What would change your mind?

Fascinating.. now what about solar parallax?

Fascinating.. now what about solar parallax?

You can measure the distance to the Sun using parallax of course, I've had that discussion more than once trying to explain it to people who don't understand how triangles work.  Or think angles aren't real in space, or something.

You don't directly measure the Sun's parallax directly like measuring stars, but it's parallax compared to Venus in various ways.

I can only assume that's the reference.

We are so deep down the rabbit hole now even I've forgotten the question I asked, which is just as well as no flat earther ever answers it.  If you can get one to even comprehend the question.  Which is kind of the point, so I consider it answered.

I have yet to record one instance where a FEer provides a sensible answer to any question put them.  They go on about RE and 'indoctrination' (where have we heard that one before?!?)  yet when they are asked a direct question about anything the discussion ends up having more deflections in it than the average pinball machine!

It's almost as if they do all they can to dodge having to provide any real answers about anything they claim to believe in.

The other problem is that some of the info in the FE wiki seems to be a bit off limits.  For example I'd love to find out what is says about stellar parallax but unfortunately it seems to be censored..
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/tiki/tiki-editpage.php?page=Stellar+Parallax

That is not censored or off limits, that is simply not existing.
It doesn't say you don't have permission to view, it says you don't have permission to edit.

It is possible that I might stand guilty of being just a bit facetious when I said permission to view.  Either way there appear to be quite a few empty or non-existent links in the FE Wiki.

Not exactly a good start for a 'knowledge base' for a belief system which seems to claim it is better than anything RE have to offer.  Equally rvlvr replying to a question by posting a couple of crudely edited memes as an 'answer' is not hugely helpful either.

Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)

Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice.   

Give me what I need to change my global mind.

The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.

Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.

How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?

How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?

How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?

Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?

Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.

Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?

Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly  and level it. It's really not difficult.

I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.

If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.

Quote

Hydrogen, potentially, mixed with various minerals such as magnesium...etc...etc.

So in other words you haven't got a clue.  No worries.   That is just not very 'scientific' for someone who is a self-proclaimed flat Earth 'scientist'.

Any delving into Earth potential is scientific theory, hypotheses,musing, guesswork or a closer potential, down to scientific fact.
Most of what we're told is based on anything but, fact.

So....as for me having no clue. In your mind you're right, from your perspective, because you do not follow anything other than the global given, so I understand you being trapped in that.
From my side of the coin, I believe there is potential for what I'm saying.......but.....I cannot directly prove anything to people like you, which is fine.

Quote

Central Earth carbon arc.

Really... where did the carbon come from?  How do you create carbon?  You are just guessing.  I will give you a clue.  Carbon is produced through a nuclear process known as the triple alpha process.

Who told you that?
 

I have checked out several websites and none of them say anything about carbon being in the core or the Earth. Hardly surprising considering the conditions in the core.

Why would it?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 27, 2020, 12:26:28 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 26, 2020, 06:04:44 PM

This thread demonstrates that evidence and reason can't reach people like this. It's utterly useless. People always choose to run away from reality for a reason. Probably because reality is too painful to face.

We tend to forget that this trivial topic, hides a highly dangerous condition. They effectively exclude themselves from the rest of the educated human race, living in a constant state of paranoia that everything is a lie. Naturally that lie would include covid-19 for example.

The best you can do is be honest with them or maybe discussing other topics us the key to fostering good communication and repore with them. They are people who lack trust.

If you look, lack of trust is a recurring theme in all of sceptimatic's posts.

You're welcome to deck out at any point.

Lol! Spoken like a true flat earther! Always avoiding reality.  I already decked out about 36 pages ago.

Explain to us again, how on flat earth, no matter what mountain, or hill, or tall building you choose, the farther away you get from it, it disappears from the bottom up instead of just shrinking. 

Take your time.......

You already decked out.
Let me know when you want back in.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 27, 2020, 12:04:26 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 26, 2020, 01:26:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 12:37:19 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 26, 2020, 12:30:57 AM

Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?

When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it. None of you have shown anything to be correct from your side or wrong from mine.

I proved to you that you are wrong about your "you can make anything fit" argument. This wasn't an opinion, it was a mathematical proof. It wasn't even a complicated one, it used simple maths from the UK KS3 (Key Stage 3 - for 11 to 14 year olds) curriculum. Nothing complicated for a self-confessed genius, surely.

Just to highlight further the absurdity of your stated position: If I give you as data, the dimensions of a battleship, since you can fit anything to any data, fit a matchbox to this data. No problem according to you.

Fine, so you've just proved to yourself (if nobody else) that you can put a real, full sized battleship inside a matchbox.

If you do not know the size and distance of something, you can make anything up to fit a criteria. You know this and this is what I'm talking about.

Size and distance? What on earth do they have to do with it? An ellipse is a shape, not a size or a distance. If you have a set of observations of the position of a planet in the sky relative to the background stars, collected over a long period of time, that doesn't directly tell you anything about size and distance. Nobody has ever claimed that.

What you can do is see if those positions follow a pattern and try and figure out what that pattern is. Kepler did that and found the positions and times fitted an ellipse.

You claimed this didn't mean anything, that he could have fitted anything to this data. You claimed that you could fit anything to any data. That's garbage. That means I can give you any data I like and tell you to fit it to a straight line or a triangle and you claim it can be done.

I gave you a set of 9 positions (positions note, not distances or sizes - just like Tycho Brahe's data which Kepler used) and set you a task to make a triangle fit. You are the one claiming this can be done.

You obviously realised you'd blundered and so pretended that you didn't understand. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, the alternative is that you are really, really... OK I won't say it.

At this point, I think several of us sat back, opened some popcorn and waited to enjoy the show. You didn't disappoint.

You know fine well what I'm talking about but I'll sit back with the popcorn until you explain it.

What is clearly observed is that the horizon is not the convergence point.

Then you stick to that. Anyone can prove it is. It's not about me having to prove anything or you denying it.
The experiment is easy to do and it not only shows the convergence point, it also shows Earth absolutely 100%, cannot be a globe we supposedly walk upon due to this convergence point through something as simple as a kitchen roll tube with level set up of tube and level and plumb set up of a crosshair. The plumb bit is not essential but the level is.
And there as you look into it, is your sky to sea, horizon. So simple and no need for anyone to be duped as they can do it all for themselves.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 11:53:21 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 26, 2020, 01:15:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 12:08:19 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.

Come on, get on with it will you!

Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.

OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Step 2.

First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.

Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.

The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.

That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.

Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?


Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?

Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.

This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.



The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.

Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.

What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).

Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.

Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.

At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.

There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.

Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.

Ok, so what is the width of the moon?

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 27, 2020, 02:18:09 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 27, 2020, 12:04:26 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 26, 2020, 01:26:10 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 12:37:19 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 26, 2020, 12:30:57 AM

Why don't you honestly and rationally deal with the evidence that shows you are wrong?

When you show me I'm wrong I will honestly accept it. None of you have shown anything to be correct from your side or wrong from mine.

I proved to you that you are wrong about your "you can make anything fit" argument. This wasn't an opinion, it was a mathematical proof. It wasn't even a complicated one, it used simple maths from the UK KS3 (Key Stage 3 - for 11 to 14 year olds) curriculum. Nothing complicated for a self-confessed genius, surely.

Just to highlight further the absurdity of your stated position: If I give you as data, the dimensions of a battleship, since you can fit anything to any data, fit a matchbox to this data. No problem according to you.

Fine, so you've just proved to yourself (if nobody else) that you can put a real, full sized battleship inside a matchbox.

If you do not know the size and distance of something, you can make anything up to fit a criteria. You know this and this is what I'm talking about.

Size and distance? What on earth do they have to do with it? An ellipse is a shape, not a size or a distance. If you have a set of observations of the position of a planet in the sky relative to the background stars, collected over a long period of time, that doesn't directly tell you anything about size and distance. Nobody has ever claimed that.

What you can do is see if those positions follow a pattern and try and figure out what that pattern is. Kepler did that and found the positions and times fitted an ellipse.

You claimed this didn't mean anything, that he could have fitted anything to this data. You claimed that you could fit anything to any data. That's garbage. That means I can give you any data I like and tell you to fit it to a straight line or a triangle and you claim it can be done.

I gave you a set of 9 positions (positions note, not distances or sizes - just like Tycho Brahe's data which Kepler used) and set you a task to make a triangle fit. You are the one claiming this can be done.

You obviously realised you'd blundered and so pretended that you didn't understand. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt here, the alternative is that you are really, really... OK I won't say it.

At this point, I think several of us sat back, opened some popcorn and waited to enjoy the show. You didn't disappoint.

You know fine well what I'm talking about but I'll sit back with the popcorn until you explain it.

Well I know what you said. I said Kepler fitted an ellipse to Tycho's data. You said you could fit anything. Did you not mean that then? I and everyone else appear to have thought that's what you meant. If you meant something else then you'll have to spell it out because I haven't a clue what else you could have meant.

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 27, 2020, 03:18:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 11:53:21 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 26, 2020, 01:15:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 12:08:19 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.

Come on, get on with it will you!

Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.

OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Step 2.

First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.

Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.

The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.

That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.

Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?


Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?

Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.

This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.



The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.

Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.

What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).

Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.

Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.

At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.

There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.

Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.

Ok, so what is the width of the moon?

Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?

Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.

The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.

Is it an engineered system?  Naturally occurring?

Naturally occuring.

  Im trying to picture this in my mind.  There is a tower of some sort with a crystal on it?

Not a tower as such. It's merely a gradient over thousands of miles to the centre. Take a look at my avatar and discount the map on it, just look at the shape and imagine that in a mammoth Earth size.

  Lots of crystals?  Where does the hydrogen / mineral mixture sit?

It's taken in as a consistent energy make up. It creates a cyclone in the centre a bit like your water going down your plug hole, kind of thing.

  Why a carbon arc lamp, is there something special about carbon electrodes or something?

Think of it like a big welding arc with super dense (possibly) graphite.

  Is it manned and maintained by someone / something?

Natural cell make up. It has a lifecycle.

  How does it drive night and day?  Seasons?  Time zones?

By rotating like a cyclone...like a big electric motor projecting it's light/heat source around the dome which creates a sort of breathing dome. Basically expanding and compressing as it moves around it due to agitation or lack of and it moves over and away.
This also creates the tides.
The seasons are created by angled reflection as the energy moves up and down a sort of internal spiral.

Just seems so fantastical.  What drives your imagination towards this as an explanation?  Just meandering thoughts, or did you hear about this from someone?

Little experiments and realising the reality behind some which we are not told the full truth about.
That's from my point of view. I'm well aware of people like yourself with your point of view so I don't expect anything other than head scratching.

Not for the first time, everything Scepti comes up with as an 'explanation' for anything seems to generate more questions rather than answers!

There is plenty of geological evidence that that shows us that the Earth (and hence the Sun and Moon as well) is billions of years old so presumably this crystal has been around for at least that long as well.

No there isn't.

Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)

Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice.   

Give me what I need to change my global mind.

We will both sit  next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.

Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 28, 2020, 01:00:57 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 27, 2020, 03:18:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 11:53:21 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 26, 2020, 01:15:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 12:08:19 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.

Come on, get on with it will you!

Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.

OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Step 2.

First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.

Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.

The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.

That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.

Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?


Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?

Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.

This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.



The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.

Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.

What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).

Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.

Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.

At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.

There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.

Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.

Ok, so what is the width of the moon?

Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?

Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.

The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.

Ok, carry on.

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 27, 2020, 01:05:40 AM

The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.

Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.

How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?

How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?

How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?

Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?

Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.

Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?

Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly  and level it. It's really not difficult.

I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.

If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.

A few problems here. For one, you've already publicly stated that no matter what the experiment shows, especially if you are wrong, is that:

As for me, I will never accept anything you try to tell me about the horizon, unless you actually tell me what I already know to be true.

So no matter what the outcome, if it doesn't match what you think is right, you would never accept it anyway. Hardly scientific. But you must get that asking someone to do the experiment is pretty much futile. Right? You don't offer a lot of motivation to go and do it if you won't accept the outcome, no matter what, if it doesn't conform to your belief. You get that, right?

For two, the reason why we're asking for details goes back to the hubris you have about explaining things and how you are perpetually mystified why no one gets it because you believe you explain things amazingly well. You don't. Perfect case in point here.

So what is the experiment? Take a straight tube of some sort, maybe a foot long, an inch in diameter or more, mount and level it onto something horizontally and look through it out over a horizon? And the horizon line should line up straight across the mid-point of the far end of the tube regardless of height of the set-up? Is that it?

If so, and I do it at altitude and it shows that the horizon line is below the midpoint of the end of the tube, would you except that to be true even though you've already said that no matter what you wouldn't?

Who told you that?

Sorry I forgot your no 1 rule.  Don't believe anything unless you've done it yourself.  Well I would experiment myself with nuclear fusion at home but there are two reasons I don't.  Firstly its illegal and secondly I don't want to risk blowing myself up.  So yes I have to rely on other sources to explain to me how it works.

No one told me that.  It's just something you learn whenever you do a physics degree.  When you do the sums it all works very neatly.

There is plenty of geological evidence that that shows us that the Earth (and hence the Sun and Moon as well) is billions of years old so presumably this crystal has been around for at least that long as well.

No there isn't.

Oh yes there is. 

Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?

You said you only needed the tube.
Now you are saying you need a spirit level as well.

But surely you know that if you want to use a spirit level you should be using a flat base, not an easily deformable tube.

Again, why not take the simpler option of a water level?
That way no external cross hair is needed.

Most of what we're told is based on anything but, fact.

You mean most of what YOU tell us is not based upon fact.
What mainstream science tells us is typically fairly accurate and factual.

So....as for me having no clue. In your mind you're right, from your perspective, because you do not follow anything other than the global given, so I understand you being trapped in that.

Stop just repeating the same lies.
We don't just accept what we are told. We also accept evidence, the kind of evidence you dismiss as fake or cheating or just outright ignore because it shows you are wrong.
We also have logic on our side, unlike you who just ignores any logical argument that shows you are wrong.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 27, 2020, 02:42:52 AM

What is clearly observed is that the horizon is not the convergence point.

Then you stick to that. Anyone can prove it is.

You mean like all those photos that clearly show it isn't?
Anyone who honestly examines the evidence or gathers it themselves (at least if high enough) can clearly see that the horizon is NOT the convergence point.

It's not about me having to prove anything or you denying it.

I'm not the one in denial.
I'm not the one repeatedly denying reality just because it shows I am wrong.
That is you.
Anytime evidence is presented which shows you are wrong you just dismiss it or ignore it and continue to repeat the same lies.

You don't have to prove anything. No one can force you to prove anything.
What it is about now is how your blatant lies are directly contradicted by plentiful evidence and logical reasoning and how you have no response except dismissal or ignoring it.
You are unable to show a single thing wrong with this evidence.
It is also about your extreme dishonesty, where you claim that you would admit if you were shown to be wrong, but then show just how much of a lie that is when you claim you will refuse to accept anything about the horizon if you don't already believe it.

The experiment is easy to do and it not only shows the convergence point

Yes, the experiment is quite easy, and there are many ways to do it.
And it conclusively shows the horizon is NOT the convergence point.
Yet rather than accept that fact, you just keep on repeating the same lies.

it also shows Earth absolutely 100%, cannot be a globe we supposedly walk upon due to this convergence point

How?
The horizon is not the convergence point so it shows nothing of the like. The experiment is 100% consistent with the RE and quite firmly refutes the FE.

If you wish to claim otherwise with even a shred of integrity you need to actually deal with the evidence which shows that the horizon is not the convergence point. Otherwise, every time you repeat this same lie you are just showing everyone how dishonest you are, how you do not give a damn about the truth at all and are quite happy to repeatedly lie to people to pretend your delusion model is correct.

Grow up. Start dealing with all the issues raised.

Now again, care to address the issues:
Why haven't you explained how GPS can work with instantaneous light?
Why haven't you pointed out a single problem with my argument for the RE having a horizon which would be basically indistinguishable from "eye level" when you are close to Earth? Why do you instead repeat the same lie that a RE wouldn't have a horizon?
Why don't you explain why the horizon is clearly observed to be below eye-level from a high mountain?
Why don't you explain just how the "flat" water magically manages to obscure an object that is above it?
Why don't you explain how your alleged flat water works on your alleged bowl Earth to produce the oceans, rather than as in my example image where it completely floods the lower regions while leaving the top dry?
Why don't you show that you can fit anything to anything, by fitting a triangle to those 9 points?
Why don't you provide evidence of your allegedly flat water rather than just repeatedly asserting that water is magically flat?


If you want one which is not based upon evidence at all and instead based upon cold hard math and logic, then deal with the existence and location of the horizon on a RE, including how it is basically at eye level when you are close to the surface.
You are yet to provide any rational objection to the following line of logical reasoning that shows beyond any sane doubt that YOU ARE WRONG!
1 - Looking down you see ground/sea, i.e. EARTH.
2 - Looking up you see sky.
3 - That means if you started out looking down and slowly raised your head, your would see some kind of transition between ground/sea and sky.
4 - Assuming there isn't anything getting in your way, this transition would be a line; below this line you would see ground/sea and above this line you would see sky.
5 - This is just like if you look at a basketball. You can see a line, "below" this line you see the ball, "above" this line you see the surroundings.
6 - This line would be the horizon for a round earth. So now the question becomes where is this line?
7 - Simple trig shows that the relationship between this angle, as measured from level, the radius of the ball, and your distance/height from the surface is:
cos(a)=r/(r+h).
8 - Doing the math for a RE when you are 2 km above it shows the horizon would only be 2.7 arc minutes below level, i.e. imperceptibly different from level, and entirely consistent with what is observed.
9 - Thus your claim for why you think Earth is flat is pure garbage.


Yet rather than admit you are wrong, you just completely ignore it and just bring up the same refuted lie later.
If you can't even point out a problem with that line of reasoning or admit you are wrong, then it is quite clear that you have no intention of ever admitting you are wrong on something like this.

Then once you manage to do the impossible with that, you can do the same with your outright lie that you can fit anything to anything, by either admitting you are wrong with that claim or by fitting a triangle to those 9 data points (and point out what is wrong with my argument as to why that is impossible).

Then you can explain how you manage to have a flat water level on your magical bowl Earth that actually matches the observed oceans rather than flooding some areas of land entirely and leaving regions of oceans completely dry.

Try to actually address the issues rather than just ignoring them or strawmanning them or just repeating the same lies.

We will both sit next to a bath full of water.

So something tiny, where the curvature of Earth is negligible.
Tell me, what are you using to determine how flat it is (and don't just tell me a board)?
To what level of accuracy is this measurement?
Is it actually capable of detecting the curvature of Earth at this tiny scale?

Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?

I think you are trying to grasp at whatever strawmen you can as you have failed to justify any of your prior arguments or deal with all that which shows you are wrong.

Earth is not a tiny ball sitting on top of a much larger ball. It is a massive ball outside the Roche limit of any larger object.
If you want that ball to represent Earth, you will need it in free fall, outside the Roche limit of any significant mass.

How about this, instead of laying the flat board on the water, how about I hold it sideways, then pour water on it? Hey look the water just runs off. I guess that means Earth can't be flat.

Equally rvlvr replying to a question by posting a couple of crudely edited memes as an 'answer' is not hugely helpful either.

It is called parody. But goes to show Poe's law holds water.

Quote from: Solarwind on October 27, 2020, 04:48:25 AM

There is plenty of geological evidence that that shows us that the Earth (and hence the Sun and Moon as well) is billions of years old so presumably this crystal has been around for at least that long as well.

No there isn't.

What makes you say that? What is the evidence for that?

You are a true polymath. Is there anything you do not know?

Equally rvlvr replying to a question by posting a couple of crudely edited memes as an 'answer' is not hugely helpful either.

For the record, rvlvr didn't post a "couple" of memes. I posted one of them. And as rvlvr pointed out, they were parodies to make a point. Not meant to form an answer. As there are no answers here, no matter how hard you try. Scepti has already said he won't accept anything that does not meet what he believes to be true. No matter what evidence you have. So with that as a starting point, parody is all that is left.

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 28, 2020, 01:06:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 28, 2020, 01:00:57 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 27, 2020, 03:18:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 11:53:21 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 26, 2020, 01:15:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 12:08:19 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.

Come on, get on with it will you!

Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.

OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Step 2.

First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.

Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.

The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.

That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.

Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?


Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?

Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.

This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.



The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.

Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.

What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).

Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.

Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.

At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.

There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.

Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.

Ok, so what is the width of the moon?

Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?

Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.

The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.

Ok, carry on.

Step 3:

Take the two photos. Use some photo editing software, such as PhotoShop. Overlay the images. Slide and rotate the two moon images until they sit on top of each other with all the features (craters etc.) lining up.

Remember that both images also include at least one nearby bright star (let's call this our reference star).

The reference star will appear to have shifted position, so the merged image will contain two images of the reference star. In fact all the stars in the image will all appear to have shifted by the same amount in the same direction.

Since we know the stars haven't moved, we conclude the moon must have (or at least appeared to).

How much did the moon appear to shift between the two images? Well if we measure the distance (in pixels) between the two different positions of the reference star, then that must be how much the moon has shifted.

Think of it this way. Put a chair next to a table in an otherwise featureless room. Take a photo, centred on the chair. Move the chair away from the table. Take another photo, again centred on the chair. The two photos suggest the table has been moved, but we know it's the other way around. By measuring the amount the table appeared to move, we then know how much the chair actually moved.

We now know by how many pixels the moon apparently shifted. Since we also have a method to convert pixel distance to angular distance, we can now calculate the angle the moon has shifted by.

That's step 3. OK with this step?

NB: to avoid me having to ask you to clarify your answer to this, if/when you are OK with this step, how about you just say "Yes, I'm OK with this step" or something very similar. Obviously if you have questions, go ahead and ask.

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 27, 2020, 01:05:40 AM

The problem here is that you've sketched an experiment, but you've left out all the detail. The sort of detail you always demand from the rest of us when we're trying to explain something to you.

Clearly I can't just pick up a kitchen roll tube and some cotton and prove anything to anyone. Nobody can repeat your experiment based on the limited information you've given. Fill in the details and we can ask you questions about your experiment for a change.

How are you keeping your tube still? Is it resting on something? If so, what?

How are you making sure the tube is level? Are you using a spirit level for instance? Are you fixing the tube to the level?

How do the cross hairs help? I mean you can move your eye up and down and the cross hairs will point at different things won't they?

Does it matter how high up you are? If so, why?

Fill in all the blanks and we can have a discussion.

Why you need to ask me this is absolutely beyond me...it really is.
Have you ever used a spirit level to level anything up?

Are you telling me you can't understand what I've just said?
You can set your tube up on anything and level it.
Stick it on a tripod with glue...tape or a clamp, or whatever.
No tripod?....Stick it on a window sill if you ace the sea.
If in your car at the seaside then jam it in your car window, lightly  and level it. It's really not difficult.

I could mention many many other ways but you surely must get it.

If you're playing games then no problem...we can just carry on.

I'm just asking you to follow your own rules. Spell everything out so any one of us could go outside and follow your instructions to the letter. If you don't do this then there are bound to be misunderstandings.

We can't just follow your original instructions using just the tools you've specified. Basically you've said go outside with just a cardboard tube and some cotton and confirm the horizon is level.

You've said make sure the tube is level, but all I've got in my hand at this point is a cardboard tube and some cotton.

If you want us to use a tripod and a spirit level and some tape, just say so. Otherwise I'll just use some tubing, filled with a red dyed liquid instead. Can I use that for a level? If you don't tell me I can't, then I'm going to the top of a mountain, overlooking the sea, with my tubing. I'm going to hold the cardboard tube next to the tubing and take a picture with the crosshairs pointing at the sky. Job done. Except that you'll (rightly) pick holes in my method.

You yourself insist on this level of detail from us, so why is it not OK to have the same from you?

Quote from: sobchak on October 27, 2020, 04:32:34 AM

Is it an engineered system?  Naturally occurring?

Naturally occuring.

Quote from: sobchak

  Im trying to picture this in my mind.  There is a tower of some sort with a crystal on it?

Not a tower as such. It's merely a gradient over thousands of miles to the centre. Take a look at my avatar and discount the map on it, just look at the shape and imagine that in a mammoth Earth size.

Quote from: sobchak

  Lots of crystals?  Where does the hydrogen / mineral mixture sit?

It's taken in as a consistent energy make up. It creates a cyclone in the centre a bit like your water going down your plug hole, kind of thing.

Quote from: sobchak

  Why a carbon arc lamp, is there something special about carbon electrodes or something?

Think of it like a big welding arc with super dense (possibly) graphite.

Quote from: sobchak

  Is it manned and maintained by someone / something?

Natural cell make up. It has a lifecycle.

Quote from: sobchak

  How does it drive night and day?  Seasons?  Time zones?

By rotating like a cyclone...like a big electric motor projecting it's light/heat source around the dome which creates a sort of breathing dome. Basically expanding and compressing as it moves around it due to agitation or lack of and it moves over and away.
This also creates the tides.
The seasons are created by angled reflection as the energy moves up and down a sort of internal spiral.

Quote from: sobchak

Just seems so fantastical.  What drives your imagination towards this as an explanation?  Just meandering thoughts, or did you hear about this from someone?

Little experiments and realising the reality behind some which we are not told the full truth about.
That's from my point of view. I'm well aware of people like yourself with your point of view so I don't expect anything other than head scratching.

Little experiments?  What sort of 'little experiments' have you done to conclude that the sun is actually the holographic image generated by a giant hydrogen/mineral cyclone fueled graphite electrode based electrical arc?  It is so bizarrely specific. 

Or this is all just a guess?