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 - AllAroundTheWorld

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 95  Next >
Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: October 13, 2019, 08:43:27 PM »
We already observed non-spherical celestial bodies, other than the Earth.
Interesting. So isn't that the answer to the OP then? It isn't alone. Or are these objects not in the solar system?
Can you give examples? I mean, if you're talking about asteroids then sure, for matter the form into a spherical sphere it has to be above a certain mass and a certain degree of oblateness is caused by spin. That is all to be expected. But do you have an example of a non-spherical (ignoring a certain degree of oblateness) celestial body of significant mass?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 13, 2019, 08:00:28 PM »
The Moon Tilt Illusion is proof enough for me -

We are given multiple contradicting explanations which don't really work, and appears to be predicted by EA.
I think "illusion" is the key word there. This is a genuinely interesting illusion, I've seen it myself and at first glance it does seem like the moon can't possibly be lit by the sun. But it is an illusion. All you have to do to prove that to yourself is to take a piece of string, told it tight in front of you and line it up so it forms a straight line perpendicular to the terminator on the moon and you will see that the string does indeed point at the sun. It admittedly doesn't look like it will, but it does. I have done this experiment myself. Bobby did too and showed a video of the result.
You could do this too, it would take you 5 minutes next time you see the illusion and it would clearly demonstrate that there is a straight line between the sun and moon. I see you reference this experiment on that Wiki page although I don't understand your hand waving away of it. If the terminator of the moon is not perpendicular to the direction of the sun then how could you hold a string straight between them and have it line up?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: October 13, 2019, 07:50:25 PM »
The Earth is unique amongst the celestial bodies we have good amounts of knowledge about. As a necessary consequence, it is unique within the solar system (divert your attention to the thread's subject for a moment). It may or may not be unique in a broader context. We can speculate about how likely that is until the cows come home, but in the end we simply don't know.
Yes, fine. We don't know. We have reason to believe there may be life elsewhere in the universe - from our explorations so far, which are very much in their infancy, it seems that other planets have similar features and chemistry to earth so there's no particular reason to think we're unique. There could even be life elsewhere in the solar system. If there is it's pretty certain it's microbial but you're right, right now we don't know.
But, the OP is about the shape of the earth and why that is unique in the solar system. It's much easier to determine the shape of other celestial bodies than know whether they harbour life. There is speculation there may be life on Titan, right now we don't know. But we do know it's a sphere.
So while we don't know for sure about the existence of life elsewhere, we do know for sure that all the other planets and moons we can observe elsewhere are spheres too, and we know why. Any object over a certain mass will end up as a sphere because of the way gravity acts on the material in it.
It would be a major discovery if we found life elsewhere in the universe, it would have massive philosophical implications but it wouldn't significantly change our understanding of how the universe works. If we ever found a flat planet elsewhere though it would have massive implications for the laws of physics we have come to believe are a good model for how the universe hangs together.
In FET the earth is flat just because, RET tells us why it's a sphere and why all the other celestial bodies we can observe are too.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 13, 2019, 06:58:13 PM »
Actually that link says that it works just fine on FE if light bends upwards.
What is your evidence for that effect? Because during the Bishop experiment you claim that:

23 miles away near the lighthouse. The entire beach is visible down to the water splashing upon the shore. Upon looking into the telescope I can see children running in and out of the water, splashing and playing. I can see people sun bathing at the shore and teenagers merrily throwing Frisbees to one another. I can see runners jogging along the water's edge with their dogs. From my vantage point the entire beach is visible.

So over 23 miles no bending of light is evident. Is your contention that it does bend over larger distances?
What experimental evidence do you have for that?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Distance to the Sun - Rowbothams investigation
« on: October 13, 2019, 07:48:05 AM »
Metabunk did an experiment with people in lots of different locations which demonstrated that the results make no sense on a flat earth:

I have said multiple times on here that it would be easy to calculate the distance to the sun by making observations in a few different locations and triangulating - that is effectively what is done above and shows that the results are not consistent with a flat earth. It’s telling that there has been no (as far as I know) FE attempt to do this.

These type of orbits have a typical period longer than that of earth , Kepler was 370 days I believe . I don't understand how that works too since we cannot accelerate anything to 66,000mph within the boundaries of known mechanics or keep it there - it would require constant acceleration

OK, once again you are failing to understand frames of reference. If the earth is orbiting the sun at 66,000 mph then you and the satellite and everything else are already going at that speed.
So it doesn't need to be accelerated to that speed. The bit that does make my head hurt a bit is how it keeps trailing the earth. I suspect that's a combination of the earth and the sun's gravity.
The 'n' body problem has analytical solutions, I suspect for this only the sun, earth and possibly moon have to be considered.
Asteroids are certainly not "always" missing the earth and are small enough that their gravity is almost certainly not a factor here. The other planets possibly have some impact but it's worth noting that it does have thrusters it can use to make corrections when needed.

And again, some exoplanets have been directly imaged.

I don't see what difference that makes... Kepler is not measuring anything to do with Earth. It is focusing on other stars and then it sending the data back via a radio link.  So what difference does it make what sort of orbit Kepler is in? Or indeed where abouts it is in relation to Earth? It takes 8 minutes for light to get to Earth from the Sun (OK 8.2 minutes) so even if Kepler was on the opposite tide of the Sun to Earth it would still only take 16 minutes for signals to get back to Earth from the satellite. Given the type of data Kepler is collecting, that is not important.

Do you happen to understand why such an orbit was chosen for Kepler?

Have to say, I’ve not heard of an earth trailing orbit. Obviously my reaction to this is “I wonder how that works” rather than “I don’t understand how that works therefore it doesn’t”.

We've all seen the crappy not to scale cartoons showing how the solar eclipse is supposed to work

There's a video here where explains it well. Not just diagrams, he's got some software which models it and you can see why the umbra is smaller than the moon and why there's a penumbra

never a mention of how electromagnetic radiation propagates though

Why would there be? Not really relevant.

They always miss out the lens needed to focus the shadow to a dot on earth too

It's interesting that you think shadows need to be focused but, again, watch the video.

We have not detected any exoplanets. How did Keplers satellite , in it's earth trailing orbit , manage to keep up with earths alleged angular velocity of  at 66,660 mph

You not understanding stuff is not evidence. I'm not entirely sure I understand your question, I think it's to do with the assertion that the earth and sun are moving around the galactic centre and the galaxy itself is moving? If that's your question then you need to understand about relative motion. If you jump on a plane why don't you zoom to the back of the plane? The plane is moving at a hundreds of miles an hour. The reason you don't is because so are you. The speed of the plane is also the speed you're going so when you jump that forward speed stays the same and you land back where you jumped from, assuming you jumped vertically and the plane didn't change speed. If you jumped while the plane was accelerating then you would move backwards, relative to the plane.
So, for satellites they are already rotating round the sun and moving with the sun when they launch. The only thing they need to do is orbit the earth, all the other motion is irrelevant.

It's quite easy to deduce from scientific observation/survey and measurement that our known earth is not a globe or exhibits anything consistent with the heliocentric model .

If that's quite easy then why is a heliocentric model with a spherical earth the prevailing view in science?
And I note you have failed to answer my question about the sun. If it's close then it must be much closer to you at midday when it's directly overhead than at sunrise or sunset.
Why does it stay the same size? This observation alone tells you that the sun is not close.

No one has ever seen planets orbiting other stars . We are told they exist
Incorrect. Well, if you mean seen in the sense of someone physically being there then obviously. But some exoplanets can now be directly imaged

The "spotlight sun" is evident by the 100 mile shadow cast during solar eclipse . Sunlight propagates according to the inverse square law yet casts a shadow that small - it must be near and much smaller.
The first part of that is you just not understanding how shadows and eclipses work, but if the sun is near then there must be a big difference in distance between you and the sun at sunset and noon.
Why does the sun remain the same size?

From what I understand the "spotlight sun" idea is not that the sun is a literal spotlight but that the area of light it casts on the earth is a spotlight. I think EA can be used to explain this or I think Tom goes with some perspective effect. Obviously that's not how perspective works at all but that's an explanation I have seen him advocate. And equally obviously the angular size of the sun would change throughout the day if it was close and thus the distance to it changed dramatically from sunrise to midday. Other effects have to be invented to explain that. Although strange that the sun is the only object which does that, other celestial bodies like planets do change angular size as the distance to them changes.

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: October 05, 2019, 04:14:51 PM »

How does anybody take this man seriously?

He lies like a child lies. And there’s no consequence. It’s all very bizarre. And over here we have Boris Johnson who does the same. Depressing.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: September 30, 2019, 03:08:32 PM »
Your replies show that you do not understand the model you defend , including it''s origins .
All planetary motions including retrograde motion were explained fully within Tycho Brahe's Geocentric Model
Is this the Tycho Brahe who died in 1601?
This is the trouble with cherry picking. You're picking a scientist whose theories back up your agenda but you're randomly ignoring the last FOUR HUNDRED YEARS of science,
People like like Kepler who used Tycho's data as part of his basis for his theories. Newton who explained how gravity holds it all together. And so on.
Part of Tycho's argument against heliocentric model was the lack of parallax...but that parallax does exist, it's just very small. It was first observed in 1838.
TheScientist has just pointed you to some information about a space telescope which is now able to measure this incredibly accurately.

Retrograde motion was part of the reason for Copernicus advocating a heliocentric model. You're right in that there are geocentric models which account for it but, ultimately, the heliocentric model won out as observations got more accurate and more was learned about the solar system.

Tycho Brahe formed his model knowing that there was no scientific evidence for earth rotation ,but used the assumption of a globe earth  - which led to the logical conclusion that the heavens rotated around the assumed spherical earth . This also led to the logical conclusion that the planets and stars were not at ridiculous distances or sizes.

And there's your problem, and his. He was working over 400 years ago when we didn’t have anywhere near as much knowledge about the way stuff works or as good tools or technology to make observations.

The heliocentric model requires the three still unproven assumptions of rotation , curvature  and astrocomical distances to the stars
Unproven if you ignore all the evidence, sure. But the Coriolis effect is evidence of rotation and as our good friends at Globebusters found out it can be detected with a ring-laser gyroscope.
Curvature...well, lots of ways to show this but we literally have an ISS orbiting the globe as well as a bunch of satellites taking photos of the globe earth.
As for distances. Well, we can show those from the parallax. Your personal incredulity is not evidence to the contrary.

Of the two models the Geocentric model is the better fit , less assumptions mean less pseudo science.
And yet every scientist disagrees with you.

Do some research if you are interested in real science.

Am I allowed to do any research which involves any science from later than the 17th century? Stop cherry picking the bits of science which you think back up your agenda and ignoring all the stuff which doesn't.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« on: September 30, 2019, 10:23:47 AM »
Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .

In short there is no evidence of any shortening of distance between lines of latitude as you approach the North Pole. So if Somerled has got an equatorial mount where the latitude scale is marked up differently to everyone elses to allow for what he thinks is true then it is no wonder he is getting confused!

The great astronomer Giovanni Cassini  , of the French Academy of Sciences , carried out this scientific survey across 8 degrees of latitude S to N in France in the 1670 's . Latitude decreased in length to the North by a factor of 1/800 . That's the closest thing to scientific proof of the shape of earth that I can find .

Look up that evidence .
And presumably you believe that is evidence for a flat earth?
Why, then, is that not the prevailing scientific view currently?
The trouble with you is you're cherry picking evidence which you think backs up your agenda and ignoring any which does not.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: September 28, 2019, 10:15:47 PM »
Mainstream science accepts anything , even poor experiment , which supports the fictitious solar system. the previous post you literally said "The oblate spheroid of Newton was rubbished by the scientists".
I asked for more details and said that if what you claim is true then how come the oblate sphere theory is the prevailing view and now you're just saying scientists accept anything which supports the solar system? just said that scientists didn't accept that. ???

Posting CGI of planets/sun is evidence of nothing.

Claiming without basis that the photos are CGI isn't evidence either. It's a baseless claim. If you have evidence of fakery then please present it.

The planets and our moon do not exhibit the reflective properties of spherical objects (scattering of light resulting in a hotspot) lit from a distant source
A hotspot is a property of light reflected from a smooth curved surface. No-one is claiming the moon's surface is smooth.
Here's a photo I took of the moon.

As you can see, I don't have any fancy equipment, just a relatively cheap digital camera with a 16x optical zoom.
Even with that though you can see that the moon is being illuminated by a light source. The phase and the shadows on the craters show that.
Why would a self-illuminating object have phases? How would the shadows be cast like that?
The phases, shadows and the way those shadows change as the phase (and therefore angle between the earth, moon and sun) changes demonstrate the moon is being illuminated.

The outer planets exhibit no characteristics suggestive of reflection from a sphere lit by a distant sun
Yes they do. Shadows cast on them.

Inner planets are small moons of the local sun (Brahe)
The solar system model was introduced without any supporting evidence . A fact which is always ignored.
Well, no it wasn't. The evidence was the retrograde motion of the planets. That is best explained by a heliocentric model with us and the other planets orbiting the sun.
And it's ironic you say that it was introduced without supporting evidence when your claim about the inner planets and a local sun is presented without any supporting evidence. If you have any evidence to back up that claim then please present it.

Researching subjects yourself is the best way to form your own views.

Given your views that is patently not the case. You seem to overestimate your ability to understand this stuff.
There has to be a sensible middle ground between blind acceptance and thinking you can research and understand everything yourself.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: September 28, 2019, 09:37:23 AM »
The oblate spheroid of Newton was rubbished by the scientists that carried out the first test of Newtons theory of gravity - 1670's survey of arc of meridian across France carried out by the French academy of Sciences , led by Giovanni Cassini.
I see. Please provide more details. If it's been rubbished then how come that remains the prevailing scientific view?

Also ,seeing a round sun and planets is not the same as seeing spheres.

Correct, I guess they could be flat discs. But given the phases we observe of the planets and the way sunspots and other features move across the sun's surface it's clear they're spheres. There's only one 3D shape which appears as a circle (or part thereof, if it's partially lit) from any angle and that's a sphere.
How do you think moons orbit the other planets if it's not for them all being spheres and gravity?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: September 27, 2019, 06:45:05 PM »
It’s not just that the earth and all the other celestial bodies above a certain mass we observe are spherical, or roughly so.
Gravity explains why that is so and we understand the oblateness caused by the earth’s spin.
In FET there’s no explanation for why the earth is flat and the other bodies we observe are round, it just is. The earth is special and different for some reason.

I can understand that from the people who come to FET through a skewed interpretation of certain Bible verses. Of course people like that would think the earth is special and different. Not sure why anyone who doesn’t come to FET from that angle would think that though as the evidence mounts up that we are a pretty unremarkable planet orbiting a pretty unremarkable star in an unremarkable galaxy.

With my Christian hat on I’d say our significance comes from who the Bible says we are, not where we are.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: September 27, 2019, 12:55:33 PM »
But the Earth is rather unique even within the context of RET. How come you believe reports of all other celestial bodies in the solar system being entirely lifeless, but you somehow think there might be life on Earth?
I've seen this said before, maybe by you, I can't remember.
I completely disagree with this assertion. Earth is, admittedly, the only place we know of where life exists but
a) We have a very small sample set of planets to check, compared to the scale of the universe.
b) Our exploration of them is in its infancy, relatively speaking.

We've sent probes to all the other planets in our solar system now but only landed on 2 of them. We've never sent humans to any of them. We can be pretty confident there's no intelligent life anywhere else in the solar system (the word "else" is possibly superfluous  ;)) but could there be microbial life on one of the planets or moons? There are a few potential candidates and we've only just started scratching the surface in terms of exploration. It's only in the last 50 years we've had the technology to start exploring them and because of the distances and complexities involved we are very much at the start of that exploration.

Could there be life or even intelligent life elsewhere? We now have the technology to detect exoplanets but that is even newer than our ability to explore the planets in our own solar system. We are starting to discover planets in the so-called Goldilocks zone, we're able to pick up signatures from the atmospheres of other planets which hint at liquid water on some of them. From what we know about life on earth water is a prerequisite but, again, we only have a very small sample of planets to study the conditions which make life possible. It's a big universe. So big that some people believe that intelligent life is inevitable elsewhere. The fact is, we honestly don't know.

Our mentality that our planet is special or unique or has some privileged position in the universe is based on the fact that for most of our history we didn't have the technology to know different. It wasn't until the middle ages we realised that we weren't at the centre of the universe. It's only the last 50 years we've been able to start exploring the other planets and only in the last 30 we've started to be able to detect exoplanets (I'm surprised it's that long, according to Google the first one was discovered in 1988, it's certainly only recently we've started discover them in volume and be able to infer details of their atmospheres from spectroscopy).

In lots of ways there is nothing special about the earth. From our explorations of the other plants so far it looks like many of the same features found on earth are present on the other planets. They have volcanos and seismic activity, mountains and valleys. We think there are oceans on some of the moons. Mars has ice water and some of the features are highly suggestive on liquid water flowing at some point in the past. Did life ever exist there? Does it exist in any form now? We're so new to the exploration of it, relatively speaking, it's impossible to be sure.

The assertion that the earth is unique comes from religious belief or the limits of our scientific knowledge. Currently there is no reason to think there is anything special about the earth. It's possible we are the only planet in the universe with intelligent life on but the more we understand about other planets in our solar system and the similarities we see, the more we understand the scale of the universe and the prevalence of planets orbiting other stars the more plausible it seems that there's nothing special about our place in the universe and nothing unique about the earth at all.

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: September 26, 2019, 03:09:42 PM »
The point is blindingly obvious to those who can see .
OK, well humour me.
What is your point?

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why earth alone is flat in the solar system?
« on: September 26, 2019, 10:20:13 AM »
Why do you think earth alone is flat? Why do you believe the pictures of other planets, but not earth? Do you not realise that the concepts with LOT OF APPLICATIONS like conservation of angular momentum, newtons third law and lot others are completely against the disc structure of earth.

Who can argue against photographic evidence - like this one
Are you making a point? Humans are famously good at seeing shapes or patterns in meanlingless noise.

The "Face on Mars" thing which for a while got people excited that ancient Martian communities had build the structure.

Subsequent better quality images show it looks nothing like a face

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Spirit Levels on a Flat Earth
« on: September 22, 2019, 01:32:34 PM »
If level means equal gravitational pull and unlevel means unequal gravitational pull, there is a difference in the level of gravitational pull between level and unlevel.
Indeed. If that’s what level means.
But that isn’t what level means.
You should know this.
You defined level correctly yourself above:

Level is when all points are normal to the direction of gravity across its length

Yes. That’s what level means. Changing the orientation of something which is level doesn’t mean the gravitational force becomes unequal, it just means the direction of the force is different. Still equal across the object, still the same magnitude as when the object was level just in a different direction, no longer normal to the object.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 95  Next >