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 - JHelzer

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >
You pointed out a small date and time where you think the stars will be visible simultaneously.

You then assume that you are correct that those stars can be seen simultaneously.

You then ask us to come up with a different explanation because you are going to go ahead and assume that your assumption is correct.

Do you see a flaw there?

Using Tom's answer as a starting place the wiki answer could be changed as follows:
Q. How can two people on opposite sides of the earth in Australia and South America both see the same South Pole Stars simultaneously?
A. The stars in the night sky are only visible simultaneously in these locations during a few months of the year.  In those conditions it is questioned whether it is the case that the observers actually see the same stars simultaneously.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: January 14, 2021, 03:43:09 PM »
I think you're all being somewhat sidetracked...

there is no possible amount of distortion (or indeed 'perspective effects') that can explain...

Its my understanding that people in northern latitudes see a different set of stars then people in the south.

Yes.  Some stars and constellations (Ursa Minor) are visible only in northern locations, some stars and constellations (Southern Cross) are visible only in southern locations, and some stars and constellations (Orion) are visible to both northern and southern locations.

Circumpolar constellations like Ursa Minor and Southern Cross can be seen year round, while equatorial constellations like Orion are seasonal.

With all of this information about viewing stars so well established, why does the wiki say things like "It is questioned whether it is the case" and "it may be that they see stars alternately"? It is known that "it is the case" and it is known that there are times and seasons that stars are seen simultaneously.

I enjoy Flat Earth Theory, and I enjoy good arguments about it, but this particular entry in the wiki, needs to be revised.  It is not a good flat earth explanation.

Many thanks for the additional support for the need to change the answer in the wiki. The underlined wording below is what I am suggesting needs to be changed.

A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.

Does the Flat Earth Community have any suggestions for a better answer?  Perhaps something about the bipolar FE model would be a better direction.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: January 12, 2021, 01:35:51 PM »
By volume, dry air contains 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.04% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.[8] Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1% at sea level, and 0.4% over the entire atmosphere.

A cup with 0.4% water in it is not “full” of water.

Flat Earth Community / Re: Question about the stars.
« on: January 11, 2021, 02:05:47 PM »
It just so happens the air above our heads is full of water and sand.

No. The air above us is full of nitrogen atoms. It has trace amounts of dust and water.  The air around us, in the lower atmolayer has more dust and water vapor, but when it is “full” of those (storms), we can’t see through it.

I do see the flaw you are talking about.  I did not mean to discuss the assumption that the same stars can be seen.  I specifically want to talk about the answer which states that there may not be the opportunity of darkness to view the stars simultaneously.  I don't like that part of the answer because it is known that there are times when the sky is sufficiently dark to see stars at the locations mentioned in the wiki answer.

Here is the data I used.  Hopefully there are no errors in my math.

LocationDateNautical TwilightUTC Conversion
Cape Town, South AfricaJune 14, 20206:42pm - 6:50am20:42 - 08:50
Melbourne, AustraliaJune 14, 20206:09pm - 6:31am05:09 - 17:31

This data demonstrates that in June from UTC 05:09 to 08:50 (3 hr 41 min) there is darkness in both locations sufficient to see stars.

Flat Earth Projects / Wiki Update Request - Southern Celestial Rotation
« on: January 05, 2021, 07:11:43 PM »
The page has the following question and answer
Q. How can two people on opposite sides of the earth in Australia and South America both see the same South Pole Stars simultaneously?
A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.

Can we discuss a better answer?  During the weeks surrounding the solstice in December this answer is true and works great, but in June the hours of darkness on the southern coast of Australia and South America are lengthened to the point that they do indeed have simultaneous viewing of the same stars.  I used to compare the nautical twilight hours in Cape Town, South Africa to Melbourne, Australia on June 14th, 2020 and there are over 3 hours of simultaneous night time viewing at those locations.

What would be a better answer to this question?

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: space balloon test near the south pole?
« on: January 05, 2021, 04:35:07 PM »
reer, your post was labeled misleading because you said this...
... according to FEers, you cannot get to the South Pole. Nobody can scale the wall of ice that blocks access to people, caterpillar trucks and, yes, airplanes...

This statement is your personal commentary on flat earth theory and is not consistent with generally accepted FET. The wiki page you referred to in a later comment states the following.

Quote from: wiki
To our knowledge, no one has been very far past the ice wall
To say "nobody can scale the wall" and attribute it to FEers, is misleading.

I have been away for so long.  It's nice to see that nothing has changed.  Hyperfocus on technical tangents instead of answering real questions is still in fashion.

The video does not look like an animation or a model.  It looks real.  This is a SpaceX animation and it looks fake because of the perfect, smooth camera framing, and false lighting effects.  It lacks texture detail, etc.  The video posted by the OP is sped up, but it is real footage.

Flat Earth Community / Re: A Question From a Round-Earther
« on: December 24, 2020, 07:45:19 PM »
If the earth really is rising up, then are celestial bodies like the sun, stars, moon etc also rising up?

Yes. They must be. The earth, sun, moon & stars are all affected by the universal  attractor so they all accelerate together.

Flat Earth Community / Euler Spiral Map
« on: November 14, 2018, 08:45:38 PM »
We are always looking for a better map.  Take a look at this...

We have solid state drives.  No magnets, no disks, no motors, no moving parts.  The computer I am typing this on uses SSD.  The whole computer actually has no moving parts.  Amazing.

I watched the cupola segment again.
It doesn't look like a ball, it looks like a disc.
The vanishing point of the horizon will always look like a circle.

Let's assume UA is the reason this video works. Why, then, does the lady talk about playing a game of figuring out where on earth they are flying over? Doesn't this imply they are orbiting and going around the earth?
All objects outside of Earth’s UA shielding (ie the sun, the moon) fly over different parts of the Earth.  It does not imply that they are orbiting, it implies that they are flying over different parts of the Earth.

Flat Earth Community / Re: RE believers - why are you here?
« on: August 03, 2018, 10:00:33 PM »
I'm here for a serious discussion to challenge the flat earth myth.
As an evidence-based scientist, many might disagree with me.
I totally get this from panicp.  With 14 posts I can see that this is true.  Keep up the good work panicp!

For me, having become aware that this was a thing, it was initially curiosity about how anyone could possibly believe this sort of thing. Found this place, followed some of the threads with interest/exasperation. In the end I signed up. I think there's a principle that things like this should not be left unchallenged.
Really?  I don't believe it. 1,145 posts!  How is it possible you're still here with an answer like this?  This answer is good for about 80 posts.  1,145 posts?  My friend, you've seen everything there is to see here 10 times over.  Why are you still here?

Flat Earth Community / Re: Is FET Dangerous?
« on: August 03, 2018, 08:32:04 PM »
Seems pretty dangerous for Mad Mike Hughes and his steam rocket.
Both RET and FET have produced people strapping themselves into rockets.

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: satellite hoax
« on: August 03, 2018, 08:06:05 PM »
Here is a really cool video about the International Space Station.
There is another recent topic dedicated to discussing that video here.

I have seen the space shuttle land at Edwards Airforce Base and tracked it at night with my naked eye as it approached the ISS.  Both were very cool opportunities.
I see no reason why man-made low earth objects can't exist in FET.   

Flat Earth Investigations / Re: It's not all about NASA
« on: August 01, 2018, 05:57:30 AM »
Would you care to elaborate on what "very reasons for existence" you believe that NASA fabricated?

From the wiki...
There is no Flat Earth Conspiracy. NASA is not hiding the shape of the earth from anyone. The purpose of NASA is not to 'hide the shape of the earth' or 'trick people into thinking it's round' or anything of the sort.

There is a Space Travel Conspiracy. The purpose of NASA is to fake the concept of space travel to further America's militaristic dominance of space. That was the purpose of NASA's creation from the very start: To put ICBMs and other weapons into space (or at least appear to). The motto "Scientific exploration of new frontiers for all mankind" was nothing more than a front.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8  Next >