*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #20 on: September 29, 2019, 10:57:40 PM »
Quote
Measure of elevation of the Pole star northward along an arc of meridian will result in degrees of latitude shortening towards the pole .

Ok lets dissect that statement bit by bit. I stand in my garden and I look north. I see the Pole Star sitting pretty close to the S-N meridian line at an elevation of 51.5 degrees. From that I conclude that I am at a latitude of 51.5N and accordingly I set the latitude of my equatorial mount to 51.5N. I look through the polar scope and sure enough I see the Pole Star pretty close to the cross in the centre which marks the NCP. I set the Pole Star on the Polaris circle centred on the NCP and according to the position angle of Polaris that the Polar204 utility tells me is correct for the time I am observing.

I then travel northwards to 60N and follow exactly the same routine again and everything works fine. I continue on to 70N, 80N and finally 90N at which point my equatorial mount has now essentially become an Alt-Azimuth mount because the polar axis is now vertical with respect to the ground.  Does all that make sense BillO?
Yes, you have it right.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #21 on: September 30, 2019, 10:10:11 AM »
Quote
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 .


Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #22 on: September 30, 2019, 10:23:47 AM »
Quote
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.
If you are making your claim without evidence then we can discard it without evidence.

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

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #23 on: September 30, 2019, 11:03:37 AM »
Cherrypicking is certainly in evidence here. So is dismissing any evidence that suggests his agenda might be wrong or at best a little out of date.

He simply wants to believe a particular point of view so any and all evidence that suggests that point of view is inaccurate must be wrong or inaccurate.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #24 on: September 30, 2019, 02:06:14 PM »
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 .
Really?  By a factor of 1/800?

I'm astounded you think this would be any where near enough to account for the earth being flat.  You did not do any research or calculations on this, did you?   What Cassini actually measured was the fact that the earth is slightly oblate.

The variance in the spacing of lines of latitude varies by more than 1% from pole to equator, so yeah, taking into account the accuracy of Mr. Cassini's 17th century instruments and not knowing exactly where these measurements were taken, it does not surprise me at all that he recorded and approximate .1% variation over 8 degrees.  I'd love to see his quoted error in these observations.  Again, I ask that you provide a link to this study, or at least search criteria that would bring up some documentation regarding it.

« Last Edit: September 30, 2019, 02:12:08 PM by BillO »
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #25 on: September 30, 2019, 02:32:48 PM »
The experiment that Somerled is referring to is one which confirmed that the shape of the Earth is ellipsoid. Considering the equipment available to him I think he did very well. It strikes me as a little strange that someone who claims to be a flat Earth believer should attach so much importance to an experimemt which actually confirmed by experiment that it isn't flat.

Modern measurements bring the difference between the polar and equatorial diameters to be less than 43km so if you divide that difference around the whole surface, the divisions between latitude lines is very nearly equal.

*

Offline BillO

  • *
  • Posts: 583
  • Huh?
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #26 on: September 30, 2019, 03:04:26 PM »
Modern measurements bring the difference between the polar and equatorial diameters to be less than 43km so if you divide that difference around the whole surface, the divisions between latitude lines is very nearly equal.
I get what you're saying, but it's really not that simple.  Have a quick look at the wikipedia article on latitude.  It's pretty good.

Distance between latitudes:
At or near the poles - 110.57km
At or near the equator - 111.70km

Total variance: 1.13km or 1.02%  (+/- 0.01%) or about 12.5m of change in variance per degree, but this is not consistent throughout the arc being worst near the 45 degree point.  (right about where France is)

But we're arguing minutia at this point.  My fault.
Here a quack, there a quack, everywhere a quack quack.

TheScientist

Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #27 on: September 30, 2019, 03:41:21 PM »
Yes if you want to split the thinnest of hairs then we can talk about a very slight variation between pole and equator that is caused by the Earths oblateness. The oblateness is caused by the Earths rotation which causes night and day.. However Somerled seems to need convincing about the rotation of the Earth but I'm not prepared to go into further discussion about that.



*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #28 on: September 30, 2019, 06:56:22 PM »
Quote
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 .

Nothing about flatness. All about spheroids:

"Jacques Cassini later continued Picard's arc (Paris meridian arc) northward to Dunkirk and southward to the Spanish border. Cassini divided the measured arc into two parts, one northward from Paris, another southward. When he computed the length of a degree from both chains, he found that the length of one degree of latitude in the northern part of the chain was shorter than that in the southern part (see illustration).

Cassini's ellipsoid; Huygens' theoretical ellipsoid
This result, if correct, meant that the earth was not a sphere, but a prolate spheroid (taller than wide)."



Jacques was Giovanni’s son.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Europe
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #29 on: October 01, 2019, 09:55:31 AM »


Look up that evidence .

Nothing about flatness. All about spheroids:

"Jacques Cassini later continued Picard's arc (Paris meridian arc) northward to Dunkirk and southward to the Spanish border. Cassini divided the measured arc into two parts, one northward from Paris, another southward. When he computed the length of a degree from both chains, he found that the length of one degree of latitude in the northern part of the chain was shorter than that in the southern part (see illustration).

Cassini's ellipsoid; Huygens' theoretical ellipsoid
This result, if correct, meant that the earth was not a sphere, but a prolate spheroid (taller than wide)."



Jacques was Giovanni’s son.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_geodesy#Europe
[/quote]

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to research and point out the prolate sphere model which is based on Cassinis survey which brought the age of "enlightenment " .

Giovanni Cassini drew out a map of the known world based on his results and those of other astronomers who corroborated his findings , centred on the N pole . Drawn as a 24 foot map on the floor of the observatory at The French Academy , if I recall . Terrestial planisphere .

The first mention of prolate sphere was put forward in 1718 - after G. Cassinis death (1712)  . Still researching this though .

That uniform shortening of latitude , 1/800 , shortening Northward doesn't fit the prolate model either , although I will have to check that out and stand for correction . That ratio fits the flat earth model with measurable distance to the pole star .

Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .





*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1096
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #30 on: October 01, 2019, 08:52:45 PM »

Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .

So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat? 
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #31 on: October 02, 2019, 11:58:52 AM »

Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .

So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat?


No bias , just day to day observation and easy to test without bias . Perhaps they didn't have a need to test , they did account for perspective in their building - and the fact that their great buildings were always built
with plumb line , set square and level . All parallel vertically too . Where is there any bias ?

Eratosthenes alleged experiment could be interpreted two ways - he assumed one way based on an assumption only . That is bias . He could have checked his conclusion easy enough - maybe he did but since none of his works have survived we don't know, and the main source for his "experiment" is a book written sometime between 200bc to 200ad by a Greek astronomer , Cleomedes , whom we nothing about - not even when or where he was born .

The main part of Cleomedes' book was an attack on the Epicurean philosophy - which espoused flat earth.

Giovanni Cassini's survey proved Newton's theories to be bunkum . After he , and his son , had died , the field was clear to ignore these findings and advance the solar system model. Regarded as accepted about 1770s if I recall correctly .

An interesting book , which covers quite well the controversy is "Full Meridian of Glory" . Gives a good outline of Maupertuis' flawed 1734 survey of less than one degree which is touted as proof of the oblate Newtonian sphere . Written by an astronomer as well , P Murdin - .not a FEr .


*

Offline TomInAustin

  • *
  • Posts: 1096
  • Round Duh
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #32 on: October 02, 2019, 03:06:25 PM »

Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .

So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat?


No bias , just day to day observation and easy to test without bias .

We have day to day observations now.  Just this morning I had a meeting and used GPS to get there. Unless you are going to tell me GPS uses balloons or towers?
Nothing Guest has ever said should be taken as representative of anything other than Guest's own delusions opinions.

*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #33 on: October 02, 2019, 08:54:11 PM »

Guilty as charged ,I cherry pick all the real scientific experiment , done without bias - not much of that done these days .

So in your mind, there was no bias when everyone thought the world was flat?


No bias , just day to day observation and easy to test without bias . Perhaps they didn't have a need to test , they did account for perspective in their building - and the fact that their great buildings were always built
with plumb line , set square and level . All parallel vertically too . Where is there any bias ?

Eratosthenes alleged experiment could be interpreted two ways - he assumed one way based on an assumption only . That is bias . He could have checked his conclusion easy enough - maybe he did but since none of his works have survived we don't know, and the main source for his "experiment" is a book written sometime between 200bc to 200ad by a Greek astronomer , Cleomedes , whom we nothing about - not even when or where he was born .

The main part of Cleomedes' book was an attack on the Epicurean philosophy - which espoused flat earth.

Giovanni Cassini's survey proved Newton's theories to be bunkum . After he , and his son , had died , the field was clear to ignore these findings and advance the solar system model. Regarded as accepted about 1770s if I recall correctly .

An interesting book , which covers quite well the controversy is "Full Meridian of Glory" . Gives a good outline of Maupertuis' flawed 1734 survey of less than one degree which is touted as proof of the oblate Newtonian sphere . Written by an astronomer as well , P Murdin - .not a FEr .

Sounds like an interesting book worth a read.

I found this article compelling regarding Epicurean philosophy around ethics and the motivations for describing/deciphering (or not) the physical world. Worth a perusal.

From the article, "Atoms and flat-earth ethics"

"Why did Lucretius ignore the work of contemporary astronomers such as Hipparchus and Aristarchus, who knew that the Earth is a sphere, the stars are distant and the Sun is much larger than the Earth? It was because Lucretius wasn’t really trying to reveal the truth about the physical world. His purpose, like that of Epicurus, was ethical. Epicurean philosophy teaches that the key to happiness is to avoid pain and experience pleasure. A key source of human angst is fear of death, and what punishment might come after it, as well as the suffering that can be inflicted on us by the gods. By explaining that the Universe is wholly material and that the gods are not bothered about human beings, Epicurus tried to banish fear of the supernatural. If we think we understand how the world really works, we will no longer be afraid. It doesn’t even matter if our beliefs about nature are false. Epicurus is explicit on this point: a completely accurate physical theory is beside the point. His natural philosophy is intended only to justify his ethical belief that the wise man has nothing to fear."

https://aeon.co/essays/lucretius-the-flat-earth-and-the-malaise-of-modern-science

Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.

Offline somerled

  • *
  • Posts: 319
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #34 on: October 03, 2019, 10:24:30 AM »
There are a couple of other books out there which outline different aspects of the controversy caused by Cassinis meridian survey. The whole thing seems spread out - the book "the Mapmakers Wife" tells the story of the Peru survey , same time as Maupertuis . Again the opening chapters give the origins of the controversy . If I remember correctly this one actually mentions FE - first mention I saw of this . Both books list their academic sources but basically it was a battle between practical observation and survey v. theory - Newtonian and Copernican .

Between these books you get a good overview .

Interesting take on Epicurus and his philosophy . It usually gets the description of hedonistic applied to it - which it never was . I'm not sure but the fear of death seems to have been instilled into mankind over the centuries . It's interesting to see that many well known figures still adhere to the Epicurean philosophy . I know the atom stems from their  belief system .

Like the part about once we know the truth about how the world works we will lose our fear .

I think governments and authorities instill fear into the population now . It's their job . Control through fear.


*

Offline stack

  • *
  • Posts: 1452
    • View Profile
Re: Astronomy a Pseudoscience?
« Reply #35 on: October 03, 2019, 07:18:23 PM »
There are a couple of other books out there which outline different aspects of the controversy caused by Cassinis meridian survey. The whole thing seems spread out - the book "the Mapmakers Wife" tells the story of the Peru survey , same time as Maupertuis . Again the opening chapters give the origins of the controversy . If I remember correctly this one actually mentions FE - first mention I saw of this . Both books list their academic sources but basically it was a battle between practical observation and survey v. theory - Newtonian and Copernican .

Between these books you get a good overview .

Another book I stumbled upon that may be a good read is called "Longitude". The story about "John Harrison, an 18th-century clockmaker who created the first clock (chronometer) sufficiently accurate to be used to determine longitude at sea—an important development in navigation."

I'm going to check it out.

Interesting take on Epicurus and his philosophy . It usually gets the description of hedonistic applied to it - which it never was . I'm not sure but the fear of death seems to have been instilled into mankind over the centuries . It's interesting to see that many well known figures still adhere to the Epicurean philosophy . I know the atom stems from their  belief system .

Like the part about once we know the truth about how the world works we will lose our fear.

Interesting too how the author of the article purports sort of an interesting twist on that notion. That once we know how the world works we lose our fear but at the same time, that "knowing" doesn't actually need to be the "truth". 

I think governments and authorities instill fear into the population now . It's their job . Control through fear.

Certainly, to an extent, that's the nature of any 'authority'. It's just a matter of how far one thinks any authority extends.
Not much is known about the celestial bodies and their distances.