dichotomy

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2019, 07:32:11 PM »
Google renders the Earth as a globe for one reason and one reason only. Because the Earth is a globe. The flat Earth theorists can think what they like about this and dispute it for ever more if they wish to but they cannot change what is true. Argue it and protest about it all you wish.

Google is not the only search engine that renders the Earth as a globe. All the others do as well.  Can anyone point me to a link which presents a map of the real world as a flat plane?

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #41 on: September 13, 2019, 10:45:12 AM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.

Exactly.  The standard around here is this

If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.
The evidence is the earth, when viewed by every human on the earth, looks flat.

That is evidence, no two ways about it.

I have made no claim without evidence.

You can verify the evidence yourself.

Open your eyes, look out your window.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #42 on: September 13, 2019, 10:48:42 AM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #43 on: September 13, 2019, 10:53:44 AM »
The evidence is the earth, when viewed by every human on the earth, looks flat.

Not the humans in the ISS. But you said on the earth so yes, from the ground yes it looks flat.
Here is why using that observation alone is not sufficient for determining the shape of the earth:



Are basketballs flat?
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #44 on: September 13, 2019, 04:34:43 PM »
Quote
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!

Really? The size of a human compared to the size of the Earth is a bit like comparing a microbe sitting on the surface of a snooker ball.  You can see with your own eyes that the snooker ball is spherical but it won't seem to be from the point of view of the microbe. To them it will seem to be flat.

So hypothetically speaking, if you got a chance to go up into orbit as a space tourist and you saw the world was round with your own two eyes (just as every other astronaut has) would you then accept that it actually is?
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 10:12:42 AM by Midnightsun »

Offline obiba

  • *
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #45 on: September 13, 2019, 05:00:56 PM »
Under the Sun section of FE Wiki it says..

Quote
The Sun is a revolving sphere. It has a diameter of 32 miles and is located approximately 3000 miles above the surface of the Earth.

That is just a statement.  How have these values been reached?

Given that we can now study the Sun in a lot of detail and have several satellites continually scanning the Sun at wavelengths right across the spectrum, figures like these are simply ridiculous. The Suns distance is well known to science now and has been measured to a high degree of accuracy. To so suddenly to make a claim that the Suns distance is only 3000 miles away without a very good explanation as to why you think that is unjustified.

I think that most of the old experiments should be redone because they are maybe lies

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #46 on: September 13, 2019, 08:59:00 PM »
I don't think lies is the right word. Old experiments were done as well as they could be with the equipment and knowledge that people had available to them at the time. That's why the results of experiments change and improve with time. You wouldn't expect the ancient Greeks to get as accurate results as we do today.  The methods were sound enough and the results they got offered hints and insights into the figures and proportions that we get today.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #47 on: September 14, 2019, 03:05:19 AM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Have you ever heard of Gravity Hills...where it looks like cars and balls and water will roll up hill?

 They are optical illusions and the slope that looks like it is going up, is actually going down.

Your eyes can play some pretty wicked tricks on you.



*

Offline J-Man

  • *
  • Posts: 546
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #48 on: September 14, 2019, 01:50:25 PM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Have you ever heard of Gravity Hills...where it looks like cars and balls and water will roll up hill?

 They are optical illusions and the slope that looks like it is going up, is actually going down.

Your eyes can play some pretty wicked tricks on you.

This is trickery or deception, what Satan is a pro at, like science know it alls. Remember God created man in his image. In other words God doesn't Mess up, his creations are perfect with the exception of the ability to be deceived by the great deceiver Satan. When one looks at these illusions the perfect brain knows something is wrong and doesn't except the deception. Just like the fake astro Nutz who continue to fight in their simulated weightlessness, the head always trying to find up. That's the perfect body working and they must fight the obvious, so when someone knows the earth is flat because it not only looks flat, it's perfectly built.....IT IS !
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 01:56:22 PM by J-Man »
What kind of person would devote endless hours posting scientific facts trying to correct the few retards who believe in the FE? I slay shitty little demons.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #49 on: September 14, 2019, 03:43:23 PM »
There is a straight forward way , in principle , of deducing the shape of earth based on the proven method of trigonometric survey , triangulation . No assumptions are required - it is based on the observation that the only motionless object in the sky is the pole star , Polaris .

There is no assumption of a rotating or stationary earth in this test .

Survey northward a meridian of longitude from around 40 degrees north . Take regular readings of latitude noting the surveyed distance during the northward progression .

If the earth is a perfect sphere then if degrees of latitude will be equally spaced if the pole star is of sufficient distance that its light rays are parallel ( globe model ) .

If earth is an oblate sphere , Newtonian model , then degrees of latitude will lengthen to the North and again this suggests a distant pole star.

If earth is flat then degrees of latitude will shorten to the North and the pole star must be close since it is at true north where ever we view it from in the North.

It is limited by atmospheric conditions in how far you can survey and still see the pole star but will produce results which will enable a test of the shape of the land up to the point where we lose sight of this star.

This removes the problem of triangulation involving moving objects - the pole star is always stationary and rotation of earth , or not , is of no consequence .

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2019, 03:54:42 PM »
I have read several times through Somerleds post above but I still can't get it to make any sense.  Someone  please help me out here!  What does the distance of Polaris have to do with how lines of latitude are spread out on Earth?

There is a reason why the angular elevation (altitude) of Polaris over the horizon is equivalent to the observers latitude. From where I am for example, I set my telescope mount to 51.5D north and that places Polaris just off the centre of the FOV of my polar alignment finderscope. The polar alignment scope has a cross at the centre which marks the NCP and then a circle around that cross which is the path that Polaris traces around it.  I then use a simple piece of software to determine the position angle of Polaris relative to the NCP. If you were at the north pole an equatorial mount would effectively become an alt-az mount because Polaris would be (almost) directly overhead.  If I were at the equator I would set my latitude scale to zero degrees because Polaris would be resting on the north horizon. All the degree markings on my mount from zero to 90 degrees are all equally separated just like on a protractor.  What does that tell you?  It tells me that we should opt for this one...

Quote
If the earth is a perfect sphere then if degrees of latitude will be equally spaced if the pole star is of sufficient distance that its light rays are parallel ( globe model ) .

Actually, now the previous post does make a bit of sense now - at least this option does anyway.  Although there is a 43km difference between the equatorial and polar diameters (polar being the lesser) so is not a perfect sphere. Just very near perfect.

Quote
it is based on the observation that the only motionless object in the sky is the pole star , Polaris .

Incorrect - if you look at a photo of star trails centred on the North Celestial Pole you will notice that Polaris traces out a small circle.  That's because Polaris is located around 40' away from the actual NCP. Or just over the apparent diameter of the full Moon. So Polaris is not truly motionless.  There is no naked eye star actually marking the NCP itself.

Also Polaris is a classic Cepheid variable star so we can tell its distance simply from measuring its period of variability.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2019, 10:55:55 PM by Midnightsun »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #51 on: September 16, 2019, 09:41:22 AM »
If you think that Polaris traces out a tiny circle in the sky then it would not be a problem to adjust any calculations to include that .

If you believe there is a 43 km difference between the polar and equitorial axis of the supposed oblate spheroid then this will be picked up by observation in the survey of latitude outlined in the earlier post.

No need to use the theory of Cepheid variables to give a theoretic distance to any star .

The point of this experiment is to determine which shape fits the observations of latitude characteristics observed by scientific observation .

The shape of earth will reveal itself .

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #52 on: September 16, 2019, 11:11:58 AM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Have you ever heard of Gravity Hills...where it looks like cars and balls and water will roll up hill?

 They are optical illusions and the slope that looks like it is going up, is actually going down.

Your eyes can play some pretty wicked tricks on you.
They sure can.

But flat is not a slope.

Offline ChrisTP

  • *
  • Posts: 416
    • View Profile
Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #53 on: September 16, 2019, 01:10:17 PM »
Quote
And we are on a flat earth plane.

Really... how do you know?  What is your evidence that shows you the Earth is flat and not a sphere?  And simply saying it looks flat is not evidence that it really is flat.
Of course it is evidence of being flat!

There is no better evidence than seeing something for yourself with your own two eyes!
Have you ever heard of Gravity Hills...where it looks like cars and balls and water will roll up hill?

 They are optical illusions and the slope that looks like it is going up, is actually going down.

Your eyes can play some pretty wicked tricks on you.
They sure can.

But flat is not a slope.
But a big enough curve can look flat to the naked eye. (also slopes can be flat too)
« Last Edit: September 16, 2019, 01:12:01 PM by ChrisTP »
Tom is wrong most of the time. Hardly big news, don't you think?

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #54 on: September 16, 2019, 02:12:41 PM »
Quote
No need to use the theory of Cepheid variables to give a theoretic distance to any star

Why is that then? Not entirely sure what you mean by 'theoretic' distance because there are several ways of measuring the distances of stars now. The use of brightness curves for Cepheids is just one and that has become so reliable that they are known as 'standard candles'.  Polaris is such a cepheid so it I don't see how you would dismiss the use of Polaris' brightness curve as a means of measuring its distance. It deals with observations of physical properties of the star so it could hardly be described as 'theoretic'.

Quote
The point of this experiment is to determine which shape fits the observations of latitude characteristics observed by scientific observation.

I know what the point of the experiment is.  The observations I have made compare most closely with what you describe the latitude characteristics would be if the Earth is a (near) perfect sphere.

Quote
The shape of earth will reveal itself .

And indeed it did with the first flights into space.  If you ever get the chance to go into space then you will see it for yourself.

« Last Edit: September 16, 2019, 08:07:20 PM by Midnightsun »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2019, 09:30:22 AM »
The use of theory of Cepheid variables to measure the theoretic enormous distances to stars to allow you to say everything is correct and agrees with the theory of earth  as a globe , is a circular argument .
         
Celestial latitudes are not terrestrial latitudes . They show the positions of the stars in the vault of the sky . They do not change which is why , despite the whole theoretic spinning expanding never stationary cosmos , simple programs can predict exactly where and when,  the stars will be year after year , century after century .

Terrestrial latitudes are taken from Polaris . NCP being directly above terrestial North pole - since it is at ,or near enough according to some ,the centre of rotation of the vault of the heavens . Easy to observe and triangulate with good optical instruments and independent of any programme or given tables based on any theoretic shape of earth .

      I would be extremely interested in any results of observations you have made along with details of methods and instruments etc.

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2019, 11:13:33 AM »
Why is the theory of Cepheid variables a 'circular argument' as you put it? How does the shape of the Earth affect the apparent or actual brightness of stars?

What you call celestial latitude is actually called declination. We can take terrestrial latitude and project it onto the sky. Thus, as you say the NCP represents 90N declination and would be directly overhead if you were standing at the North Pole. Conversely if you were standing at the equator then the east-west line will be the celestial equator. If you were located at say 45N then a star which has a declination of 45N will pass through your local zenith. Declination figures do not change because the celestial 'sphere' appears to be spinning (it is the Earth actually spinning of course) and the stars remain fixed over short periods of time in position on that sphere.  A slight change in position of the stars does occur over a time scale of centuries due to proper motion.  That's why you get star positions quoted for Epoch 1950, 2000 2019 etc depending on when they were measured.  Nortons Star Atlas for example was correct for Epoch 1950 but Wil Tirions Uranometria 2000 is correct - not surprisingly - for Epoch 2000 positions.

So I agree with you that the NCP is directly above the terrestrial north pole.  If you check the declination of Polaris you will find it is not exactly 90N but 89d 15m north. That is not a massive amount and is 'near enough' for aligning telescope mounts for visual use but not for imaging.  I understand that your belief system about the nature of the Earth and the Universe as a whole for that matter is clearly and significantly different to mine. I sense that you are one of those who won't believe something that you cannot directly observe your self or test out yourself.  I don't personally agree with that approach as there are many things which I cannot directly 'prove' to myself but I know are true and genuine.

The correlation between the period and the luminosity in Cepheid variables was noticed before the distance to them was worked out.  What was needed was a method of calibration. Once the distance to one Cepheid was determined by method of parallax and its period and luminosity known, that opened the box so to speak and it allowed the distances of other Cepheid variables to be measured by direct comparison.  As long as we can see a Cepheid variable, whether in our galaxy or beyond and determine its brightness curve, we can now calculate its distance.  Because we are only taking account of physical features of a star, the relationship will work regardless of what shape the Earth is.  We have observed Cepheids in our own Galaxy which we have been able to determine are just a few hundred light years away and we have observed Cepheids in other galaxies which we have similarly identified are millions of light years away. Hence we know that the Milky Way is just one of billions of other galaxies. FE theory on the whole seems to be very vague on how far away it thinks the stars are and the reasons why it takes that view.

I haven't done any accurate photometry myself but I could easily do so with the equipmemt I have. That would enable be to do some distance calculations myself.  Happy to list that for you if you're interested.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2019, 08:43:49 PM by Midnightsun »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #57 on: September 17, 2019, 08:53:04 PM »
Celestial latitude is just known as celestial latitude .

Who brought the brightness of stars into the debate ? It adds nothing .
 
Of course I can't accept your view the earth is spinning - where is the scientific experimental proof ?

If you can't grasp the significance of the survey of latitude to the Pole star , and what it tells you about the shape of the land across the survey , then you don't know the model you defend .

It is a simple test/experiment based on proven geometric principles and can be carried out with precision engineered optical and measuring equipment . No theory required .






         

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #58 on: September 17, 2019, 10:22:57 PM »
Quote
Celestial latitude is just known as celestial latitude .

What you call celestial latitude is what I call declination.

Quote
Who brought the brightness of stars into the debate ? It adds nothing .

You were asking about a method of determining the distance of Polaris from Earth. Polaris is a classical cepheid so it follows that the brightness curve allows us to determine its luminosity and therefore its distance. The Cepheid law uses a method which is completely independent of the shape of Earth. So I would disagree that it 'adds nothing'.  Rather it provides information based on observational evidence. You dismiss the Cepheid variable approach because it provides a result that you don't want to agree with. Instead you are looking for an experiment or method that does provide you with the answer or 'proof' that you are looking for.

Quote
If you can't grasp the significance of the survey of latitude to the Pole star , and what it tells you about the shape of the land across the survey , then you don't know the model you defend .

I'm not defending any model. I'm just trying to discuss something with you. If you are not interesting in listening to what I'm saying (because you don't want to believe it) then just say so and I won't waste any more time with you on it. Discussing things means taking into account and respecting both points of view. So far it seems you are only respecting your own point of view.

In a few thousand years Polaris won't be anywhere near the NCP any more so we will have to designate a different star to perform your latitude experiment with.  But since that will be well after both yours and my lifetime you will probably regard that as irrelevant.

Reading back I can see two intriguing comments that you have made...

Quote
We know nothing about the stars - we have theory only .

I have two scopes of my own and access to three more . I think now that these are just microscopes use to observe the nearby vault of the sky . The stars are in the same place now as they were 50 yrs ago .

We actually know a lot more about the stars now that we did say a century and a half ago. Spectroscopy is now a well established branch of astronomy and I can easily create my own HR diagram using the equipment I have in my back garden. You can see spectral lines in stars directly so how is that theory only?  I guess we only accept something if it tells you what you want to hear.  We can match the positions of spectral absorption lines in stars with the positions of emission lines we observe from gas tubes in a lab. Direct correlation so it doesn't take a lot of genius to work out that the spectral lines in stars are caused by gases absorbing light. Equally we can use redshift to measure how far way celestial bodies are.  So your claims about the ridiculously large distances predicted by RE or globe theory don't seem to be quite so ridiculous after all.  Trust me, I know what I'm talking about on this subject.

Secondly I also have a couple of telescopes...well nine actually. All used for specific purposes including two specialised solar telescopes. What do you use your telescopes/microscopes for? If you are trying to use microscopes for astronomy then you are not going to see much, I can promise you that!
« Last Edit: Today at 07:28:31 AM by Midnightsun »

Re: Size/distance of Sun
« Reply #59 on: Today at 10:51:05 AM »
You cannot see emission/absorption lines directly , you use a spectrometer for that . Do you seriously believe light travels all those silly distances without absorption and re-emission .

I'd say all star emmission lines are just the result of passing through various gases in the upper atmosphere. Red shift is just phase difference in lightwave length/frequency -another use of theory to produce theoretical distance that's all.

I have outlined an experiment that uses no assumptions or theory - just proven geometric techniques . This experiment frightens globe defenders .

I can only trust you to deflect from that straightforward point.





 

Telescopes/microscopes - different focal length and lens size .