The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Moon squirter on February 12, 2008, 01:17:16 AM
-
Sorry if this has been done before, but I saw the ISS last night from London.
-Before hand I consulted NASA's Spaceflight Sightings (http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/cities/view.cgi?country=United_Kingdom®ion=England&city=London) Page. It helpfully told me that the ISS would appear at 6:56 PM, going from WSW to the south.
-So at precisely that time a star-like dot appeared in the sky and tracked across to the south. It quickly faded as (presumably) the sun set for the ISS and light was no-longer reflected back to me.
I concluded that it was unlikely to be a plane because it had no flashing lights and it appeared at precisely the specified time in the right place, moving in the right direction, very quickly. I intend to see it tonight also, when it appears at precisely 5:42 PM.
An object which gets around the whole earth that fast could only be in orbit, right?
-
An object which gets around the whole earth that fast could only be in orbit, right?
Yup ;)
-
It's secret technology that the general public isn't allowed to know about. Ain't that right Pinky?
-
Well now we know what Santa does in the off-season :)
-
Well he can't afford to pay all those elves on just one nights work a year
-
Narf
-
The ISS is a pseudolite. You saw a light in the sky, you did not see a light in space.
-
What you saw was probably just a pigeon whose eyes were reflecting the light of the moon.
-
I didn't wanna make a new thread for this. But can anybody watch this video and still think we aren't on a rotating planet?
Or this
-
I didn't wanna make a new thread for this. But can anybody watch this video and still think we aren't on a rotating planet?
It looks like it's the stars which are rotating. The earth seems to be perfectly still.
-
So the stars are all moving in the same circle? That just happens to be centered around a point directly overherad the north/south pole?
-
The ISS is a pseudolite. You saw a light in the sky, you did not see a light in space.
And yet...it has to be moving pretty fast, no? In the atmosphere, it has to deal with air resistance. What energy source is this?
-
So the stars are all moving in the same circle? That just happens to be centered around a point directly overherad the north/south pole?
Yep. The whirling celestial systems manifest over areas where the magnetic field lines are vertical.
-
Does it not seem like an incredible occurence that they should all move so perfectly in a circle, almost as if we are looking at a rotating picture. Not one star following a path that does not circle that one specific point. Wouldn't a much more reasonable, realistic suggestion be that the planet is rotating?
-
So the stars are all moving in the same circle? That just happens to be centered around a point directly overherad the north/south pole?
Yep. The whirling celestial systems manifest over areas where the magnetic field lines are vertical.
um wtf?
-
Does it not seem like an incredible occurence that they should all move so perfectly in a circle, almost as if we are looking at a rotating picture. Not one star following a path that does not circle that one specific point.
The rotation does not appear to be perfectly circular.
http://photo.net/bboard-uploads/00KmbR-36051784.JPG
http://starmatt.com/gallery/astro/02041811.jpg
In fact, the rotation appears to be more of an ellipse. How does the RE model explain that?
Wouldn't a much more reasonable, realistic suggestion be that the planet is rotating?
No.
-
Does it not seem like an incredible occurence that they should all move so perfectly in a circle, almost as if we are looking at a rotating picture. Not one star following a path that does not circle that one specific point.
The rotation does not appear to be perfectly circular.
http://photo.net/bboard-uploads/00KmbR-36051784.JPG
http://starmatt.com/gallery/astro/02041811.jpg
In fact, the rotation appears to be more of an ellipse. How does the RE model explain that?
Wouldn't a much more reasonable, realistic suggestion be that the planet is rotating?
No.
It's called orbit. The Earth not only rotates but moves in a circle around the sun.
-
And Tom, need I remind you and everyone else here of your hipocrisy regarding photographs?
-
Does it not seem like an incredible occurence that they should all move so perfectly in a circle, almost as if we are looking at a rotating picture. Not one star following a path that does not circle that one specific point.
The rotation does not appear to be perfectly circular.
http://photo.net/bboard-uploads/00KmbR-36051784.JPG
http://starmatt.com/gallery/astro/02041811.jpg
In fact, the rotation appears to be more of an ellipse. How does the RE model explain that?
Wouldn't a much more reasonable, realistic suggestion be that the planet is rotating?
No.
How do we know those photos haven't been stretched vertically or horizontally? It certainly appears that way to me.
-
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg35/Fikealox/circle.jpg) The wall looks more in proportion like this.
Also: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/apod/apod_search?star+trails
-
http://starmatt.com/gallery/astro/02041811.jpg
In fact, the rotation appears to be more of an ellipse. How does the RE model explain that?
Tom,
This image was actually taken with a fish-eye lens, as stated in the photographer's description (http://starmatt.com/gallery/astro/trailsSE.html).
This type of lens produces a non-linear hemispherical image, compressing objects near the edge of the image. This is why the star-trails are not circular.
Nice try!
-
http://starmatt.com/gallery/astro/02041811.jpg
In fact, the rotation appears to be more of an ellipse. How does the RE model explain that?
Does it not seem like an incredible occurence that they should all move so perfectly in a circle an ellipse, almost as if we are looking at a rotating picture. Not one star following a path that does not circle fly around that one specific point. Wouldn't a much more reasonable, realistic suggestion be that the planet is rotating?
Also, picture one, stretched, picture two, fish eye lens.
This seems pretty circular to me
(http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/img_4806-4933_640mred.jpg)
-
This seems pretty circular to me
http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/img_4806-4933_640mred.jpg
If the stars in that image rotated in a perfect circle there would not be irregularities in the rings where bands collect or separate on either side of the system's center.
-
This seems pretty circular to me
http://www.cynical-c.com/archives/bloggraphics/img_4806-4933_640mred.jpg
If the stars in that image rotated in a perfect circle there would not be irregularities in the rings where bands collect or separate on either side of the system's center.
All the planets move around the Sun in elliptical orbits. It is Kepler's First Law.
No one said they have to be perfect circles.
You have proved nothing.
-
All the planets move around the Sun in elliptical orbits. It is Kepler's First Law.
In the RE theory the stars cannot rotate above the earth in an elliptical manner, as the earth is rotating. The stars are not really rotatating around the earth in the RE theory. According to the globe theory the rotation of the stars is an illusion.
No one said they have to be perfect circles.
Actually, they do.
-
Does it not seem like an incredible occurence that they should all move so perfectly in a circle an ellipse, almost as if we are looking at a rotating picture. Not one star following a path that does not circle fly around that one specific point. Wouldn't a much more reasonable, realistic suggestion be that the planet is rotating?
-
Does it not seem like an incredible occurence that they should all move so perfectly in a circle an ellipse, almost as if we are looking at a rotating picture. Not one star following a path that does not circle fly around that one specific point. Wouldn't a much more reasonable, realistic suggestion be that the planet is rotating?
No.
-
Ah
-
No one said they have to be perfect circles.
Actually, they do.
Who?
None of the planets move in a perfect circle around the Sun, so why does it have to be elliptical again?
Mathematically, it is very unlikely that anything would orbit in a perfect circle.
-
No one said they have to be perfect circles.
Actually, they do.
Who?
None of the planets move in a perfect circle around the Sun, so why does it have to be elliptical again?
Mathematically, it is very unlikely that anything would orbit in a perfect circle.
In RE theory the apparent rotation of the stars is an illusion. The stars are not in orbit around the earth's hub. The stars are static. It's the earth which is rotating on its axis. Therefore the observed rotation of the stars should form a perfect circle. A perfect circle would occur as a result of a rotating body.
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
-
If the stars in that image rotated in a perfect circle there would not be irregularities in the rings where bands collect or separate on either side of the system's center.
Elaborate.
If you are saying that when the stars appear to rotate, they would form a perfect pattern in circle density from side to side, then you are wrong. The stars are random and clusters are likely. A portion of white stripes on one side of the center has no bearing on the other side as the image doesn't capture a full rotation.
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
Why? He posted a picture as "proof" but he does not know what shape those are exactly.
It is a legitimate question. How did he calculate that the image is not perfectly circular?
If he wants to make claims, he has to back it up.
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
Why? He posted a picture as "proof" but he does not know what shape those are exactly.
It is a legitimate question. How did he calculate that the image is not perfectly circular?
If he wants to make claims, he has to back it up.
Not insulting you. Just you started to remind me of him. Not quite understanding the concept.
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
Why? He posted a picture as "proof" but he does not know what shape those are exactly.
It is a legitimate question. How did he calculate that the image is not perfectly circular?
If he wants to make claims, he has to back it up.
Not insulting you. Just you started to remind me of him. Not quite understanding the concept.
Which concept? That he makes wild claims without proof? Or that he makes wild claims in contradiction to logical proofs?
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
Why? He posted a picture as "proof" but he does not know what shape those are exactly.
It is a legitimate question. How did he calculate that the image is not perfectly circular?
If he wants to make claims, he has to back it up.
Not insulting you. Just you started to remind me of him. Not quite understanding the concept.
Which concept? That he makes wild claims without proof? Or that he makes wild claims in contradiction to logical proofs?
That you were talking about stars not having to move in a perfect circle, because orbits weren't round or some crap like that. Didn't make sense.
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
Why? He posted a picture as "proof" but he does not know what shape those are exactly.
It is a legitimate question. How did he calculate that the image is not perfectly circular?
If he wants to make claims, he has to back it up.
Not insulting you. Just you started to remind me of him. Not quite understanding the concept.
Which concept? That he makes wild claims without proof? Or that he makes wild claims in contradiction to logical proofs?
That you were talking about stars not having to move in a perfect circle, because orbits weren't round or some crap like that. Didn't make sense.
Why does it not make sense?
The orbits of all the planets are elliptical. It is mathematically unlikely that an orbit would be a perfect circle. It is possible, just more likely to not be.
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
Why? He posted a picture as "proof" but he does not know what shape those are exactly.
It is a legitimate question. How did he calculate that the image is not perfectly circular?
If he wants to make claims, he has to back it up.
Not insulting you. Just you started to remind me of him. Not quite understanding the concept.
Which concept? That he makes wild claims without proof? Or that he makes wild claims in contradiction to logical proofs?
That you were talking about stars not having to move in a perfect circle, because orbits weren't round or some crap like that. Didn't make sense.
Why does it not make sense?
The orbits of all the planets are elliptical. It is mathematically unlikely that an orbit would be a perfect circle. It is possible, just more likely to not be.
We aren't talking about orbits. That is why your point does not make sense. We are talking about a planet rotating and the stars appearing to move in a circle because of this.
-
We aren't talking about orbits. That is why your point does not make sense. We are talking about a planet rotating and the stars appearing to move in a circle because of this.
I suppose it was a bit off-topic, although it is enough proof that the Earth is round ;)
Anyway, I really wanted to know how he determined they are not perfect circles. Looking at the picture and declaring that they are not is not good enough.
-
We aren't talking about orbits. That is why your point does not make sense. We are talking about a planet rotating and the stars appearing to move in a circle because of this.
I suppose it was a bit off-topic, although it is enough proof that the Earth is round ;)
Anyway, I really wanted to know how he determined they are not perfect circles. Looking at the picture and declaring that they are not is not good enough.
Yup. Plus the earth is not stationary, which means the shouldnt be perfect circles.
-
We aren't talking about orbits. That is why your point does not make sense. We are talking about a planet rotating and the stars appearing to move in a circle because of this.
I suppose it was a bit off-topic, although it is enough proof that the Earth is round ;)
Anyway, I really wanted to know how he determined they are not perfect circles. Looking at the picture and declaring that they are not is not good enough.
Yup. Plus the earth is not stationary, which means the shouldnt be perfect circles.
Ur quotes are screwed up because his was when you quoted him. "</quote>" cut it short.
-
No one said they have to be perfect circles.
Actually, they do.
Who?
None of the planets move in a perfect circle around the Sun, so why does it have to be elliptical again?
Mathematically, it is very unlikely that anything would orbit in a perfect circle.
In RE theory the apparent rotation of the stars is an illusion. The stars are not in orbit around the earth's hub. The stars are static. It's the earth which is rotating on its axis. Therefore the observed rotation of the stars should form a perfect circle. A perfect circle would occur as a result of a rotating body.
Wow Tom, just wow. You have officially sunk to a new low in your arguments.
Not only have you unjustly ignored and disregarded every piece of RE evidence and argument presented, photographic or otherwise, but now...
Now you have actually tried to change one of the very foundations of FET. According to FET, the Earth remains still while stars rotate above. Stars like the sun. What about the sun and the moon Tom? Are they still flying around overhead or are they static as the Earth rotates beneath them?
Honestly, if you're going to try and argue for a side, do everyone a favor and at least stick to one argument.
-
Fail. He said "in the RE theory"
Read harder. Fuck this is getting old.
-
Reread it, I think you misunderstood.
-
Ah....Oh....Well, this is embaressing. :-[ :-[ :-[
I apologize for my harsh words above. Guess I need to pay closer attention.
I'm really not trying to be like eric, guess I sounded a bit like him above huh? :-[
Shall I just remove that post then?
-
Neh it's cool. We hated Eric because HE capitalized WORDS for no Reason. And never got the point of the site.
-
Okay then, as long as we're cool.
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
Why? He posted a picture as "proof" but he does not know what shape those are exactly.
It is a legitimate question. How did he calculate that the image is not perfectly circular?
If he wants to make claims, he has to back it up.
You're all ignorant. The stars rotating in the sky is not proof that the stars orbit us, nor is it proof that the earth is round. It's proof that the earth is rotating. Why shouldn't a flat cylinder be able to rotate? Where else do ocean currents come from? Or the coriolis effect? We don't fly off the edge of the world because of lateral air pressure, as though we were suspended in foam, except it's out atmosphere, held in by the earth's magnetic field.
-
I never said the stars were in orbit around the Earth.
You pictures did not prove that the rotation is not perfectly circular. Did you do any calculations?
OMG it's round earth tom.
Why? He posted a picture as "proof" but he does not know what shape those are exactly.
It is a legitimate question. How did he calculate that the image is not perfectly circular?
If he wants to make claims, he has to back it up.
You're all ignorant. The stars rotating in the sky is not proof that the stars orbit us, nor is it proof that the earth is round. It's proof that the earth is rotating. Why shouldn't a flat cylinder be able to rotate? Where else do ocean currents come from? Or the coriolis effect? We don't fly off the edge of the world because of lateral air pressure, as though we were suspended in foam, except it's out atmosphere, held in by the earth's magnetic field.
I was never claiming it was proof of one nor the other.
I AM claiming that his method for determining his proof is faulty. All he did was post a picture, nothing more.
Care to explain how the magnetic field of a Flat-Earth works? I don't think the field equations will work.
-
Neh it's cool. We hated Eric because HE capitalized WORDS for no Reason. And never got the point of the site.
No, we loved Eric for that. We hated him for leaving.
-
You're all ignorant. The stars rotating in the sky is not proof that the stars orbit us, nor is it proof that the earth is round. It's proof that the earth is rotating. Why shouldn't a flat cylinder be able to rotate? Where else do ocean currents come from? Or the coriolis effect? We don't fly off the edge of the world because of lateral air pressure, as though we were suspended in foam, except it's out atmosphere, held in by the earth's magnetic field.
The stars movement do give very strong evidence of a RE; Astronomers follow the sweeping heavens all over the world with extreme accuracy, using tracking platforms. -These tracking platforms are lined up with earth's axis of rotation. It is not possible to map this spherical behaviour onto a flat surface.