1
Flat Earth Debate / Re: The distance to the stars in FE theory
« on: October 29, 2019, 02:17:28 AM »
If stars were 50km away weather balloons would almost reach them. Stars would look bigger when seen from airplanes or mountain peaks.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is awesome. I hope Mad Mike shows up on the forums.
You angry globularists need to control yourselves.
You have yet to show why we can trust that the word didn't have a different meaning in the culture in question.
There are several places where the accepted translations are incorrect.Yes translations can be misleading, so forget about the translation and look at the meaning of the Hebrews word, that's been like my whole point all along.
Spheres do not have a face, let me remind you. More than this, there were clearly not two adamic creations.The bible doesn't say the earth is flat, but I think the flat earth cosmology is quite clear in the bible. I'm pretty sure Hebrews in biblical times believed the earth was flat, so it's not a surprise.
Perhaps because the earth does not have legs? 'Rise up' is one of the definitions in the list you posted.
1c) (Polel) to raise up
1d) (Hithpael) to raise oneself, rise up
1e) (Hiphil)
1e1) to cause to arise, raise
Recall, too, that word 'arise' in dictionaries like dictionary.com was in the context of rising when it came to natural phenomena:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/arises
...
There is no way you can know what those that sung that song meant by those words at the time, or when it was originally written. I have no real stake in whether or not the bible literally says the earth is flat. Your argument just doesn't hold its weight.
Show me that that camp song *meant* the same thing at its conception and you will have at least supported your point. This, however, is not possible.
My point being, which Foucault puts beautifully in his work 'The Order of Things', is that it is impossible to draw the lines you are drawing - even with a (mostly) dead language.QuoteThis book first arose out of a passage in Borges, out of the laughter that shattered, as I read the passage, all the familiar landmarks of my thought — our thought, the thought that bears the stamp of our age and our geography — breaking up all the ordered surfaces and all the planes with which we are accustomed to tame the wild profusion of existing things, and continuing long afterwards to disturb and threaten with collapse our age-old distinction between the Same and the Other. This passage quotes a “certain Chinese encyclopedia” in which it is written that “animals are divided into: (a) belonging to the Emperor, (b) embalmed, (c) tame, (d) sucking pigs, (e) sirens, (f) fabulous, (g) stray dogs, (h) included in the present classification, (i) frenzied, (j) innumerable, (k) drawn with a very fine camelhair brush, (1) et cetera, (m) having just broken the water pitcher, (n) that from a long way off” look like flies”. In the wonderment of this taxonomy, the thing we apprehend in one great leap, the thing that, by means of the fable, is demonstrated as the exotic charm of another system of thought, is the limitation of our own, the stark impossibility of thinking that.
This exampkle is so foreign that we cannot possibly know what was meant by this categorization without having a complete knowledge of the ouvre of the time, including having lived there. I would contend - to a far lesser extent - that this is true of Hewbrew, especially that of the bible, as well. There is an impossibility of thinking like the ancient hebrews and that impossibility extends to their language.
As such, it makes sense to use concordance indexes like Bishop suggests.
Its a good thing we aren't talking about a book of myth, but instead a clearly historical account - albeit one that is easily contested.
To kopfverderber response, obviously biblical scholars will choose the translations that suit their worldview best, and ignore those that seem ludicrous to them -- especially as they are for the most part not taking the work literally.
Under the Monopole model P-Brane explains the counter-rotation of the stars as a consequence of perspective. The author uses the Sun's crepuscular rays as an example for how motion and perspective can seem to cause anti-rotations in two different directions, much like how spinning in an office chair and looking up and down can cause the appearance of two rotations in different directions.
Q. How can two people on opposite sides of the earth in Australia and South Ameirca both see the same South Pole Stars simultaneously?
A. Since those areas are many hours apart from each other, when it is night or dusk for one area it is likely day or dawn for the other. It is questioned whether it is the case that those observers see the same stars simultaneously. Due to the time difference it may be that they see the stars alternately.
- Martin G. Selbrede
Oh hoo.
Cant exist?
By that lpgic does tomB refute that double pendulums also dont and cant exist because their motion cant be predicted with math?
Really?
It's more that it falls apart than it can't be predicted. See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Three_Body_ProblemIf you live on a sphere and you want to map the sky around that sphere how would you do it? For practical purposes you want to know the position and paths of celestial objects relative to your position, so you project the sky on an imaginary sphere and that allows you to use a coordinate system to know where each object is.
When you are an astronomer on earth, you want to know where to look to find a particular object in the sky. The relevant information is the object's position and path relative to your position.
It's not that difficult to understand, I'm quite surprised that you are asking this.
I would recommend looking into the Moon Tilt Illusion problem and the Celestial Sphere. The Celestial Sphere argument says that the celestial bodies are pasted on a celestial sphere at different angles, and that straight rays of light become curved on it.
https://wiki.tfes.org/Moon_Tilt_Illusion
https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
Numerous phenomena act as if the sky is a planetarium dome where straight lines become curved.
So RE has an imaginary sphere around it where straight lines become curves? Okay...
QuoteYou don't need to know anything about gravity to understand how a sunset works on RE. That was well know before Newton was born.
If you want to simulate the system you do. If you just want to draw cartoons for a book you do not.
Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.
This form consists of long streamers or pillars, which extend in the direction of the dipping magnetic needle. They look curved or arched, like the celestial sphere on which they are projected, but they are really straight.
Kepler writes, 'But our vision has no surface like that of a painting on which it may look at the picture of the hemisphere but only that surface of the sky above in which it sees comets, and it imagines a sphere by the natural instinct of vision. But if a picture of things is extended in straight lines into a concave sphere, and if our vision is in the center of this, the traces of those things will not be straight lines, but, by Hercules, curved ones'
Astronomers, for whom the celestial sphere model is a basic tool for mapping the stars, are not surprised by the apparently curved path of light from the sun to the moon because they know that straight lines in 3-D object space are transformed to great-circle arcs on the imaginary celestial sphere.
It's trivially easy for the rotating earth to explain a sunset. It's the flat earth explanations that get complicated. Which explanation do you think that Occam would prefer?QuoteThese observations can be explained by a globe earth rotating.QuoteThe fact you have to make these things up, things which you have no evidence for, shows how weak your model is.
Error. Error. First, you say that it can be "explained by a globe earth rotating" and admit that you cannot prove that it is caused by a globe earth rotating, but that's the truth, just because.
Then, you have the gall to claim that we are making things up and reject all FE explanations? Sounds like illogical reasoning bordering on religion.
The situation can get impossibly complex for RE. One could say that since the Sun-Earth-Moon system cannot exist due to the Three Body Problem, the claim that such a system where the rotating Sun, Earth and Moon are objects in space held together with gravity is a falsity.
If we want to ignore that and focus on just the possibility of the rotation of the earth being able to explain observations, that is also questionable on assessment of the details. The sun is seen to curve in the sky in different directions over the course of the year, which is attributed to the celestial sphere; a geometrical curiosity in astronomy which assumes that the celestial bodies are attached to a sphere above the observer whereupon bodies rest at different angles to each other and where straight lines become curved.
See: https://wiki.tfes.org/Celestial_Sphere
Welcome Dak.
Most people who don't follow mainstream are looked at differently.
Now that truth of Plane Earth has been brought into view, Round Earthers are now laughed at.
Do you trust NASA? (You can’t be a Flat Earther and trust NASA.)
I used to like NASA and was fascinated with all of these supposed planets like Mars, Venus, Jupiter, etc. Now, I don't like NASA anymore. I also stopped liking science altogether.
If you don't like science, then you shouldn't be here. By here, I mean the internet. Because all of the internet, all the computers and servers and mobile phones, all of that is science.
Your cars and fancy bikes, aircraft and boats. That's all science. The concrete of yiur homes, the asphalt of your streets. Glass, synthetic clothing materials, even the food you eat. All science and the applicarion of science.
Strange that isn't it? And nothing to do with NASA at that.
Mostly nothing anyway.
![]()
I don't actually have anything against science, but I do have something against being lied to about the supposed shape of the Earth and evolution -evolution is actually a lie.
I don't know where people on this forum get the idea that just because I'm not a big fan of science as much as I used to, then I must hate technology. Is THIS how you think of me? Seriously?
Listen, the whole idea of the flat Earth is not easy to grasp, especially for those who are asleep and those who don't know any better. For me, this is diving deep into the rabbit hole.
Use CN for your messages.
Dr. Marmet is writing an introduction to the paper, listing the official science prerogatives.
Then, he DEMOLISHES those claims:
However, numerous reports show that the umbra-penumbra limit appears significantly displaced on the moon during an eclipse.
There is another factor about the atmosphere that has not been discussed. Light rays passing through the atmosphere are naturally bent because the atmosphere acts like a prism. This is why, during an eclipse, the Moon surface is never completely black but reddish: the red part of the solar spectrum passing through the low atmosphere is the only part scattered on the Moon in the region of totality before being reflected back to us on Earth.
An hypothetical observer located on the Moon would see those rays being refracted by the Earth atmosphere and the Sun would appear bigger. Consequently, this second effect makes the Sun rays converge due to a lensing effect of our atmosphere. Therefore, due to that lensing effect, the umbra projected on the Moon would be smaller. This refraction by the Earth atmosphere gives an effect that is contrary to the observations claiming that the Earth's shadow must be larger due to the thickness of the atmosphere.
Is there experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse yes or no?
Of course: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra. Since the calculations do not match the astronomical observations there is only one option left: the lunar eclipse is NOT caused by the Earth.
you have shown no experimental data of the allais effect during a lunar eclipse. Only speculation.
The Allais effect is very real:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
DURING EACH AND EVERY LUNAR ECLIPSE RECORDED FOR THE PAST 180 YEARS.
Each time you deal with the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra observations you are looking at the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
If you disagree, please explain these two humongous discrepancies.
and ignore the author's conclusion: shadow enlargement caused by optical illusion.
The author does not address/explain the SECOND discrepancy: the excessive clarity of the penumbra.
No optical illusion there.
Both observations prove the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
Here's yet another alternative explanation that has nothing to do with the allais effect:
Enlargement of the Earth's Shadow on the Moon: An Optical Illusion
Physics Department, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 6N5
https://newtonphysics.on.ca/astronomy/index.html
Is this supposed to be a joke?
That is MY REFERENCE!
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2138487#msg2138487
Paul Marmet and Christine Couture [1], for their part, believe that the actual umbra of the Earth projected on the Moon is not as big as observed, that the sensitivity of the eyes is a factor leading necessarily to an umbral enlargement and that almost the totality of the reported umbra-penumbra limit displacement is an optical effect that has nothing to do with the thickness of the Earth atmosphere.
Dr. Marmet proves that the usual explanation accepted by modern science for the 2% Earth's larger umbra during a lunar eclipse, namely atmospheric absorption, cannot be true.
Go ahead and explain the two major paradoxes of lunar eclipses: the enlargement of the Earth`s shadow and the excessive clarity of the penumbra.
So you cannot.
Now, it's my turn: we are dealing with the LUNAR ALLAIS EFFECT.
Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg760382#msg760382
...
Go ahead and make sure you understand the SOLAR ECLIPSE ALLAIS EFFECT:
...
Make sure you understand the RUDERFER experiment, the most direct proof of the existence of ether:
...