The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: Spanner on September 12, 2012, 04:02:51 PM
-
If one was to move a significant distance from 1 part of the Earth to another, you would see a different set of stars in the sky at night. This wouldn't happen if the Earth was flat.
-
As the stars are close to the earth's surface, when you move from one part of the earth to another you are bringing up a different set of stars.
-
I don't see how 4+ lightyears is close...
-
I don't see how 4+ lightyears is close...
Is this statement supposed to be relevant to the discussion?
-
I don't see how 4+ lightyears is close...
The celestial bodies are calculated to be within a few thousand miles of the earth's surface in the Flat Earth model. They are very close to the earth.
The concept is illustrated with the sun here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)
-
stars are approximately 5100 km above the earth. and they move in planar and spherical earth thoery.
-
I don't see how 4+ lightyears is close...
The celestial bodies are calculated to be within a few thousand miles of the earth's surface in the Flat Earth model. They are very close to the earth.
The concept is illustrated with the sun here: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Distance_to_the_Sun)
The calculations include magnifying the sun/stars near the horizon being magnified. This has been shown to be fallacious due to the fact that it is claimed that the stars & sun are also dimmed at this point, which is not in line with observed effects.
-
If the stars are a mere 5100km high, why don't the stars directly overhead get smaller and closer together as one heads several thousand miles north or south.
The southern cross would be a little smaller when viewed from near the equator (in fact, would it even resemble a cross when viewed from that angle?)
Same with the far north constellations and the north star. Wouldn't they appear smaller and flattened as one's distance from the stars increase a thousand miles and the viewing angle becomes much shallower?
"In the Times newspaper of May 13, 1862, under the head of "Naval and Military Intelligence," it is stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the polar star at midnight in 23.53 latitude, and longitude 35.46"
No mention of any distortion. I would think something like that would have been noticed by now.
-
If the stars are a mere 5100km high, why don't the stars directly overhead get smaller and closer together as one heads several thousand miles north or south.
The southern cross would be a little smaller when viewed from near the equator (in fact, would it even resemble a cross when viewed from that angle?)
Same with the far north constellations and the north star. Wouldn't they appear smaller and flattened as one's distance from the stars increase a thousand miles and the viewing angle becomes much shallower?
"In the Times newspaper of May 13, 1862, under the head of "Naval and Military Intelligence," it is stated that Captain Wilkins distinctly saw the Southern Cross and the polar star at midnight in 23.53 latitude, and longitude 35.46"
No mention of any distortion. I would think something like that would have been noticed by now.
its taken over a year for somebody to post this! you just uncovered the truth and a fatal blow to the fes. constellations wouldnt even exist on a flat earth because they would look different depending where you are. there is a small change now but nothing like it should be.
tangled in your own web of perspective tom.
-
The reason the stars don't build up at the horizon line and change configuration, seeming to be squished together near the horizon, is because they are all descending towards the earth at a constant velocity. It is widely observable that when a receding body increases its altitude it approaches the horizon line at a more constant pace. For example, an airplane moving away from you at 40,000 feet in altitude would move slower and more constantly into the horizon than an airplane at 4,000 feet in altitude, despite the two moving at the same speed into the horizon. The sun and stars are at such an altitude that they have broadened the perspective line to their maximum angle in relation to an observer on earth, all stars descending at a constant or near constant pace. Hence, multiple bodies which move into the horizon at the same consistency would not change configuration.
There's an article in the Wiki about this, but it is about the sun: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun)
-
We weren't talking about the stars descending towards the horizon, we were talking about changing your location on the earth. The constellations should look different from Quebec than they do from New Jersey, but they don't. They look the same. Go to any planetarium. They all show the same constellations. You can also do this research for yourself. Record the stars you see and their angular distance from one another, then record it from a location 1000 miles away. There will be no change when there should be according to your figures. You are using perspective laws to explain one phenomenon that apply to something totally unrelated.
-
The stars are moving at a constant pace into the horizon. They don't build up near the horizon line and wouldn't change configuration.
Regardless if you move to another location on the earth, or you wait for the stars to move, they are not going to build up and change configuration on the horizon line if they are descending at a constant pace in relation to each other.
-
Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.
-
Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.
It doesn't matter if you wait for the stars to move 6000 miles away from you, or you move to another spot on earth 6000 miles away, forcing those stars towards the horizon, the concept is the same. The stars are not going to build up at the horizon because they are all moving relative to each other when they descend towards the horizon.
-
Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.
It doesn't matter if you wait for the stars to move 6000 miles away from you, or you move to another spot on earth 6000 miles away, forcing those stars towards the horizon, the concept is the same. The stars are not going to build up at the horizon because they are all moving relative to each other when they descend towards the horizon.
Yet they shouldn't descent at all, but that's a whole different topic.
This isn't about movement, it's about seeming location. Your two planes at different altitudes scenario is not the same as what we're talking about. If the stars are 5100km above the surface of the earth, then they are at the same altitude as each other. So let me pitch a scenario to you.
If two planes are flying at 40,000 feet while maintaining 0 relative velocity to each other, which means, for all who don't know, that they are staying the exact same distance from each other and maintaining the exact same airspeed, then as they move away, the should appear to approach one another. As things fade into the distance, they appear to get smaller. Since these two objects and traveling exactly equal in relation to one another, we can treat them as the same object. That object should appear to get smaller.
The above scenario should be happening with the stars. Yes, 6000 miles is a huge difference and should appear as such, but it does not. The stars to not appear to move in relation to one another as they should, shown by the scenario I just presented.
-
Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.
It doesn't matter if you wait for the stars to move 6000 miles away from you, or you move to another spot on earth 6000 miles away, forcing those stars towards the horizon, the concept is the same. The stars are not going to build up at the horizon because they are all moving relative to each other when they descend towards the horizon.
Here's a nice simple 2D 'fill in the blank' diagram.
How do the stars directly over person 'A' appear the same when seen by person 'B' with no visual shrinking or squashing of the layout or constellations?
(http://imageshack.us/a/img33/4171/starsbg.jpg)
-
The reason the stars don't build up at the horizon line and change configuration, seeming to be squished together near the horizon, is because they are all descending towards the earth at a constant velocity. It is widely observable that when a receding body increases its altitude it approaches the horizon line at a more constant pace. For example, an airplane moving away from you at 40,000 feet would move slower and more constantly into the horizon than an airplane at 4000 feet, despite the two moving at the same speed into the horizon. The sun and stars are at such an altitude that they have broadened the perspective line to their maximum angle in relation to an observer on earth, all stars descending at a constant or near constant pace. Hence, multiple bodies which move into the horizon at the same consistency would not change configuration.
There's an article in the Wiki about this, but it is about the sun: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun)
then nothing can 'squish together' according to this. lets swap it around and say 2 objects are stationary but im moving at a constant velocity. will this mean they wont appear to squish together?
the short answer is yes they will.
even if your post was irrelevant to the subject at hand because you didnt understand what we were saying it was still wrong.
-
The reason the stars don't build up at the horizon line and change configuration, seeming to be squished together near the horizon, is because they are all descending towards the earth at a constant velocity. It is widely observable that when a receding body increases its altitude it approaches the horizon line at a more constant pace. For example, an airplane moving away from you at 40,000 feet would move slower and more constantly into the horizon than an airplane at 4000 feet, despite the two moving at the same speed into the horizon. The sun and stars are at such an altitude that they have broadened the perspective line to their maximum angle in relation to an observer on earth, all stars descending at a constant or near constant pace. Hence, multiple bodies which move into the horizon at the same consistency would not change configuration.
There's an article in the Wiki about this, but it is about the sun: http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun (http://theflatearthsociety.org/wiki/index.php?title=Constant_Speed_of_the_Sun)
Nothing yet? Here then I'll give it a try.
(http://imageshack.us/a/img209/5923/stars2n.jpg)
C is wider than D. I guess multiple objects at the same height appear closer together when viewed from an angle.
-
well its very easy to beat tom in debate, especially when there isnt a conspiracy involved.
-
Where's Tom Bishop with another one of his long answers that completely avoid the question at hand?
-
Where's Tom Bishop with another one of his long answers that completely avoid the question at hand?
This is the other way he avoids the question at hand.
-
So true. He avoids questions like black men avoid their children...yes...Negrodamus said it.
If this is the best that you can do, then don't bother. Such responses are inappropriate in the discussion forums. Don't let it happen again.
-
I guess multiple objects at the same height appear closer together when viewed from an angle.
Assuming light travels in straight lines in an absolute preferred reference frame from the stars.
-
Again. Not talking about movement. You're grasping at straws. Please go back and reread the conversation.
It doesn't matter if you wait for the stars to move 6000 miles away from you, or you move to another spot on earth 6000 miles away, forcing those stars towards the horizon, the concept is the same. The stars are not going to build up at the horizon because they are all moving relative to each other when they descend towards the horizon.
Yet they shouldn't descent at all, but that's a whole different topic.
This isn't about movement, it's about seeming location. Your two planes at different altitudes scenario is not the same as what we're talking about. If the stars are 5100km above the surface of the earth, then they are at the same altitude as each other. So let me pitch a scenario to you.
If two planes are flying at 40,000 feet while maintaining 0 relative velocity to each other, which means, for all who don't know, that they are staying the exact same distance from each other and maintaining the exact same airspeed, then as they move away, the should appear to approach one another. As things fade into the distance, they appear to get smaller. Since these two objects and traveling exactly equal in relation to one another, we can treat them as the same object. That object should appear to get smaller.
The above scenario should be happening with the stars. Yes, 6000 miles is a huge difference and should appear as such, but it does not. The stars to not appear to move in relation to one another as they should, shown by the scenario I just presented.
For a visual imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your heat at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.
My argument is that the stars are at such a great height that they have maximized the perspective lines. They are descending into the horizon at a consistent or near consistent velocity. As consequence they do not slow down in the distance by any significant degree, and hence do not appear to change configuration.
-
Here's a nice simple 2D 'fill in the blank' diagram.
How do the stars directly over person 'A' appear the same when seen by person 'B' with no visual shrinking or squashing of the layout or constellations?
http://imageshack.us/a/img33/4171/starsbg.jpg (http://imageshack.us/a/img33/4171/starsbg.jpg)
While attempts have been made, true and accurate illustration of perspective is impossible. The problem is that perspective cannot be properly visualized on a small scale. For example, that's not really a distances of 3,000 miles in your image, but more like 4 inches on a computer screen.
Such a small scale illustration is like looking into a shoe box with a peep hole at one end and calling it a reproduction of perspective which appears in the world. The ceiling of the shoe box is a mere 8 inches in altitude. The perspective is incompatible with the real world, no matter if you write "3000 miles" on shoe box wall. If the length of the shoe box continued indefinitely it would reach a vanishing point much closer than if you were in, say, an ampatheater with a 500 foot ceiling continuing indefinitely into the distance.
-
no tom the scaled drawing is accurate in this case. you missed my comment on stationary objects too.
-
Try again Tom.
-
no tom the scaled drawing is accurate in this case. you missed my comment on stationary objects too.
How is it accurate? The distance from the surface to the stars is only four inches, not 3,000 miles.
-
its to scale thats why. i do see your point though. are you saying that over that distance its hard to tell? only the scaled picture its easy to see.
-
The stars are moving at a constant pace into the horizon. They don't build up near the horizon line and wouldn't change configuration.
Regardless if you move to another location on the earth, or you wait for the stars to move, they are not going to build up and change configuration on the horizon line if they are descending at a constant pace in relation to each other.
this quote in particular needs more reasoning. if i was to walk down the road at a constant pace the street lights still appear to 'squash' together even though they are receding at a constant velocity.
-
its to scale thats why. i do see your point though. are you saying that over that distance its hard to tell? only the scaled picture its easy to see.
Such a small diagram is entirely incompatible with demonstrating perspective. Perspective behaves differently depending on the size of the scene. See the Cessna vs Jet example I described above:
For a visual imagine that someone is flying a Cessna into the distance at an illegal altitude of 700 feet. He seems to zoom by pretty fast when he is flies over your head, only slowing down when he is off in the far distance.
Now consider what happens when a jet flies over your head at 45,000 feet. At that altitude a jet appears to move very slowly across the sky, despite that the jet is moving much faster than the Cessna. With greater altitude the plane seems to move more consistently across the sky. It does not zoom by overhead, only seeming to slow when in the far distance.
-
The stars are moving at a constant pace into the horizon. They don't build up near the horizon line and wouldn't change configuration.
Regardless if you move to another location on the earth, or you wait for the stars to move, they are not going to build up and change configuration on the horizon line if they are descending at a constant pace in relation to each other.
this quote in particular needs more reasoning. if i was to walk down the road at a constant pace the street lights still appear to 'squash' together even though they are receding at a constant velocity.
I'm saying that the stars moves downwards towards the horizon at a constant velocity, just as a jet moves more constantly across the sky the higher it is. Scroll upwards to the Cessna vs. Jet example.
The stars are at such a height that they have maximized the perspective lines and all move at a constant pace downwards towards the horizon, no longer building up in the distance.
-
arnt the stars just reaching the vanishing point though, or are you suggesting something different is happening?
-
Such a small diagram is entirely incompatible with demonstrating perspective. Perspective behaves differently depending on the size of the scene. See the Cessna vs Jet example I described above:
Actually, small scale diagrams are entirely compatible with demonstrating perspective as long as the all of the angular and distance ratios are consistent. In fact, that's the point of scale diagrams.
-
Look back to my indefinitely long shoe box example.
If we have an indefinitely long shoe box with a peep hole at one end (5 inch high ceiling with walls spaced 8 inches apart, extending indefinitely lengthwise from the end of the box), when we look inside the peephole the walls of the box will appear to meet at a point in the distance. This point where they meet is called the Vanishing Point.
Now, say that we also have an indefinitely long ampatheter with a 500 foot tall ceiling and walls spread apart by 800 feet. The Vanishing Point for the ampatheater will be much further away than the Vanishing Point of the shoe box. The walls and ceiling of the ampatheater are spaced apart wider, and therefore they will need to recede a greater distance to meet. This happens regardless of whether the shoe box has the correct ratio of the ampatheater and the sides of the box are labeled with "500 feet" and "800 feet".
Hence, any scaled model of perspective is invalid for purposes of accurately representing reality.
-
Tom,
You claim perspective causes the Sun to appear to meet the horizon despite there being 3000 miles between the two. Yet somehow perspective also keeps the stars from appearing to get closer together as they move away (though perspective does make them go down to the horizon). This makes no sense at all.
Also, should we disregard the diagrams in ENaG since "any scaled model of perspective is invalid for purposes of accurately representing reality"? While others may appropriately disregard them for other reasons, your rules seem to require you to disregard them as well.
As markjo said, a scale diagram which has accurate angles and ratios can properly illustrate the apparent change in appearance due to perspective.
-
Tom,
You claim perspective causes the Sun to appear to meet the horizon despite there being 3000 miles between the two. Yet somehow perspective also keeps the stars from appearing to get closer together as they move away (though perspective does make them go down to the horizon). This makes no sense at all.
Why is it so hard to believe?
Perspective can do a lot. Pick up an optical illusion book sometime. Most of the effects are just tricks of perspective.
(http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/capri-sun-perspective-shoe-crush.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RvRk51CYOJc/TM4qxi-mW5I/AAAAAAAAAjg/HzqfLFixhTY/s1600/beofpp-84.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-cqMzX6_fHyg/T7AWmNF1l8I/AAAAAAAAAMU/-0lLV4imq0U/s1600/mc_escher_063.jpg)
Also, should we disregard the diagrams in ENaG since "any scaled model of perspective is invalid for purposes of accurately representing reality"? While others may appropriately disregard them for other reasons, your rules seem to require you to disregard them as well.
I freely admit that the perspective diagrams in ENaG are exaggerated. They are a loose visual aid.
As markjo said, a scale diagram which has accurate angles and ratios can properly illustrate the apparent change in appearance due to perspective.
Think about it. You guys are asking for a small diagram to demonstrate what perspective and scale does to objects on a large scale, as opposed to what it does on a small scale.
If the scaled diagram is small then we're only going to see what perspective does on a small scale. Not a difficult idea to grasp.
-
Look back to my indefinitely long shoe box example.
If we have an indefinitely long shoe box with a peep hole at one end (5 inch high ceiling with walls spaced 8 inches apart, extending indefinitely lengthwise from the end of the box), when we look inside the peephole the walls of the box will appear to meet at a point in the distance. This point where they meet is called the Vanishing Point.
Now, say that we also have an indefinitely long ampatheter with a 500 foot tall ceiling and walls spread apart by 800 feet. The Vanishing Point for the ampatheater will be much further away than the Vanishing Point of the shoe box. The walls and ceiling of the ampatheater are spaced apart wider, and therefore they will need to recede a greater distance to meet. This happens regardless of whether the shoe box has the correct ratio of the ampatheater and the sides of the box are labeled with "500 feet" and "800 feet".
Hence, any scaled model of perspective is invalid for purposes of accurately representing reality.
If your amphitheater is 1200 times larger than your shoe box, then the vanishing point would be 1200 times farther away. What's so confusing about that?
-
(http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/capri-sun-perspective-shoe-crush.jpg)
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RvRk51CYOJc/TM4qxi-mW5I/AAAAAAAAAjg/HzqfLFixhTY/s1600/beofpp-84.jpg)
Did NASA crate these images? Because they are clearly photoshopped, not a realistic view of perspective change.
-
They're not Photoshopped. In the first one a woman merely has her foot near the camera. The second one is from this place (http://puzzlingplace.co.uk/#3):
See and experience how your brain can be tricked into believing that people are growing and shrinking as they walk across a room!
Watch yourself visibly grow and shrink or make a friend look tiny alongside you. The only one in the country, the Ames Room is a deformed room that creates an astonishing illusion. When you look inside, although the room is heavily distorted it appears completely normal with parallel walls and horizontal floor and ceiling.
This is because the brain has been conditioned to assume that walls of rooms are parallel. The assumption is so strong it completely overrides the fact that people are changing size, even though in the real world this obviously doesn’t happen. Here your brain is willing to accept it as the assumption of parallel walls is much stronger!
(http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20090702/ames_room_02.jpg)
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_6HSv49n-Kko/SmQSpMrL_3I/AAAAAAAABh8/LinC8ucLH9A/s1600/Lakes+District+004.jpg)
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lv5MCEXf4Ik/TamF2g47pMI/AAAAAAAAFqw/KxUhV9zg0a8/s1600/093.JPG)
-
Replace each occurence of the word 'Perspective' in this thread with the words 'Unicorn Dust'.
Either will do as well for Zetetic demonstration of phenomena.
-
its funny because the shoe box and theatre are to scale and demonstrate the diagram is correct.
also i asked if the stars reached the vanishing point like the sun does.
i believe you are inventing your own theories to create your own reality. or to coin the phrase it has been 'bishoped'.
-
Did NASA crate these images? Because they are clearly photoshopped, not a realistic view of perspective change.
It's not photoshop, it's called "forced perspective" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective). It has nothing to do with perspective in accurate scale models and I suspect that Tom knows that.
-
I admit I was too quick to repond, at first glance the first picture the foot does not look naturally lit, however upon further examination I saw the small amount of sunlight and consequent shadow near the top.
Did NASA crate these images? Because they are clearly photoshopped, not a realistic view of perspective change.
It's not photoshop, it's called "forced perspective" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_perspective). It has nothing to do with perspective in accurate scale models and I suspect that Tom knows that.
-
Tom, your airplanes flying at different altitudes aren't even a remotely accurate analogy for the stars. The stars, according to FET, are all at the same altitude. The example I provided of the two airplanes at the same altitude, same speed, same direction is a much better example.
-
Tom, your airplanes flying at different altitudes aren't even a remotely accurate analogy for the stars. The stars, according to FET, are all at the same altitude. The example I provided of the two airplanes at the same altitude, same speed, same direction is a much better example.
The Cessna Vs. Jet example shows that bodies travel across the sky more consistently the higher they are.
-
My point, Tom, is that you are claiming perspective is working in two opposite ways at the same time, on the same objects.
As two objects, which are an unchanging distance apart, get further from the observer, they will appear to get closer together. This is due to perspective, and is why you say the stars appear to get closer to the horizon as they get further away. Yet, somehow, the stars do not appear to get any closer to each other (only closer to the horizon), also because of perspective. This is contradictory, and makes no sense. At the same time, perspective is also keeping the stars the same distance from each other, as well as in the same constellation shapes, despite the viewing angle increasing as they get further from the viewer. "Perspective" is incredible!
-
My point, Tom, is that you are claiming perspective is working in two opposite ways at the same time, on the same objects.
As two objects, which are an unchanging distance apart, get further from the observer, they will appear to get closer together. This is due to perspective, and is why you say the stars appear to get closer to the horizon as they get further away. Yet, somehow, the stars do not appear to get any closer to each other (only closer to the horizon), also because of perspective. This is contradictory, and makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. Perspective causes overhead bodies to appear to intersect the ground at a steep angle, which gets steeper with height. This is why the Cessna passes overhead fast and the Jet passes overhead slow.
"Perspective" is incredible!
Correct.
(http://static.flickr.com/101/283200906_ff7a8d119e_o.jpg)
-
optical illusions do not support your theory. try demonstrating it with something relevant to the topic and the theory may be taken more seriously. so far all i see is you making a conclusion without evidence to back the claim. not the most zetetic of you tom now is it? are you able to demonstrate this anywhere else but your imagination?
-
Perspective causes overhead bodies to appear to intersect the ground at a steep angle, which gets steeper with height. This is why the Cessna overhead fast and the Jet passes overhead slow.
That is your explanation for why perspective does not cause stars to appear to get closer together as they get further away? And also why their perceived arrangement doesn't seem to shift at all as our viewing angle changes? Could you elaborate as to how "intersecting the ground at a steep angle" explains this?
Also, your picture actually illustrates one point quite well. That picture only looks like it does because of the artwork being designed to be viewed from a very specific angle. If viewed at another angle our perception of the image would be drastically different. Yet somehow, our viewing angle of the stars can change drastically over the course of the day, yet the perceived shape and arrangement of the stars, as well as their apparent distance from each other doesn't change.
-
There's an easy solution to this, and I may give Tom $1million in monopoly money if he figures it out.