What would change your mind?

Quote

What a telescope does not do, is to see farther than the point your eye can see..

This evening I have been looking at a number of galaxies through my telescope. I cannot see them without a telescope. How do you explain that based on your earlier comment above?

Look at a microscope plate with a speck of dust on it. You may not see it with your naked eye but you will see it with your microscope.

Does the plate sink into distance or does the scope simply magnify it?
That should answer your telescope issue.
However....if you want to believe you're looking at light year stars/suns/galaxies....et.....etc.....etc, then fair enough as far as I'm concerned.
I just simply think it's nonsense.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 06:58:13 AM

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.

Get back to me when you can be honest.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 08:47:54 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on September 22, 2020, 08:29:23 AM

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.

Make sure you stick to it.

Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.

OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:21:50 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 06:58:13 AM

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.

Get back to me when you can be honest.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:24:09 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 08:47:54 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on September 22, 2020, 08:29:23 AM

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.

Make sure you stick to it.

Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.

OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.

I don't need to repeat myself on this.
The post should tell you. Now rectify it or deck out.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 23, 2020, 01:53:59 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:21:50 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 06:58:13 AM

I know you are struggling with this, but this is literally the highest point of the ball shaped hill, looking down. See for yourself https://goo.gl/maps/uQweFEPnC9tyKTQZ9

Not that it matters, since you've never said you need to be standing on the top of the ball, you always just said standing on a ball.

Meanwhile, you claim without providing any evidence whatsoever that balls of all kinds magically just become invisible when you stand on them. One of us has a very odd grasp of reality, that's for sure.

Get back to me when you can be honest.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2020, 10:24:09 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 22, 2020, 08:47:54 AM

Quote from: rvlvr on September 22, 2020, 08:29:23 AM

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

I think you're right, it's getting very silly now. Time to bow out and wash the insanity out of my head. I hope that the discussion has provided some amusement to everyone though.

Make sure you stick to it.

Well now, I was going to duck out of this increasingly pointless discussion, but then you accused me of dishonesty and then told me to stay away, so I think that deserves a response, so I'll stick around a little longer.

OK then, lets have it. A list from you of every dishonest statement you claim I've made in this topic.

I don't need to repeat myself on this.
The post should tell you. Now rectify it or deck out.

So when challenged to back up your statement that I've been dishonest, you come up with precisely nothing at all. What a surprise. Yes, I've re-read the post. Tells me nothing, you're going to have to do better than that.

And no, I'll decide when I'm done, you don't get to dictate to me thank you very much.

Care to explain why you think it nonsense that I can see galaxies through a telescope? As I said you can see two other galaxies with the naked eye. (actually no, make that four because I forgot about the Magellanic Clouds which are satellite galaxies of our own Galaxy).  Which could the other two be then???  (a little quiz for you).

If you really think that then it is obvious to me and doubtless a few others that your knowledge and understanding of modern astronomy is pretty limited.

We have ways of measuring the distance of galaxies. It doesn't just come down to guesswork as I'm sure you believe.

Quote from: rvlvr on September 22, 2020, 08:29:23 AM

I'd give up. Not much one can do to oppose the force of nature that is Sceptimatic.

Let future generations in their orbitals marvel the insanity.

Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Well, at least you admit you don't judge anything based on facts or evidence or reality, just your preconceived beliefs.

Always knew that, but nice to have it confirmed.

Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you. 

But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn.  It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe.  I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.

Care to explain why you think it nonsense that I can see galaxies through a telescope? As I said you can see two other galaxies with the naked eye. (actually no, make that four because I forgot about the Magellanic Clouds which are satellite galaxies of our own Galaxy).  Which could the other two be then???  (a little quiz for you).

If you really think that then it is obvious to me and doubtless a few others that your knowledge and understanding of modern astronomy is pretty limited.

We have ways of measuring the distance of galaxies. It doesn't just come down to guesswork as I'm sure you believe.

Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it....unless you want to brush it off.

Quote

Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you. 

But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn.  It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe.  I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.

None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.
I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.

Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.

I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.

OK then enlighten us.

Quote

Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.

I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?

Quote from: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 06:53:10 AM

Quote

Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.
What you people do with it, is of no concern to me.

Trouble is if you approach everything with that attitude (i.e. you only accept as true that which you believe) you will never learn anything will you. 

But sceptimatic obviously thinks he already knows everything about everything already so I guess he believes there is nothing left for him to learn.  It must make life really boring if you are so set and stubborn in your ways that you are never willing to change what you believe.  I would be perfectly willing to change mind if suitably convincing evidence came to light which indicated I was wrong in thinking we live on a globe. But so far none has.

None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.
I have changed so I'm well aware of why I did it.

I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.

Did you visit one, is that why you believe?

I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.

I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.

How have you managed to verify that the Earth is flat?  This takes me back to a point I made earlier. Are you saying that we should only believe something if we can verify it ourselves?

So you probably don't own or read any books or magazines because you can't verify for yourself any of the information in them. Neither then must you accept as true or real virtually anything you read on the Internet (except from Flat Earth websites of course) and therefore you don't accept any of the information that is featured on TV documentaries. Again because you can't verify for yourself that any of the information they give you is true.

Why should I believe then that electricity is a flow of electrons.  I can't see the little tiny electrons flowing through the wire can I.   I am told it is a flow of electrons but how am I supposed to verify that for myself.  I could try I suppose and verify everything that I have been told or that I have read in the past but before I have done that, unfortunately I will probably die. 

So a better option to me is to accept that some people who write books or articles for magazines or produce TV documentaries are in a better position than me to verify things that I can't personally verify. They actually do know what they are talking about and are not deliberately lying to or trying to deceive their audience. That way I learn.

Or you could simply take the view that nothing is true unless you can personally verify that it is.  Which takes me back to point of how have you proved to yourself that the Earth is flat. You can believe it is of course.  But believing something does not automatically mean it is true.

Quote from: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 07:43:49 AM

Quote

Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.

I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?

I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.

A few years back there was a supernova event in the galaxy M82. I have the equipment that allows me to obtain spectra of stars through telescopes and so I was able to obtain the spectra of the supernova. I was using the Star Analyser 100 diffraction filter and Tom Fields excellent RSpec software. 

There is a distinct line which appears in the spectra associated with type 1a supernovae and I was able to identify this line almost straight away.  I then calibrated my software by using a classic A type star which has the strongest hydrogen balmer lines. I then looked up (without verifying it for myself first) the quoted laboratory standard wavelength of the line I had observed in the supernova spectra.  In my spectra the line was visibly blue shifted which is what I predicted because the line came from the shockwave 'shell' of gas which was rapidly expanding out into space.  The shell was expanding faster then the recession velocity of the galaxy itself.

By plugging in the numbers I had measured with other standard figures I was able to calculate (posh term for verify) that the shell was expanding at 5% of the speed of light.  A typical speed for a supernova just a few weeks after the event itself.

I also measured redshift of the core of the galaxy and used that to verify the distance to the galaxy.  I got a figure of 10.95 million lightyears.  Very close to the modern accepted figure of 11.5 million lightyears.

I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.

I think the crystal on a tower at the north pole generates the light which reflecting off the ice dome is what we call the sun.  The moon is a reflection of the sun reflection.

As I remember anyway, it's been a while.

Quote from: sokarul on September 23, 2020, 08:59:36 AM

I would love to see a picture of the crystal that the sun is a reflection of.

I think the crystal on a tower at the north pole generates the light which reflecting off the ice dome is what we call the sun.  The moon is a reflection of the sun reflection.

As I remember anyway, it's been a while.

Something like that. One would think it would be easy to see.

I've asked and answered this question before.  I've never heard a Flat Earther answer, but maybe someone will respond this time.  I'm not a Flat Earther, but to change my mind it could be any number of things. 

Touching the dome.

Looking over the edge.

Flying out into the endless ice plain.

Reporters discovering an ISS set in Hollywood, complete with the actors and all the real ISS feeds showing reporters walking around in space on the set.

An explanation or theory that actually made any kind of sense at all.

The only entrance to the hollywood set is in New York!
 just kidding

Also, maybe we can't understand the whole world...?

Stand upright with your scope and set it level, then look out to sea.

And again you repeat the same refuted nonsense.
The point of asking these questions is to show that your claim in no way matches what you would expect for a globe.

The entire point is that you would see the horizon when looking out level on a globe, unless you were very far away from the globe, or your FOV was tiny.

Having a camera pointed down to the ground will ensure you see the ground.....nothing else.

Good, now we are making progress.

So you accept that when looking straight down, you see ground, and when looking perfectly level at 0 degrees, with nothing below that, you see sky.

That means at some point it must change.
If you start looking straight down, and bring your head up towards level, at some point you will see an imaginary line below which there is ground/sea and above which there is sky, i.e. you will see a horizon. Just like the example of the basketball and hill, but instead of sky you have the regions surrounding them.

Now the next question is where does it change?
Looking straight down is ground. Now we tilt the camera up, towards level. At what point does it change to sky?
i.e. at what angle would this horizon be on a round Earth?
For simplicity, you can start with the camera being 2 m above the surface.
But even better, can you provide a formula which relates the height above the surface, the radius of the ball, and this angle?

Feel free to have the angle be from level or from straight down, just clarify which you are using.

Basic observations totally destroy the fictional globe model.

You mean they destroy the fictional FE model and support the globe.

Yep, give up, because the indoctrinated global nonsense will never be put back onto me.

You mean reality, not nonsense, not indoctrination. In fact, you seem to be clinging to those while you reject reality.
This also shows just how close minded you are and how dishonest you were when presenting what would change your mind.
Your mind is set, and you refuse to change. Even if you are shown evidence which conclusively shows Earth is a globe, you still wont accept it.

None of you people are for changing. You're set with your globe.

I am for changing, but not just for the hell of it.
I am set with the globe because so far it is the only model I know of that actually matches reality, the only model I know of that is supported by evidence and can explain what is being observed in reality.
If you can present a FE model which works better than the RE model I will happily change.

The problem is that no FEer does that. Instead they make completely false misrepresentations about what "should" happen on a globe to pretend the globe doesn't match reality, while repeatedly avoiding simple questions and ignoring all the problems with a FE or just coming up with nonsense to pretend it works, even if it contradicts the alleged evidence for a FE.

I'd change if I saw any good evidence, like taking a plane flight into another of these worlds you imagine to exist.

Did you visit one, is that why you believe?

Come back to me when you want to engage.

Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.

Thank you.

Quote

I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.

How have you managed to verify that the Earth is flat?  This takes me back to a point I made earlier. Are you saying that we should only believe something if we can verify it ourselves?
So you probably don't own or read any books or magazines because you can't verify for yourself any of the information in them. Neither then must you accept as true or real virtually anything you read on the Internet (except from Flat Earth websites of course) and therefore you don't accept any of the information that is featured on TV documentaries. Again because you can't verify for yourself that any of the information they give you is true.

Why should I believe then that electricity is a flow of electrons.  I can't see the little tiny electrons flowing through the wire can I.   I am told it is a flow of electrons but how am I supposed to verify that for myself.  I could try I suppose and verify everything that I have been told or that I have read in the past but before I have done that, unfortunately I will probably die. 

So a better option to me is to accept that some people who write books or articles for magazines or produce TV documentaries are in a better position than me to verify things that I can't personally verify. They actually do know what they are talking about and are not deliberately lying to or trying to deceive their audience. That way I learn.

Or you could simply take the view that nothing is true unless you can personally verify that it is.  Which takes me back to point of how have you proved to yourself that the Earth is flat. You can believe it is of course.  But believing something does not automatically mean it is true.

I'll take that as you not knowing but simply following what was told...which is fine because we were all indoctrinated like that.
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.

I don't expect you to accept that. You will most likely argue that you know and then not explain how you actually do know.......but....no issue with me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 08:19:45 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 07:43:49 AM

Quote

Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.

I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?

I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.

How did you start this and what did you use?
And what do you mean by, accepted value?

Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.

Thank you.

Your input is worthless. Put some effort in.

Well, he is not wrong asking for evidence.

Quote from: Definitely Not Swedish on September 23, 2020, 11:26:27 PM

Scep, you have not posted one real argument/piece of evidence in the whole thread. You cant always expect others to do the whole work for you. If you dont post evidence and just want to accuse others of whatever, then pls move over to 'complete nonesense'.

Thank you.

Your input is worthless. Put some effort in.

Evidence would help. You've already been presented with evidence that the horizon and eye level are not always the same and that on a ball/rounded hill, a horizon line can be seen. And so far, you have presented zero evidence for your claims that have been refuted with actual evidence. So yeah, evidence would be a good thing to back up what you say at this point.

Quote from: robinofloxley on September 23, 2020, 09:35:11 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 23, 2020, 08:19:45 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on September 23, 2020, 07:43:49 AM

Quote

Ok then, tell me how you would calculate it...

I can tell you easily how the distances to galaxies are calculated.  Again the information is as freely available for you to research as it is for me. Whether you choose to accept it believe it though is another matter.   I guess modern science is not good enough for you.

I'm well aware I can read up on it. I want to know how you managed to verify it.
Or did you just go along with it...just because?

I studied one year of an undergraduate astronomy course a long time ago. One of the practical tasks we were given was to calculate the distance to a local cluster galaxy by measuring the period and apparent magnitude of type I cepheid variables located in the galaxy and working out their distance by comparison with their absolute magnitudes. So yes, I established the distance to a galaxy by this method. I seem to recall the result wasn't too far off the accepted value.

How did you start this and what did you use?
And what do you mean by, accepted value?

Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.

My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.

The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.

They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.

Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.

As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).

It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.

Well that doesn't include you. You seem to just want to reject it for no good reason at all, and continually avoid simple arguments/questions which show your claims to be wrong, like you have done yet again.

Once more, you have accepted that for a round Earth straight down is ground, yet looking level there is sky.
That means that if you start looking straight down and bring your head up towards level you must reach a point where it transitions, you must get an imaginary line below which there is land/sea and above which there is sky.

Do you accept this fact, or do you reject it?

I'll take that as you not knowing but simply following what was told...which is fine because we were all indoctrinated like that.
It's just that some of us now question it....and for good reason.

I don't expect you to accept that. You will most likely argue that you know and then not explain how you actually do know.......but....no issue with me.

So you are going on and on and on about us simply accepting as true what we have been told or what we have read etc etc and whether we have 'verified' it for ourselves or whatever.

Are you not simply doing the same with regards to your belief that the Earth is flat?  Or have you personally verified it as being true and if so how did you do it?   I would love to know.