able to see the sun during the night.

According to this, when the distance from the Sun to the Moon is more than ~3150 Km, then there won't be light from the Sun reaching the Moon, so the Moon can't reflect any light from the Sun, making it invisible, and this will happen only during the night.

The logical conclussion is that the Moon, in the FE model as depicted in the wiki, can't be seen during the night because the Moon and the Sun are in the same plane of orbit, and the photons from the Sun in such plane are no longer in such plane beyond ~3150 Km.

But in fact, we see the moon during the night, making again the FE model invalid and contradictory.

Conclussion: according to all logical deductions, and using the FE model formulae, we concluded that such model is wrong again since it states that the Moon can't be seen during nightime, while the reality shows us otherwise.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Dealing with Conspiracy Theories
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:12:32 AM »
There is plenty of evidence of fraud. Consider the missing Lunar Rover tracks, for instance.

That is not evidence.
You stated that images can't be presented as a proof in this forum.

Please, show only trustable evidence.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Astronomers found a star colder than ice
« on: July 07, 2014, 09:07:58 AM »
Doesn't FE acolytes say "look out the window"?

Yes. Astronomy is not look out of the window. Telescopes can be tampered with very easily.

[youtube video]

I own several telescopes and I don't modify them. In addition, my telescopes give me views of objects that I can predict theoretically, so my telescopes are in perfect shape, not unspectedly unmodified and are consistent with all physical laws used in astronomy and optics.

But, the most important thing is: you can do "astronomy" with just your unaided eyes.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4  Next >