[SteelyBob]

Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole the angle the observer sees between the two top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.

You're absolutely right in the sense that the angle we're interested in is the apparent azimuth as far as the viewer is concerned - the azimuth angle is tilted up at the elevation angle, as if the observer was making an azimuth measurement. So yes, my diagram is something of a simplification, in that the two pairs of red lines aren't precisely comparable, but the point I'm making is that the difference is enormous, and correcting for elevation doesn't fix the problem.

Let's take an example, with one viewer at the North Pole observing a star that is 5 degrees away from the pole, so roughly 300nm laterally, and one observer at 30 degrees north, so 3600nm away. The calculation for our polar observer is simple - it's 5 degrees, whichever way he looks, and wherever the star is on its circular track. I've kept the example deliberately small so we don't stray into needing to make big corrections for EA...difficult to do as you haven't actually got a formula for it! I hope you agree that the difference from a straight line is pretty negligible at 5 degrees.

Our more southern observer requires some maths. The position is 3600nm horizontally, and displaced 5400nm vertically according to your updated number. Pythagoras gives us a direct viewing distance for Polaris of around 6500nm. The other star is roughly 300nm displaced from the pole at the same altitude (we're assuming it's at its maximum azimuthal displacement, 3 or 9 o'clock around Polaris with respect to the ground/observer). So now our 6500nm viewing line becomes the adjacent side of a new right angled triangle, the 300nm becomes the opposite. Trigonometry gives an azimuth angle of around 2.6 degrees for our distant observer (tan 2.6 = 300/6500), so roughly half the azimuth angle for our polar observer.

That's a massive difference - that means the distant observer would see elliptical movement, with the ellipse roughly twice as high as its width. That is not what we observe, is it? Do check my maths, of course...it's late.

[Trillion]

So what leads you to conclude that the 'celestial bodies' are only 6000 miles away then Tom?  I presume that you dismiss all the measurements of stellar parallax, Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae as being utter nonsense. Just because you prefer to believe in the Earth being flat.

You would rather accept some as yet undetected and non-existence and non verified phenomenon of light that you like to call electromagnetic acceleration because it sounds good and convincing to you.

[Tom Bishop]

Two points above an observer do not maintain their apparent angular displacement no matter how far they are above the observer.

If we imagine that the image you provided was a three dimensional scene starting with those stars at the same altitude as the observer, if we then increase the altitude of the stars over the observer nearest the North Pole the angle the observer sees between the two top and bottom stars would become less and less as the stars get further and further from the observer.

If, instead, we imagine that the previous image I provided is three dimensionally sliced through the center with a copy of itself on other axis like a + when viewed from overhead, creating a symmetrical three dimensional scene with four stars instead of two, we can see that the consistent angles would also work on the other axis.

You're absolutely right in the sense that the angle we're interested in is the apparent azimuth as far as the viewer is concerned - the azimuth angle is tilted up at the elevation angle, as if the observer was making an azimuth measurement. So yes, my diagram is something of a simplification, in that the two pairs of red lines aren't precisely comparable, but the point I'm making is that the difference is enormous, and correcting for elevation doesn't fix the problem.

Let's take an example, with one viewer at the North Pole observing a star that is 5 degrees away from the pole, so roughly 300nm laterally, and one observer at 30 degrees north, so 3600nm away. The calculation for our polar observer is simple - it's 5 degrees, whichever way he looks, and wherever the star is on its circular track. I've kept the example deliberately small so we don't stray into needing to make big corrections for EA...difficult to do as you haven't actually got a formula for it! I hope you agree that the difference from a straight line is pretty negligible at 5 degrees.

Our more southern observer requires some maths. The position is 3600nm horizontally, and displaced 5400nm vertically according to your updated number. Pythagoras gives us a direct viewing distance for Polaris of around 6500nm. The other star is roughly 300nm displaced from the pole at the same altitude (we're assuming it's at its maximum azimuthal displacement, 3 or 9 o'clock around Polaris with respect to the ground/observer). So now our 6500nm viewing line becomes the adjacent side of a new right angled triangle, the 300nm becomes the opposite. Trigonometry gives an azimuth angle of around 2.6 degrees for our distant observer (tan 2.6 = 300/6500), so roughly half the azimuth angle for our polar observer.

That's a massive difference - that means the distant observer would see elliptical movement, with the ellipse roughly twice as high as its width. That is not what we observe, is it? Do check my maths, of course...it's late.

I can't determine exactly what you are describing due to the usage of azimuth angle which appears unrelated to common definitions, but appears you are trying to use a straight line geometry analysis on this. You say "I've kept the example deliberately small so we don't stray into needing to make big corrections for EA" like you assume that the angles aren't constantly slightly changing if you even move your eye an inch.

So what leads you to conclude that the 'celestial bodies' are only 6000 miles away then Tom?  I presume that you dismiss all the measurements of stellar parallax, Cepheid variables and Type 1a supernovae as being utter nonsense. Just because you prefer to believe in the Earth being flat.

I gave my reasoning on the previous page: "If EA is considered, the celestial bodies are possibly about 6000 miles in altitude. Assuming that the distance from the NP to the Equator is correct, it takes about 6000 miles for the North Star to set when traveling from the NP where it is overhead to the Equator where it is on the horizon. Therefore, if EA causes bodies to descend consistently, the North Star would be an equal distance above the Earth."

Now, the bodies do not actually descend exactly consistently, and it's not exactly 6000 miles between the NP and Equator, but the point stands.

You would rather accept some as yet undetected and non-existence and non verified phenomenon of light that you like to call electromagnetic acceleration because it sounds good and convincing to you.

The Wiki provides an analysis. If EA is true then straight lines should become curved on our 'celestial sphere', which is what we experience to be the case - https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

[Trillion]

If EA is true

But it isn't true it is. There is absolutely no evidence for it. Or indeed any need for it. It is just flat Earth believers trying to make a square peg into a round hole so they can carry on believing the Earth is flat.  Your Wiki is so full of holes because you try and make what you believe seem to be true.

What we see on the celestial 'sphere' can be entirely accounted for by supposing that we live on a sphere surrounded by stars at effective infinity.  If you want to try and make it into something different (for whatever reason) then who am I to question it.

If EA is considered, the celestial bodies are possibly about 6000 miles in altitude

Well they are not. We know they are not because we have measured them in multiple different ways and shown that they are not. We've known that since the mid-19th century and GAIA has now providing a mapping of 90% of the stars in the galaxy. I know about GAIA because whether you believe me or not (and I really don't care whether you do or not) I have a friend who actually worked on the CCDs which went into GAIAs cameras. Made by UK based firm E2V.

So to suggest that the stars are only 6000 miles away is simply absurd.

[SteelyBob]

I can't determine exactly what you are describing due to the usage of azimuth angle which appears unrelated to common definitions,

I am using azimuth in the conventional sense of the term - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuth .

In this case, we are measuring the angle, at the eyes of an observer, between two stars. It's pretty straightforward.

but appears you are trying to use a straight line geometry analysis on this.

Yes, I am, because that's a completely reasonably way to analyse this problem. Unless you are now claiming that light curves laterally as well as vertically?

You say "I've kept the example deliberately small so we don't stray into needing to make big corrections for EA" like you assume that the angles aren't constantly slightly changing if you even move your eye an inch.

That just doesn't make any sense I'm afraid. The EA reference was regarding the 300nm estimate for the distance between the Polaris and a star 5 degrees away. My point was that if I had chosen a larger number, like 30 degrees, then your alleged curvature of the light rays would prevent a simple conversion of degrees to distance in nm by multiplying by 60. I wasn't talking about moving the observers eyes.

If you still don't understand where I'm coming from, then put it to bed by doing your own calculations for us. We have two stars, one overhead the North Pole at your suggested altitude of 6000nm, and one at the same altitude 300nm miles away, above say 85N 00W. The question then is what angle would an observer who is at 30N 90W see between the two stars? Show your working as they say.

It's really a simple question of perspective - as you get further away from things, the apparent angle between them reduces. Your system upends that without explanation.

[Trillion]

EA in the sense that FE keep on harking on about it doesn't exist. It doesn't need to exist because the conventional spinning globe of Earth can account for everything in the sky that we see without having to bend light in the fanciful ways that they say it does. 

EA does exist but it's meaning in conventional physics is not even slightly related to the way FE mention it. They have just borrowed the term and re-defined it to their own suiting. FE are quite good at mis-representing things to make them appear to suit what they believe. Toms recent 'confusion' between tracking and guiding in relation to equatorial mounts was a classic example.

It is now relatively easy to measure the distances of the nearest stars. Even with amateur equipment. So for Tom to even suggest, imply or whatever that the stars are only 6000 miles away is complete nonsense. If they were that near they would also have to be very small. Very small indeed. No matter what telescopes we aim at stars, they never appear as anything other than a points of light. So what does he think has been making such tiny stars shine for as long as they have been?  What would be the energy source for such tiny stars? All the Wiki tells us is that 'The stars are luminous elements'.  What does that mean?

[SteelyBob]

EA in the sense that FE keep on harking on about it doesn't exist. It doesn't need to exist because the conventional spinning globe of Earth can account for everything in the sky that we see without having to bend light in the fanciful ways that they say it does. 

EA does exist but it's meaning in conventional physics is not even slightly related to the way FE mention it. They have just borrowed the term and re-defined it to their own suiting. FE are quite good at mis-representing things to make them appear to suit what they believe. Toms recent 'confusion' between tracking and guiding in relation to equatorial mounts was a classic example.

It is now relatively easy to measure the distances of the nearest stars. Even with amateur equipment. So for Tom to even mention the stars are only 6000 miles away is nonsense. If they were that near they would also be very small. Very small indeed. No matter what telescopes we aim at stars, they never appear as anything other than a point of light. So what does he think has been making such tiny stars shine for as long as they have been?  What would be the energy source for such tiny stars?

There’s hundreds of things wrong with it. I’m just picking one thing, in this case perspective, and running with it until we reach some kind of conclusion. All your other points are of course entirely true, although I generally prefer to stick to those things that people can observe for themselves, as that seems to be the mantra of the FE community - much like the OP’s original request for simple experiment ideas.

[Trillion]

It depends on how set in your mind you are about the Earth being flat. If you are going to make that your base assertion irrespective of anything else you have then got to find a way of explaining the circular motions of the stars around both the N and the S poles. Two points on the sky which are 180 degrees apart. That's where the FE community need to bring in their EA hypothesis but to make that work they also need the stars to be much closer. We know that the stars are very distant and that immediately knocks EA off the battlefield because EA and distant stars is a combo which simply cannot work. So FE simply insist the stars are near.

We on the other hand find that if the Earth was a sphere and the stars were all at effective infinity so the light from them arrives along parallel paths then we will see exactly what we see in the night sky without having to bend light in such a way to 'make things fit'. The stars rotate in the opposite direction in the south compared to the north. Exactly as they would if two observers at the N and S poles were looking out into opposite directions in space from the surface of a spinning globe. If the stars are very big but also very distant then that also explains why we have been able to observe them for so long (because they have enough mass to produce the energy needed) yet we cannot see any physical size.

Which is the most likely correct version to you?

The FE version is so vague in its detail as to be meaningless. And that in itself should be enough to set the alarm bells ringing.

[Tom Bishop]

If you still don't understand where I'm coming from, then put it to bed by doing your own calculations for us. We have two stars, one overhead the North Pole at your suggested altitude of 6000nm, and one at the same altitude 300nm miles away, above say 85N 00W. The question then is what angle would an observer who is at 30N 90W see between the two stars? Show your working as they say.

You basically appear to be asking why the stars always maintain the same angular distance away from each other like in my previous EA diagram that I provided and want to "see workings". You have conceded that the diagram I had provided would also work in three dimensions, if it were split into a three dimensional symmetrical cross section, looking like a + from above, with four stars instead of two. So lets take one arm of a 2D scene and look at it:



It is easy to see graphically why the angular displacement would be the same for any two stars for the observers. As seen in the diagram, below a star the star is 90 degrees overhead to the observer. At the extremes of either arm of a graph the star is 0 degrees at the horizon of the observer. The stars and celestial bodies set relatively, but not exactly, consistently, meaning that the the angle of descent is spaced relatively consistently along the length of the diagram.

Take one arm (one half of a EA diagram) and overlay it with another arm. The angle you see between one star and another star will compensate to see the same angular displacement between each star, in a static scene, wherever the observer is within the light sources.



Moving Star 1 away a little bit:



This is why, in a graphical manner, this occurs.

[Tom Bishop]

But it isn't true it is. There is absolutely no evidence for it. Or indeed any need for it. It is just flat Earth believers trying to make a square peg into a round hole so they can carry on believing the Earth is flat.  Your Wiki is so full of holes because you try and make what you believe seem to be true.

What we see on the celestial 'sphere' can be entirely accounted for by supposing that we live on a sphere surrounded by stars at effective infinity.  If you want to try and make it into something different (for whatever reason) then who am I to question it.

Actually, you didn't go through the points on the page I linked or address the content in a sufficient manner - https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere

You just said that it can be "accounted for".

[Trillion]

You just said that it can be "accounted for".

Yes Tom I did say "accounted for".  In my dictionary that means 'explained', 'found', 'to find a reason for' etc etc.  Having been a keen amateur astronomer all my life I am very familiar with what the celestial sphere means in the astronomical context. It is a means by which astronomers map the sky. It forms the basis of the science of astrometry and yes I know we don't mean a literal sphere surrounding the Earth.   I don't need to refer to whatever you have put in your FE Wiki page.

If it makes you happy to believe the Earth is flat and that it is this thing called electromagnetic acceleration that makes the stars appear as they do and move as they do and that they are only 6000 miles away then I'm happy for you. Carry on believing. I have presented my case and I will be sticking to it just as I'm sure you will be sticking to yours. So lets just leave it at that shall we because otherwise we could go on for ever and get nowhere.

[SteelyBob]

You basically appear to be asking why the stars always maintain the same angular distance away from each other

Yes, that's exactly it. As Trillion rightly points out, in conventional science we explain that by pointing out that the stars are so far away that our movements around the earth are trivial in comparison. They are effectively at an infinite distance.

like in my previous EA diagram that I provided and want to "see workings". You have conceded that the diagram I had provided would also work in three dimensions,

No, not really - I agree that it would explain the vertical movement. The problem is that you have to explain the lateral aspect of the problem as well.

 if it were split into a three dimensional symmetrical cross section, looking like a + from above, with four stars instead of two. So lets take one arm of a 2D scene and look at it:



It is easy to see graphically why the angular displacement would be the same for any two stars for the observers. As seen in the diagram, below a star the star is 90 degrees overhead to the observer. At the extremes of either arm of a graph the star is 0 degrees at the horizon of the observer. The stars and celestial bodies set relatively, but not exactly, consistently, meaning that the the angle of descent is spaced relatively consistently along the length of the diagram.

Take one arm (one half of a EA diagram) and overlay it with another arm. The angle you see between one star and another star will compensate to see the same angular displacement between each star, in a static scene, wherever the observer is within the light sources.



Moving Star 1 away a little bit:



This is why, in a graphical manner, this occurs.

That's just a rehash of our earlier discussion - I'm absolutely happy with that (although I clearly disagree with the model being proposed). You need to address the azimuth angle issue. Your explanation of EA says that light bends upwards. If we accept that premise, and then model what that would mean for an observer looking at two stars some way in the distance, we would see something like this:




If that observer moves closer or further away from the stars, then it is obvious that the azimuth angle he perceives, indicated by the green dashed arc, would change. Do you disagree with my diagram?

[Tom Bishop]

Azimuth angles are not maintained. The azimuthal angle between two bodies will not be the same for two observers who view the celestial bodies from any position. Take an Azimuthal Grid Chart and take two points overhead which gives an azimuth angle of about 180 degrees separation and then try to put the two points at lower elevation angles on the chart.

[Trillion]

For any single observer at a given point, the azimuth (and altitude) of a star will be continuously changing with time. That is why star (or planet or comet) positions are given by their equatorial (RA, Dec) coordinates because they are relative to two fixed points on the sky (the 1st point of Aries, which is actually in Pisces now and the NCP) which are the same for all observers. Azimuth and altitude are relative to the observers horizon and overhead point and so they will depend on the observers location.

You basically appear to be asking why the stars always maintain the same angular distance away from each other

Depends on what sort of timescales we are dealing with. Night by night, week by week, month by month yes they do. The nightly rotation of the sky is due to the Earth rotation.

But over a period of years (several years) the positions of some stars does shift by a very small amount relative to the background stars. We call it proper motion which is due to the stars actual velocity through space. Take Barnards Star for example. It changes its position relative to those around it by just over 10 arc seconds a year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard%27s_Star

It was through systematic measurement of the proper motion of various stars across the sky that Sagittarius was identified as the direction of the center of the Galaxy. All proper motions point to an origin in that region of sky.

[AATW]

It depends on how set in your mind you are about the Earth being flat. If you are going to make that your base assertion irrespective of anything else

Right. And this is my issue with FET.
It starts with the assumption that the earth is flat and then tries to fit everything around that. The simple observation that ships sink below the horizon can be explained by the fact we live on a globe. FET either denies this happens and claims we can simply “restore” the whole ship with optical magnification. When that is shown to be false with zoomed in photos clearly showing a ship occluded by the horizon then a mechanism like EA is invoked.

So it seems that FET simultaneously denies observations which point to a globe and invents mechanisms which explain why observations fit better with the idea of us living on a globe than a flat plane.

It’s an interesting thought experiment but that’s about all.

And this is why I’m not sure what experiment can be done to distinguish between FET and a globe. If mechanisms are invented in FET to explain observations which indicate a globe then how does one distinguish?

Obviously the real clincher for the globe is the fact we have multiple technologies like GPS and satellite TV which rely on us living on a globe, and we have an increasing number of people who have seen the earth from space, especially now space tourism seems to finally be getting some traction. The FE tactic here seems to be to simply deny this is happening.

If one is determined enough to believe in a FE then all evidence to the contrary can simply be explained in other ways or simply denied.

[Tom Bishop]

FET either denies this happens and claims we can simply “restore” the whole ship with optical magnification. When that is shown to be false with zoomed in photos clearly showing a ship occluded by the horizon then a mechanism like EA is invoked.

Actually the effect you referenced is true. The hull of a ship can be hidden by lack of optical resolution. - https://wiki.tfes.org/Sinking_Ship_Effect_Caused_by_Limits_to_Optical_Resolution

This can be tested and recorded with camera or a modern camera phone, which are fairly high quality now, by anyone who wishes.

https://wiki.tfes.org/images/6/69/Sinking_Optical-Resolution.png

[AATW]

Actually the effect you referenced is true. The hull of a ship can be hidden by lack of optical resolution.

Ha. Yes, and your super reliable evidence of that is your own Wiki which quotes your hero Rowbotham, a man who thought the moon was transparent or translucent or some such nonsense. Compelling

This can be tested and recorded with camera or a modern camera phone, which are fairly high quality now, by anyone who wishes.

And yet your example, again from your own Wiki, is a diagram? That’s the best you’ve got despite your claim that anyone can test this?

There’s no doubt that details which are not clear to the naked eye can be made clearer by optical magnification. But if the bottom of a ship, or any object, has been occluded by the horizon then no amount of optical magnification will restore them. Because of what “occluded” means.

[RonJ]

There’s a better example of the ‘sinking ship’ effect and that’s the ‘sinking mountain’.  If you ever have occasion to go to Tokyo, Japan by ship you can observer Mt. Fuji from a long distance out at sea.  The difference between this mountain and a ship is that the base is much wider than the peak.  On every trip just the peak would start to rise up from the horizon line very slowly.  When this was observed many of us would also take a look with our really good binoculars that were so big and heavy, they had to be mounted on a stand to the deck.  At no time could we ever resolve anything more than just the snow covered peak, and it was always appearing just above the wave tops on the horizon line even on trips when the seas were smooth.  If the earth were flat, it would be easy to surmise that if we could see the top, we could also see the rest of the mountain as well because it was much wider and the front was closer.  The top would also be much higher above the horizon than we ever observed.

[AATW]

There’s a better example of the ‘sinking ship’ effect and that’s the ‘sinking mountain’.

Right. A friend who is in to sailing told me about how you get the same with lighthouses. He told me that you can see the light from one reflecting off the clouds before you can see the light itself. Then you see it on the horizon and it slowly rises from there.

So FE invents EA to explain stuff like this. And UA to explain gravity. And some magnification effect which only applies to the sun and moon to explain consistent angular size.
As I said FE seems to be a combination of denying that observations work on a globe and inventing mechanisms to explain why observations indicate we live on a globe.

[RonJ]

I would say that using EA at this time to explain anything is invalid.  There's never been a published number for the Bishop Constant.  Without that how can you use EA to test anything?