1

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 11, 2020, 02:24:15 AM »

The simple truth is in my opinion the experiment I've already done is equivalent to the experiment you want me to do, so I simply can't see the point, it would be a complete waste of my time.

Don't bother doing it then. The experiment is only for yourself. It has no bearing on me so feel free to shy away from it.

Even if I wanted to right now, I couldn't, due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. But since I'm 100% convinced that your experiment would give me the same result as my own earlier experiment, I wouldn't bother anyway.

Furthermore it's perfectly clear that others have done similar experiments and their results agree with mine.

Yep, similar or the same experiments that mean absolutely nothing are are absolutely bogus....and I believe you know this.

In particular you've been shown photographic evidence of an experiment identical to the one you say I should go out and do and you just dismiss it as fake, so it's fair to assume if I do your experiment and take photos to prove it, that you'll call fake on mine as well. It's what you do.

If you do it correctly I won't need to call fake. You know this.

I can assure you I don't know or believe this one bit. You are essentially asserting I know the earth is flat and for some bizarre reason am trying to claim the opposite. No idea why you would think that. I do believe that there are some fake FE people on YouTube who know full well that the earth is round, but have made money and become somewhat well known with their videos, but I hardly think lurking on here and debating with you is going to lead to fame or fortune, so what reason would I have to do this?

I do however give you the benefit of doubt and think you are genuinely a FEer and not a troll. Wrong, but not a troll.

I don't need to convince myself, I've already done my own experiment to my own satisfaction. I know I won't be able to convince you either. I mean you could have a go at convincing me if you like, but your words alone won't budge me as you never offer any evidence to back them up.

You can easily convince me if you show a definite. A fact. A legitimate, provable showing of what I've asked.
If you don't want to do that then, like I said, don't waste your own time.
I'm not waiting on you for any proof. I know the proof for myself. You would be well served by proving it to yourself by your own hands instead of hanging on to other people's bogus garbage and passing it off as your own.

Nah, you've dismissed other evidence is fake, I'm totally convinced you'd do the same if I presented some to you. I don't mind wasting a bit of time with diagrams and maths and stuff, I quite enjoy it, but not going to all the trouble of repeating a time consuming experiment others have already done and you've already dismissed out of hand.

2

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 10, 2020, 09:35:56 AM »

No they can't. If the observer moves up, then the liquid levels won't line up.

Let me make this even more clear.

If the observer had looked from a level to start with instead of taking the picture from a slight angle, the observer would then take the picture showing the perfectly eye level horizon.
I have no clue why you're arguing this because you can clearly go and do a legitimate experiment yourself. You have no need to try and convince me of this fakery. I know the reality, 100%.

The observer is level. Sure the photo is taken from slightly to the side in order for us all to be able to see the levels in both tubes at the same time, but a side to side movement from a level position still leaves you level. The observer/camera cannot move up or down and still be level with the tubes, that's the point.

I've stated several times already that I have done an experiment myself and I know what I saw. If you want to convince me I was somehow mistaken, by all means present some actual evidence rather than just telling me to do my own experiment. I repeat, I have already done my experiment and I know what the result was. I don't need to go and do it again.

I don't need to convince you. If you can't/won't do the simple experiment I gave then you are simply not interested in the truth. You can't be, otherwise you'd do it for you...not for me...or anyone else.

The simple truth is in my opinion the experiment I've already done is equivalent to the experiment you want me to do, so I simply can't see the point, it would be a complete waste of my time. Furthermore it's perfectly clear that others have done similar experiments and their results agree with mine. In particular you've been shown photographic evidence of an experiment identical to the one you say I should go out and do and you just dismiss it as fake, so it's fair to assume if I do your experiment and take photos to prove it, that you'll call fake on mine as well. It's what you do.

I don't need to convince myself, I've already done my own experiment to my own satisfaction. I know I won't be able to convince you either. I mean you could have a go at convincing me if you like, but your words alone won't budge me as you never offer any evidence to back them up.

3

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 10, 2020, 08:30:08 AM »

No they can't. If the observer moves up, then the liquid levels won't line up.

Let me make this even more clear.

If the observer had looked from a level to start with instead of taking the picture from a slight angle, the observer would then take the picture showing the perfectly eye level horizon.
I have no clue why you're arguing this because you can clearly go and do a legitimate experiment yourself. You have no need to try and convince me of this fakery. I know the reality, 100%.

The observer is level. Sure the photo is taken from slightly to the side in order for us all to be able to see the levels in both tubes at the same time, but a side to side movement from a level position still leaves you level. The observer/camera cannot move up or down and still be level with the tubes, that's the point.

I've stated several times already that I have done an experiment myself and I know what I saw. If you want to convince me I was somehow mistaken, by all means present some actual evidence rather than just telling me to do my own experiment. I repeat, I have already done my experiment and I know what the result was. I don't need to go and do it again.

4

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 10, 2020, 08:19:09 AM »

If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.

1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.

We can do this if you want.

2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.

We can also do this. I want to know the reality and I don't want it in obscure patterns.

I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.

Any direction as long as it leads to a truth.

I'm asking you to choose. I know you don't like choosing, but this one is pretty simple. Park the issues, finish going through the method and then return to the issues OR park the method and deal with the issues as they arise. I'm not going to make the choice for you, up to you to tell me which way you would rather go.

We've done the standing in the doorway, after you, no, after you bit. I'm standing here with my arms crossed waiting for you to decide.

Let's deal with it all as we go. Are you afraid to do that?

No, not at all. Quite happy to do that.

5

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 10, 2020, 01:54:12 AM »

Go and do it for yourself.

Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.

It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

Can you share the picture?

Presumably something like this?

At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.

Well it was tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point being made. I've superimposed a tube in the image just to make the point that the original image is exactly what you ask for, a level view with crosshair in the middle. The tube doesn't need to be there, it doesn't make any difference, the horizon is still clearly below level.

You keep claiming this is wrong and we can do experiments like this to see for ourselves. Well I've used an app on my phone which shows elevation angle and seen for myself that the horizon is below level when I'm up high. That's my experiment and I'm happy with it. I don't need to waste my time messing about with cardboard tubes and bits of cotton.

Let me try and make this more clear and easy to understand.
That picture can show tubes of water/liquid and a tube and line but the observer can assume any position when looking at those lines and levels, ensuring the horizon is not eye level. It's a con job and you know fine well it's a con job.
What baffles me is, why would you do this when you clearly know what I'm talking about and you can actually see for yourself....and so can anyone else. It strikes me as odd as hell, unless your goal is to ensure people don't get to the truth....but why?

No they can't. If the observer moves up, then the liquid levels won't line up. If the observer moves down, then the liquid levels line won't line up. Put one finger in front of another, line them up, then, keeping them in place, move your head up or down. They won't stay lined up. What this shows is, when they were in a line, there was a straight line joining all three points, your eye and your two fingers. Move your head up and the three points can no longer form a straight line.

What this picture shows is that the three points - camera plus two liquid levels - are all in the same straight line. Since the two liquid levels are connected, the two liquid levels are also literally level, they can't be anything else. If there's any doubt about this, fill a tube in a similar way and just put a spirit level alongside. So since the two liquid levels are level and the camera is in the same straight line, the line extending out from the camera across the tops of the liquid is also level and as you extend that out, you clearly see it is above the horizon.

I mean you keep telling us all to perform a similar experiment ourselves and several of us have and we all find the same thing - the horizon is below level. It's the complete opposite of what you are claiming, without any evidence at all.

How do you expect to persuade any of of your truth when you offer nothing other than baseless unsupported claims and in the meantime we've done our own experiments and proved to ourselves what actually happens.

6

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 10, 2020, 01:37:49 AM »

If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.

1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.

We can do this if you want.

2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.

We can also do this. I want to know the reality and I don't want it in obscure patterns.

I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.

Any direction as long as it leads to a truth.

I'm asking you to choose. I know you don't like choosing, but this one is pretty simple. Park the issues, finish going through the method and then return to the issues OR park the method and deal with the issues as they arise. I'm not going to make the choice for you, up to you to tell me which way you would rather go.

We've done the standing in the doorway, after you, no, after you bit. I'm standing here with my arms crossed waiting for you to decide.

7

Flat Earth General / Re: How long did umbra travel from coast to coast in America's solar eclipse 2017?

« on: November 06, 2020, 01:26:12 AM »

There are either "shy" gif pic (only earth & moon, while he sun ain't show up) or anti HC gif pic (earth rotation goes westwards).

"We are sorry, through out our territory we cannot present a single clear, complete HC gif pic for solar eclipse, because such a pic is impossible" -- Grandpa Google.

The problem with a gif showing everything at once is that it really needs to be a scale model because the distances matter.

If we make the moon 1 pixel on the image, then the earth is 3.5 pixels wide, the sun is 400 pixels wide, the earth-moon distance is 110 pixels and the earth-sun distance is 42,000 pixels.

To fit in a complete orbit, your image needs to be an absolute minimum of 84,000 x 84,000 pixels in size and on that scale the moon is a single pixel. If you print this at 300dpi you should be able to fit it on a piece of paper 23 feet x 23 feet. The moon will be one dot on this paper.

On that scale you have no chance whatsoever of being able to see what's going on with the shadow of a 1 pixel moon moving across a 3.5 pixel earth.

8

Flat Earth General / Re: How long did umbra travel from coast to coast in America's solar eclipse 2017?

« on: November 03, 2020, 01:55:54 AM »

I'm feeling bad to unintentionally 'torture' readers here by prolongedly debating something clear.

Earth rotation eastwards = 359° perday.

By 359° per day, I assume you mean 24h. That would mean a full 360° would take 24h4m, making that the length of the sidereal day, i.e. take a photo of the night sky and another 24h4m later and they'd be identical.

Well that's wrong for a start, since the sidereal day is 23h56m4.1s. The earth does not rotate 359° in 24h, sorry.

Moon revolution around earth eastwards = 13.17° perday.

Yep, you got that one right, 1 out of 2 so far.

The moon shadow is obviously supposed to GO WEST.

If you cannot present a gif pic in HC version, I'm done here.

The stars appear to move across the night sky westwards at 15.04° per hour, due to the actual eastwards rotation of the earth.

You've rightly said the moon rotates eastwards at 13.17° per day, which is 0.55° per hour. So combine the stars apparent motion of 15.04° westwards with the moon's 0.55° actual eastwards motion and the moon is apparently moving at 14.49° across the sky, westwards.

The sun, we know is faster. 15° per hour westwards. The sun will catch and overtake the moon passing behind it, travelling westwards. The moon will therefore appear to travel in front of the sun moving west to east, relative to the sun. The shadow will self-evidently go the same way, west to east.

You got everything pretty much bang on, but somehow ended up with the wrong conclusion.

9

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 02, 2020, 02:31:14 AM »

If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?

The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.
That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.

Why have you put the convergence point to the left?
Do you actually know what I'm trying to tell you?

Most likely you do but choose to play this game, which is fair enough.

In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.

Just to really ram the point home:



Every component of this frame is pointing towards a single convergence point, including the horizontal string which cuts straight across the two liquid levels. This convergence point is clearly above the extended (yellow) horizon line.

Move the camera up or down a tiny amount and the two liquid levels won't line up. The only way to change the gap between the green line and the yellow extended horizon line is to move the camera up or down, which means you are no longer level.

10

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 02, 2020, 01:44:27 AM »

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

Any particular reason why the spirit level bubble is obscure?
I very simple video of this set up would be so easy, showing the scope and crosshair plus bubble level of the spirit level...and yet we get this.

You know what's amusing?
Anyone can perform this experiment for themselves with the simple stuff I mentioned. This is how silly it all is and shocks me as to why someone would go to the trouble of faking it.

It's there for all honest people to see for themselves.

This is the very experiment you want performed. The evidence is here which shows you are wrong. If you really want to persuade the rest of us, why not show us some evidence of your own? A simple video set up would be all that's needed, right? OK then, let's see one. All we can do is provide evidence to you to convince you we are right - and we do provide that evidence. Lots of evidence. Since there is only one of you and several of us, it would be much more efficient for you to try persuading us with some actual evidence rather than your constant appeal to authority (yourself). You might say you've done these experiments, but frankly, I don't think any of us believe for one second you have. But feel free to prove me wrong.

11

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 02, 2020, 12:37:36 AM »

Go and do it for yourself.

Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.

It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

Can you share the picture?

Presumably something like this?

At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.

Well it was tongue in cheek, but there is a serious point being made. I've superimposed a tube in the image just to make the point that the original image is exactly what you ask for, a level view with crosshair in the middle. The tube doesn't need to be there, it doesn't make any difference, the horizon is still clearly below level.

You keep claiming this is wrong and we can do experiments like this to see for ourselves. Well I've used an app on my phone which shows elevation angle and seen for myself that the horizon is below level when I'm up high. That's my experiment and I'm happy with it. I don't need to waste my time messing about with cardboard tubes and bits of cotton.

12

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: November 02, 2020, 12:29:42 AM »

It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.

Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.

We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.

If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.

If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.

A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.

Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.

Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?

The great thing about this method is that it doesn't matter what the stars are, what they are made of, how they work. All that matters is how they behave to the observer, i.e. they stay in fixed positions no matter where the observers are or how far apart they are. One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star. The stars make up a fixed background which can be used as a reference to investigate anything in the night sky which isn't fixed.

However if the first observer were to point instead to a specific crater on the moon, read off the RA/Dec coordinates and pass them to the second observer, they would then find that the crater was not in that position. It apparently shifts. You can buy accessories for telescopes which allow you to measure angular distances, so you could measure the shift this way, but all this requires expensive specialist equipment. I'm instead showing you how you can achieve the same result using ordinary consumer grade digital cameras instead.

So are we OK with step 3 now?

How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?

Suppose you have a roundabout/carousel/merry-go-round - whatever you want to call it. One of those things you find in a children's playground.

Paint a pattern of stars on it.

Have an observer sit on it. Get another observer standing by the trees, some distance away. Now start turning the roundabout very slowly. Once per day. Do the trees start moving? Of course not, they are literally rooted to the spot where they grow. Do the painted stars start moving around, changing position on the roundabout? Of course not.

Things may appear to rotate for both observers, but if each records a timelapse with a 24h interval between frames, then actually nothing moves at all. By all means speed up the roundabout. Doesn't make any difference. Take a timelapse once per revolution and you can see nothing changes. Each painted star remains in the same position on the roundabout, exactly where it was painted. Each tree remains where it was planted.

The stars behave in the same way. Point a camera at the sky. Take a timelapse, with a frame rate of one (sidereal) day. No star moves. They are all fixed.

In addition, no matter where you move to, how far away you move. The stars won't change position. That's all there is to it. They are fixed. Sure they rotate around the two celestial poles, just like the roundabout or the trees rotate for the respective observers, but nothing changes position.

It doesn't matter one bit how far away the stars are, what they are made of, whether they are rotating or whether the earth is rotating. All that matters is they are fixed in place and can be used as a reference for comparison with anything else which isn't - such as the moon or the planets.

OK with this now? Shall we move on to step 4?

If you are still not happy with the idea of stars as a fixed reference point, then I think we have two options.

1) Accept for now what I'm saying, work through the rest of the moon distance method, we note any further issues you are not happy with and then at the end we come back and address all the issues, one by one.

2) Forget about the whole moon distance thing (at least for now) and side-track and start talking about the whole are stars fixed or not issue.

I don't really mind either way. You tell me which direction you want to go in.

13

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Lunar eclipses and the FE Wiki

« on: November 01, 2020, 02:04:20 AM »

Half of the world is the sky. So how imprtant is it that the sun and moon are the same size? According to modern science - "it just happens to be that way"...?

Firstly, they aren't remotely the same size, but I assume you mean they appear that way in the sky.

Secondly, even that isn't always true. Sometimes you get a total solar eclipse, sometimes you get an annular eclipse - where they aren't the same size.

Thirdly, it wasn't always that way, and it won't be that way in the future, since the moon is getting progressively further away.

Finally, ever heard of a coincidence. They do happen you know. Several times in my life I've bumped into people I know from home, when we were thousands of miles from home. I mean if were paranoid, I might suspect I was being tracked around the world by some secret organisation who've recruited old friends of mine, but since I'm not (or at least don't think I am), then it was just a coincidence.

14

Flat Earth General / Re: How long did umbra travel from coast to coast in America's solar eclipse 2017?

« on: October 31, 2020, 07:11:10 AM »

The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed.

I don't get why this is such a complicated discussion. To me it's very simple. The sun crosses the sky east to west on average about 15° per hour. The moon crosses the sky east to west on average about 14.5° per hour. The sun therefore catches up with the moon and overtakes it, going east to west, at the rate of (on average) about 0.5° per hour.

Since the sun passes behind the moon, when an eclipse happens, if you are looking at the sun, from that perspective, then the moon crosses the face of the sun from west to east at 0.5° per hour and that means the shadow moves west to east as well.

Yep, it's simple. And that's not Helio Centric model.

No idea why you would think that. The earth orbits the sun and at the same time rotates about its axis. The cumulative effect of that is that the sun appears to move east to west at 15° per hour. No problems with that, surely.

The moon orbits the earth and the earth rotates about its axis. The cumulative effect is that the moon appears to move east west at 14.5° per hour. Can't see a problem with that either.

The note to consider:
The sun chatching up the moving forward moon will not give such a traveling umbra whose velocity is like the letter "U", i.e. the umbra goes deceleration and then goes acceleration.

It takes a solid body intersecting the sun's path to realize such an umbra pattern in real world, otherwise: the umbra would go zero velocity or go backwards for a while and then go forwards again.

Sorry, not following that at all. Are you saying the moon is or isn't a solid body? I can stand in the path of totality and watch the moon slide across the face of the sun. I did exactly that in 2017, so I know what I saw.

15

Flat Earth General / Re: How long did umbra travel from coast to coast in America's solar eclipse 2017?

« on: October 31, 2020, 04:57:45 AM »

The moon is supposed to go eastwards and faster than the earth rotation speed.

I don't get why this is such a complicated discussion. To me it's very simple. The sun crosses the sky east to west on average about 15° per hour. The moon crosses the sky east to west on average about 14.5° per hour. The sun therefore catches up with the moon and overtakes it, going east to west, at the rate of (on average) about 0.5° per hour.

Since the sun passes behind the moon, when an eclipse happens, if you are looking at the sun, from that perspective, then the moon crosses the face of the sun from west to east at 0.5° per hour and that means the shadow moves west to east as well.

16

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 30, 2020, 02:48:30 AM »

Go and do it for yourself.

Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.

It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

Can you share the picture?

Presumably something like this?

17

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 30, 2020, 02:20:59 AM »

It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.

Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.

We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.

If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.

If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.

A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.

Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.

Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?

The great thing about this method is that it doesn't matter what the stars are, what they are made of, how they work. All that matters is how they behave to the observer, i.e. they stay in fixed positions no matter where the observers are or how far apart they are. One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star. The stars make up a fixed background which can be used as a reference to investigate anything in the night sky which isn't fixed.

However if the first observer were to point instead to a specific crater on the moon, read off the RA/Dec coordinates and pass them to the second observer, they would then find that the crater was not in that position. It apparently shifts. You can buy accessories for telescopes which allow you to measure angular distances, so you could measure the shift this way, but all this requires expensive specialist equipment. I'm instead showing you how you can achieve the same result using ordinary consumer grade digital cameras instead.

So are we OK with step 3 now?

18

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 29, 2020, 03:45:45 AM »

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.

Not really ok, no.
What would happen if the point of light ( your star) in your picture, near your moon is very close to your moon and looking like it does to you, rather than what you're told in terms of light years away?

How does this marry up with pixels?

It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.

Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.

We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.

If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.

If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.

A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.

Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.

19

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 28, 2020, 02:39:29 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?

20

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 28, 2020, 02:25:49 AM »

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.

21

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 28, 2020, 01:06:48 AM »

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.

22

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 28, 2020, 01:01:56 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.

23

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 27, 2020, 03:18:26 AM »

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.

24

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 27, 2020, 02:18:09 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.

25

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 27, 2020, 01:05:40 AM »

Rejecting reality will not help your case.
When you get high enough, the horizon can easily be shown to be below eye level.
It is clearly shown to not be the point of convergence.

You can dress it up as much as you want to. I don;t need to argue this point with you when people viewing this can easily find out the truth for themselves with something as simple and as cheap as a kitchen roll tube.
Just set it up to look out to sea from any vantage point they wish and all they need to do with the tube is to place a bit of cotton over the other end of the eye hole. Even make a crosshair, just ensure it's level in all ways.


This is all you need and is absolute proof of eye level, which cannot be anything else to be fair but some people just don't get it.


This simple tube shows the Earth not to be a globe, also if people take the time to actually think for themselves and not be bullied into following the indoctrinated nonsense global model.

Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.

How are you levelling the tube?

You simply level the tube horizontally towards the sea and sky.
Make sure you have a crosshair exactly over the front of the tube and ensure it is horizontally and vertically levelled and plumb.
The plumb part is not essential but the horizontally level line must be accurate.

Your horizon will always be on that line if it is not tampered with, because your eye simply ensures that convergence.

Don't take my word for it...go and do it.
All those people who are curious and are watching this topic....go and try it out.

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.

26

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 26, 2020, 05:06:53 AM »

Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.

How are you levelling the tube?

No you don't need a tool to level the tube.  It's just a tube, the water levels itself, it's a single U shaped tube. What makes you think the water wouldn't level? What would make it all gush out one end? 

Nobody is 'leveling the tube' by pointing it at the horizon in those pictures.  In fact the point of the pictures is the level tube does NOT point at the horizon at higher altitudes.

Wires crossed here perhaps?

I was referring to scepti's kitchen roll tube where apparently you just look through it and it "proves" the world is flat. I'm just asking him how he knows his kitchen roll tube is level.

27

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 26, 2020, 01:27:29 AM »

Can I prove it?.............Obviously not....but it all makes sense to me and you are welcome to shake your head and tell me I don't have any evidence.

And shake our heads we do because lets be honest here there are many things that make sense to you which don't make any sense to anyone else. But that's fine. You think the Moon is some sort of reflection or hologram (to be honest I've lost track of which it is).  But you don't give your reasons why you think that.  Or is it a case of you don't actually have any reasons.  You just think that?

On the subject of the Moon being a reflection or a hologram.  Where is the light source for this reflection or hologram? And please don't say the Sun.  You can do better than that.  I find it a fascinating idea.  Completely ridiculous at the same time but fascinating as well.

The light source is the sun. The moon is the sun. That's the holographic image from its reflection.

So if one is a reflection of the other, where are the craters on the sun and where are the sunspots on the moon?

28

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 26, 2020, 01:26:10 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.

29

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 26, 2020, 01:19:25 AM »

Rejecting reality will not help your case.
When you get high enough, the horizon can easily be shown to be below eye level.
It is clearly shown to not be the point of convergence.

You can dress it up as much as you want to. I don;t need to argue this point with you when people viewing this can easily find out the truth for themselves with something as simple and as cheap as a kitchen roll tube.
Just set it up to look out to sea from any vantage point they wish and all they need to do with the tube is to place a bit of cotton over the other end of the eye hole. Even make a crosshair, just ensure it's level in all ways.


This is all you need and is absolute proof of eye level, which cannot be anything else to be fair but some people just don't get it.


This simple tube shows the Earth not to be a globe, also if people take the time to actually think for themselves and not be bullied into following the indoctrinated nonsense global model.

Erm, don't you also need some other tool to level the tube? How will you know the tube is level. I mean you can point the tube at the horizon, but that's a circular argument. I know the tube is level because it points at the horizon and I know the horizon is level because the tube points at it. You can just as easily point the tube at anything and say the same thing.

How are you levelling the tube?

30

Flat Earth General / Re: What would change your mind?

« on: October 26, 2020, 01:15:43 AM »

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.