Show Posts

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.

Messages - AmateurAstronomer

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
One of the main reasons that most FE theories reject satellites is that even if you accept them as possible, they don't play nicely with FE maps.

Equatorial Orbit.
Geosynchronous Orbit.
Polar Orbit.

Not to mention the craziness of elliptic and molniya orbits. I may add those to my model as well.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: December 02, 2008, 07:31:48 PM »
"Those are not the correct maps"

Throwing that out there before tom shows up.

That sounds pretty much like what Tom would say. These 2 maps are it for flat earth maps proposed so far though, so unless he has a new map we can play with, he's going to have to accept that these are the best FE has to offer.

Very nice, but it looks like someone has way too much time on their hands.  :P

That I do... :) The worst part was setting the date/time on earth viewer, saving the 5 sets of 24 source images for the displays, and running all 120 images one at a time through G.projector twice to get azimuth and conic maps. After that it was easier. I just had to set up 15 animated gifs in gimp and convert to avi so I could use them in max. I used the equirectangular map projected on a sphere for the Spheric, so that saved me some work. I went through about 15 versions in max till it looked about right, and then 10 versions in gimp for the detail overlay. Here's how it looked straight out of max, and then with the overlay. Also a peek at my work files folder.

I started on this last Wednesday, but really didn't work on it much Thanksgiving or the day after. :) I'd say I put maybe 7 hours into it total, and all in all it was pretty fun to do. Making graphics is my bread and butter. The raw data processing sucked, but that's all part of doing a project like this. I have all that raw data already processed for future use as well...  Edit: Reposted for the new page.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: December 02, 2008, 03:42:55 AM »

This is a pretty good representation of sun paths on the Azimuth Equidistant map, and some others. All maps are projections of the EquiRectangular map data I pulled from this site. The AE and CE maps I made with G.projector. Thanks to Trekky for that... It's an awesome program. I comped the images into animations in gimp, then I set up the spheres and the basics for the scene in max, and added more detail in max and gimp...

It started out as just a simple map display but I just kept adding detail... I want to tweak it a bit more, but I think it looks pretty good now. The two larger maps for each set show seasonal sunpath progression, one for noon, and one for midnight GMT. I pulled data for the 5th and 21st of each month. The three smaller maps for each set are a 24 hour sunpath progression for the summer and winter solstices, and just one display for the equinoxes, since they're virtually identical.

Here's the original if you wanted to see more detail of just the maps on their own. Let me know what you think. Yes I'm aware I spelled visualizer wrong.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 14, 2008, 05:15:44 AM »
It doesn't make a figure 8 as I see it, seasonally. It makes a base heavy ellipse in winter, a straight line in spring, a top heavy ellipse in summer, and then another straight line in autumn...

Uh, I guess it does look like a figure 8.. :) I really want to see this map with RE seasonal sunlight paths.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The "True Earth Map"
« on: November 14, 2008, 02:29:31 AM »
I present to you:

The non-MS Paint True Earth Map

Compared to the current version:

So now the only question is: WTF was Tom smoking when he thought this shit up?

Awesome map Trekky. Can you PM me how you made that? I want to do a few projections with it.

I think I made clear how I felt about this map on page 3 of this thread...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon librations
« on: October 27, 2008, 12:06:41 AM »
which he asserts is still flat


What exactly is the shape of the sun then? Is it round now? Parabolic? An oblate spheroid? Enlighten me.

Einstein said gravitation would only be indistinguishable from UA to an observer in a closed room. Once you leave that room you run into all the other problems that we argue here every day...
That's terribly vague. The equivalence principle has nothing to do with being in a closed room. In fact, if you are in a closed room with tremendous amount of tidal effects, the differences will still be apparent. Thus, tidal effects, as related to the curvature of space-time, are what that distinguish gravitation from acceleration. If you do leave the room (going outside of your house, e.g), the tidal effects in your FoR are still extremely small relative to the RE's: tidal effects depend on your position in a gravitational field.

Other than the tides themselves, I know nothing of tidal effects, and less about the equivalence principle. I do know that the main point of my post was that I can kick a few blocks out from under gears theory soon enough... That's my deck of card theory. If FET can't explain what everyone on various parts of the planet see when they look up at night, then FET has a big gaping hole. FET is going to have to do better than Tom's, or Robosteves "new maps". I know garbage when I see it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon liberations
« on: October 19, 2008, 07:28:28 AM »
Why couldn't the FE moon experience libration?
Are you asking what causes it, if rotation doesn't?

Did you have a theory on what causes lunar libration in FET, or were you just testing Kingcosmo7? In FET is seems like it would need a focal, and libration is not phase or seasonal dependent. IE that focal is not the sun, and not the northern attractor. Lunar libration in RET is caused by eccentricities in the moons orbit. It's extent can last for a lunar cycle like the wiki anim, or longer-shorter durations. Under ideal conditions a libration could last several months. I'm not saying that's likely to happen any time soon, but I'm not saying it's unlikely either. If I did, it'd happen just to prove me wrong. Murphy's Law always takes precedent, and Murphy's law has never been my friend.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Moon librations
« on: October 19, 2008, 06:05:17 AM »
Librations is the proper spelling for the plural of libration. IE more than one libration. If I got here late, I can assure you it's spelled correctly now.

There is no FE response purely because there is no existing FET response that can explain lunar libration. Hell, some FE'ers still assert that the moon is flat. A flat moon cannot librate.

Sun spots are going to do for the sun what lunar libration did for those FE flat moon theories though. Osama bin Steve says they're just small bodies orbiting the sun, which he asserts is still flat... A downward facing flat body can't have easily definable and recurring circular/elliptical orbiting bodies though, and even if it could, those bodies wouldn't show in the way spots and kernels do on the sun... IE on it's surface, and not orbiting above.

This is from this awesome article on the sun.

This shows 6 days of the suns 25 day rotation. I can use cues in this image to make assertions that the sun is not flat, and is in fact spherical. If the sun is spherical, and the moon and all other planets and their orbital bodies are spherical, that leaves the earth odd man out in FET. "Chicken-sheep", and "They're just different" arguments are insufficient to explain why the earth is the only flat planet among it's exclusively round brethren.

actually there is a theory that the earth is growing slowly due to the amount of oceans versus land mass or somthing like that

lol, 10th grade

gb2/homecoming dance/

And here was I hoping for a serious critique of my amusing little theory ...

But apparently teenage hair-cuts are more pressing ...


I'm sorry, that's not a hair question... no comment.

You're really going flat earth 3 Tesla? Bummer.

Einstein said gravitation would only be indistinguishable from UA to an observer in a closed room. Once you leave that room you run into all the other problems that we argue here every day... My favorite, to be sure, is do you think the constellations your friend in Australia sees at night would be different from those a potential friend in South America would see? The problem with this argument, I know, is that no-one anywhere has a South American friend. They're rare as hell.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seeing the sun
« on: October 14, 2008, 07:13:44 AM »
What makes you think that the southern  system is exactly as large as the northern system?

What are you referencing? The gears or your maps scaling? If you're going to counter my points cite which point you're countering. I'd like you to counter all points if you can. I made 6 points, and labeled them as such. Please make a post where you cite them as such and counter them, as they apply to the map you cite as historically applying to Columbus/Magellan. Please note that your citation of this map as a "Columbus/Magellan" map is one of those points.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seeing the sun
« on: October 14, 2008, 06:57:22 AM »
I celebrated my Columbus day with no regrets, despite the lack of counter-arguments. I have a new point too.

Sixth point, sun paths.

Charting a circular path for the sun at equinox positions relegates Australia and southern South America to almost polar positions in terms of coverage.

I've put out six points that dispute the validity of Toms referenced map. If I don't get six counter points, I'll consider this a win for me.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Strong Evidence and Real Science
« on: October 14, 2008, 06:56:49 AM »
I will be honest that I do have a certain prejudice for FE'ers, but it's really for conspiracy theorists in general.

I can respect that... Give them hell EmilySue.

I view FET as a deck of cards. We only have to knock out a few at the base for it to fall down. I mean that literally in the sense that numerous flat earth theories are dependent on the observations of other flat earth theories.

Your field is right in my ballpark. I'm big on stellar gears theory debunking. This thread shows most of my early views on gear theory, This one shows some of my more advanced arguments, and is just an awesome read in general to see what the regulars here are like. This one shows my views on Toms current cop out theory. I'm bumping that one up now, just because...

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moon and The Sun
« on: October 14, 2008, 05:02:49 AM »
At school I had a staunchly atheistic geology teacher.

I wasn't trying to offend anyone's beliefs here, OK?

I was just airing some views which have developed due to a debate I've had recently with a fundamentalist Christian about evolution/creationism.

He was the one who said that if God heals instantaneously today (which I believe) then he wouldn't need to mess around with millions of years' worth of evolution - he would just create all of the animals "in their types" instantaneously too.

My high school geology teacher was an adamant atheist too. Probably comes with the job. The biology teacher was a hardcore Christian scientist though. She was pro-evolution, anti-creationist, but found a niche for god in the greater workings of things. She was single and hot as hell too. Strawberry blonde, green eyes... But I digress. She got married anyway.

If you want to have a much calmer life Tesla, just stop debating "them" so much. Debate with your friends, open minded people that you meet, or on the internet where you can shut out or have the time to counter overstated rhetoric. I variously work bar and run a till to get tuition and beer money, and I can assure you you can't win with opinionated people. You'll get far in life telling people what they want to hear without really compromising your own beliefs.

I don't believe in "god" as advertised, but I think it's cool that some people do, and benefit from it. Belief is stronger than any placebo. I'm sure my own beliefs would seem as silly, but that's why I keep them to myself.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars
« on: October 14, 2008, 04:53:25 AM »
But 3 other discs at it's peripheral, rotating in the other direction and stationary? That just happen to be carbon copies of each other

The stars on the discs are different, apparently (according to Tom Bishop):

"There are multiple swirling stellar systems which sit over the Flat Earth. The Flat Earth Society has found that there is one over the North Pole, one over Australia, and another over South America. Each stellar system is unique in its composition and density."

"The Flat Earth Society has found that when you compare starmaps from Chile and starmaps from Australia, the constellations are different."

"People think that there is only one South Celestial Pole because the majority of our Star Charts for the Southern Hemisphere originate from Australia."

The star maps are archived at The University of Liverpool, apparently.

The greater milky way and Andromeda are on what Tom considers the south disks. You should tell Tom to show how different those look on the maps. Then ask him when these maps were made, and why TFES doesn't have access to it's own maps. Then ask him for photographic evidence of what he claims. He's the one making the assertion, he should be able to prove it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: I have a theory
« on: October 14, 2008, 03:30:14 AM »
We don't have any evidence for the Conspiracy either. Yet your theory relies on it.

What's the simplest explanation; that NASA has successfully designed and invented never before seen rocket technologies from scratch which can accelerate 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second (third stage of the Saturn V), and that NASA can do the impossible on a daily basis, explore the cosmos, and constantly wow the nation by landing a man on the moon and sending robots to mars; or is the simplest explanation that they really can't do all of that stuff?

What about computers Tom? Scientists claimed to have made a never before seen punch card fed machine that could do complex mathematics in minutes that would take a room full of human calculators years or more. Then they claimed it was possible to have direct input into those machines, making punchcards unnecessary. Then then claimed they could use never before seen transistors to make the vacuum tubes of the old system unnecessary. Then they claimed they could condense all the transistors, diodes, etc into smaller never before seen integrated circuits. Then they claimed they could condense even more parts into never before seen micro-processors. Then they claimed they could make those integrated circuits and micro-processors smaller, and smaller,  and smaller still, till you get to our current point of reference where you could fit the txt equivalent of 16 million 300 page books on a $50 8gb memory stick.

If you looked at computers the same way you look at aeronautics you'd be forced to say that looks farcical as well. How could they make those advances? A computer scientist in the 1940's shown a quarter sized stick and told it had 16 million books on it would say "nonsense". The simplest explanation is that they really couldn't do all of that stuff. You're not inclined to open up your hard drive to see if there's a conspiracy inside though are you? You live in our age and take those advances as signs of progress.

The point I'm getting at is researching, or even just casually looking up info, on the advances of computer tech is as easy as researching/looking up info on aeronautics. You always cite the Saturn V rocket accelerating 100 tons of matter straight up at 7 miles per second as an impossibility. Why, the 100 tons part? Is 100 tons just too heavy to lift in your opinion? Newtons third law says with sufficient thrust you can lift any mass, and accelerate it to almost any speed. Did you research the thrust capabilities of the Saturn V before choosing it as your poster child? Can you cite where any stage of it's engines would be insufficient to move the mass of the rocket to those speeds? If you can't cite any obvious flaws with the math, then why do you use this example so often?

Likewise, the rest of your post, where you look at all that the various space agencies have accomplished, and say "how could this technology have advanced to this stage?" just makes apparent you're not keeping up with the current tech. I'm not going to cite every experiment/project/mission done by every space agency just to prove their validity. Cite some examples you have problems with. Examples where you feel the math doesn't add up. I, and others most likely, will offer our insights.

You didn't say anything about observable.  You just wanted the simplest explanation.

One group is suggesting the simplest and most easily observable claim, and another group the unobservable and most complex claim. With which group should the burden of proof lay?

The answer is that the burden is on you guys is to prove these things to us. You're the one making the claim. We're not. The simplest explanation is that NASA really can't do all of that stuff.

In a discussion on the existence of ghosts should the burden of proof be on the group mumbling "just because you can't see something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist," or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that ghosts *don't* exist?

A company called Mollar International claims to have invented a flying car with safety comparable to a land vehicle, an outstanding performance of a 400 mile range, and sophisticated never before seen computer control. They claim that the Sky Car is ready to be mass produced if only they got a few more big investments. They've released a few videos of it hovering a short distance off the ground in test flights. Should the burden of proof be on the Moller proponents who are absolutely certain that all of Moller's claims are true, or should the burden of proof be on everyone else to prove that Moller's claims are *not* true?

So where's your proof for all of these sci-fi claims of yours?

First off, your link, it goes nowhere...

Second off, I don't see how NASA is the same as the flying car scam, or the water car scam, or the free energy generator scam. I don't see how it's the guy who believes in ghost and talks about it at parties either.

There's too much to the fields of aeronautics and space exploration for us to be expected to lay it all at your feet for inspection. Give us solid examples that you dispute and we'll defend those.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: evidence against pictures and videos
« on: October 14, 2008, 01:46:31 AM »
This looks Shopped. I can tell from some of the pixels and from seeing quite a few Shops in my time.

Also, I have these citations.

"California-based, noted that the skeleton image had been lifted from, which hosts photo-manipulation competitions.

Titled "Giants," the skeleton-and-shoveler picture had won third place in a 2002 contest called "Archaeological Anomalies 2."

The image's creator—an illustrator from Canada who goes by the screen name IronKite—told National Geographic News via email that he had had nothing to do with the subsequent hoax.

He added that he wants to remain anonymous because some forums that debated whether the giant was genuine or not "were turning their entire argument into a religious one." It was argued, for instance, that the Saudi Arabian find was entirely consistent with the teachings of the Koran."

"Canadian artist IronKite used this mastodon-excavation photo taken in 2000 in Hyde Park, New York as the basis for his entry in an online photo-manipulation contest." "IronKite digitally superimposed a human skeleton over the mastodon-dig photo, he told National Geographic News in December 2007. The artist later added a man holding a shovel. His clothing was re-colored to match that of the man in the above, authentic picture. The goal, IronKite said, was to make the shoveler appear to be part of the excavation team." Citation

My turn. These images are from the third attempt of the Southern Alberta Balloon Launch Experiment (SABLE), which was done by a handful of enthusiasts on an @ $400 budget. There are a lot of nice images they captured there, but these are most suited for this argument. This same setup has been done by numerous universities as well, many of which also had video, but I chose an independent group to counter "colleges are infiltrated as well" arguments.

The first 2 images I picked as control images, to show the cameras FOV curvature. It's negligible. The third picture is the one up for debate.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars
« on: October 14, 2008, 01:03:23 AM »
Why would it require divine intervention? By your logic wouldn't gravity require divine intervention?

It would require intervention because it's unlikely to have settled into that configuration on its own. One spinning disk of stars, I could see that happening... a galaxy is pretty much a spinning disk of stars. But 3 other discs at it's peripheral, rotating in the other direction and stationary? That just happen to be carbon copies of each other and offset to the main disk so that star groupings on the outer disks meet up with the same stars groupings on the inner disk throughout their rotations? I don't see how that could happen naturally.

I don't see how your gravity comparison compares. If you have a simple logical explanation for how the stellar gears came to be, please share it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seeing the sun
« on: October 12, 2008, 08:16:42 AM »

You may notice that bendy light theory would work fine if there were just the one northern gear, but you add even one southern gear, and you run into problems where those 2 gears converge. To an observer at a point near the equator rim stars would appear to be changing distance from each other over the course of the night.
At the equator the stars do seem to converge and then spread apart:

What if you happen to be in one of these immediate areas?

There are two Flat Earth Maps. One is the United Nations map where observers on the bottom tips of Australia and South America would be looking at different gear systems when they look Southward. And then there's the Columbus/Magellan map where observers on those continents would be looking at the same stellar system when they looked Southwards.

Which map is true remains to be seen. There would need to be a coordinated effort to study the southern stars from all parts of the Southern Hemidisk.

Nice double take Tom...

First off, that's a wide angle shot you keep posting... I'm pretty sure I pointed that out to you before. This is a much better representation of star paths in a full sky. Even given the wide angle nature of the image you referenced, there's nothing near the variance that would be expected with gears theory/bendy light theory.

Second off, it's not just the "United Nations" map, it's Volivia's map, and Rowbotham's map, and the map put out by this site's promoters. All the same map.

Do you really want me to go all out in showing that there won't be a "coordinated effort" needed to debunk your new map?

First point, appearance. This map looks like warped clipart garbage with MS paint frosting. What islands are the "other islands" drawn in on the left? What's the "boundless continent" referenced in the left border? What are those 2 light blue things clipping Antarctica? Why are the North and South American continents labeled "atlantic"? If the ice wall exists on this map, then where is that in reference to all of this?

Second point, citation. You cite this as Columbus's and Magellan's map, but give only a nutter's website as reference. I've never seen a 15'th century map with that perfect a representation of Africa. Show me a pic, a scan, or even a verifiable reference on a refutable site to a map similar to what you cite as a historical document. If you can't show a map, point us to the passages cited on the nutter website that you deemed sufficient, even with their lack of a real map, to cite as "proof" of a Columbus/Magellan conspiracy to all of us here. Please do so today, so you don't taint my Columbus day celebrations.

Third point, compass readings.

If you start at the north pole, and follow your compass in a straight line, you'll get to the south pole, or at least the ice wall. This works with RE and classical FE maps. Not so much with your new one. Yours curves and in one instance dead ends...

Fourth point, pacific oceanic voyages.

To go from the eastern coast of South America to the western coast of Australia you need only go in a line. RE says a straight line. Classic FE says a curved line. Tom's new map says line paths of that nature cannot exist.

To get from one point to the other on the new map, you have to take a longer coastal path.

That longer coastal path would be noted and/or observed by most/all sailors making that journey. Those voyages would be even longer that those classical FET maps would predict.

Fifth point, Star gears theory. I'm not sure whether you think this new map has 4 gears(1 north, 3 south), like this.

Or just 2 gears, like you seem to indicate.

Either way, gears theory for both setups have so many holes I'm not going to bother posting any arguments yet. They should be apparent to even a casual poster. If you want to continue to argue this map, cite which gears theory you espouse. I'll debate that.

My final point is that I've saved my post in it's entirety as an html document, and will do so from now on. If the mods decide to make this thread go away like they've made so many like it go away in the past I'll still have my arguments here pocketed for future use. I don't like wasting my time.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Seeing the sun
« on: October 12, 2008, 02:05:48 AM »
I never said it is bent from vertical to horizontal. Read the posts. Stars which are nearly vertical have their light bent to make them appear to be close to the horizon. As for the reason, it is the general consensus that in addition to the universal accelerator (UA) there is also a wave of electromagnetic radiation, also accelerating. (EA)

Bendy light doesn't work well with gears theory.

You may notice that bendy light theory would work fine if there were just the one northern gear, but you add even one southern gear, and you run into problems where those 2 gears converge. To an observer at a point near the equator rim stars would appear to be changing distance from each other over the course of the night.

What is this wave of electromagnetic radiation (EA), and what is it's function? I've never heard of it.

when you look at the sky at night you see stars in all directions that you looks, so General Douchebag doesn't it make sense that at least one of those stars light comes from the same direction of the suns? Now that that is all cleared up, can anyone explain why sun light "bends" and starlight doesn't?

The only stars you see are the ones directly above your immediate area.

What if you happen to be in one of these immediate areas?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Poor Deductive Reasoning
« on: October 10, 2008, 09:20:50 AM »
Yeah, you're giving RE preferential treatment...

Unless you can prove that "the conspiracy" exists, you're giving FE preferential treatment, and have been for a while now...

Can you prove "the conspiracy" with anything other than circular reasoning?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Reasons for believing in FE?
« on: October 10, 2008, 08:18:56 AM »
I am almost certain that no man ever believed the world was flat. Before Christopher Columbus and as far back as the ancient Greeks the world has always been perceived as round. This society to my knowledge began in the early 1900's.

I am fairly certain the world became flat in the early 1900's and no one has ever looked back since.

So you're saying that Round Earth theory is the primitive earth model then?

India's T&O theory is the oldest earth theory which written records exist of (That's where the elephants and turtles come from). European knowledge from @ the 2nd century BC and earlier cite a flat earth as well.

From @ the 2nd century BC and onward though, the FE model became merely a fringe viewpoint. From the Classical Greeks right up through the middle ages the greater majority of works dealing with the subject of astronomy have espoused round earth theory. Works extolling FET are made only by a small fraction of historical pundits, notably; Saint Augustine, Lactantius, Chrysostom, Tarsus, in the Classical/Middle Ages, and Rowbotham, Carpenter, and Johnson to name a few in our more current age.

Many of the Classical/Middle Ages pundits rejected RET because they could not fathom how people could stick to the antipode of their visible world, or that if people did exist on the antipode, those people would be ungodly or unredeemable because they were "opposite" the contemporary world. Still others rejected it because people existing on the other side of the world was not compatible with the currently held religious belief that all men descended from "Adam". Saint Augustine, in the 4th century, espoused almost all these views, paving ground for all the pundits that followed. These pundits were not the prominent voices of their various ages though.

It was works like Camille Flammarion's "L'Atmosphère: Météorologie Populaire" (The Atmosphere: Popular Meteorology), and Washington Irving's "The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus" that romanticized the notion of FET prominence during the "Dark Ages". Both have been shown to be wildly inaccurate. The woodcut that formed Flammarion's basis for Middle Age's astronomy was shown via it's border details to have been drawn only years before, and not in the "Dark Ages" as he asserted. He responded by cutting off the border in his next publication. As for Irving's book, he asserts that RET was a lesser known theory in Columbus's day, when in fact Johannes de Sacrobosco's "De sphaera mundi" (On the Sphere of the World) was prominently used in universities as early as the late 1300's, and was taught prominently in Columbus's time.

The more modern FE'ers are similarly small voices among their contemporaries.

Rowbotham wrote Zetetic Astronomy, Earth Not a Globe. He has the Bedford Level experiment as his most prominent argument... (We'll see how that holds up to our arguments in the long run.) He picked up thousands of followers who kept on for a while after his death, but dissolved after WWI.

strongest argument was that rivers can run for thousands of miles and only drop a foot in elevation. He apparently perceived this to be at odds with RET, because of the curve and all. I read through his "A hundred proofs the Earth is not a Globe", and saw nothing else worth noting. He did'nt pick up any followers.

was the founder of The Flat Earth Society. He claims he spent years examining studies of flat and round earth theories and proposed evidence of a conspiracy against flat-earth: "The idea of a spinning globe is only a conspiracy of error that Moses, Columbus, and FDR all fought…" That kind of statement just puts him in his own category of nut jobs though. I mean just saying Moses wrote the majority of the old testament and not "God Himself" would piss off a lot of Christians nowadays. Columbus I'll consider misinformation, but how can FDR possibly be shown to be an FE theorist?

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Stars
« on: October 10, 2008, 08:00:56 AM »
Are the constellations on the different gears the same, or different?

Do people in Australia and Chile see the same constellations or different ones?

The answer to this question would tell us which hypothetical Flat Earth Map is correct.

The UN map suggests that when observers from those two continents look Southward they will be looking at a different set of stars.

The Columbus/Magellan map suggests that when those observers look Southward they are looking at the same set of stars.

There's a lot of nonsense cited in that post you linked to, and it's links. One link implies that Columbus killed 5 men to steal a map. Another citation from one of the links I like is this one, from S Rowbotham; "Another argument for the globular form of the earth is the following:--The degrees of longitude, radiating from the north, gradually increase in extent as they approach the equator; beyond which they again converge, and gradually diminish in extent towards the south. To this it is replied, that no actual, direct, or trigonometrical measurement of a degree of longitude has ever been made south of the equator: therefore, no geodetic evidence exists that the degrees are either less or more".

We see this from Tom almost every day. It's his "Southern hemisphere cannot be measured, because it has not been measured" defense. If we show proof of contemporary southern distances, he calls it fraudulent or conspiratorial, and pulls out the 2-way jet stream and pushing fish arguments. They're just distractions though... We have enough Australians on the site to cite reference that their hemisphere behaves the same as ours; IE longitudinal distances are smaller near the pole, and larger towards the equator, and they have their own "south" star at their sky's apex.

BTW the map cited is poorly suited for FET, and is a complete fabrication. The only reason I haven't gone to town on it is because only Tom has been on the bandwagon for it. If Tom or anyone else wants to say it's not a complete fabrication, show the map that it's based on.

I'm adamant about this because I view citing a map as historical, and not citing historical reference of that map is just plain lying. Show proof that THIS map was used by Columbus and Magellan.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 08, 2008, 05:09:58 AM »
@ amateurastronomer: these animations are great :o

No no, that's not me... I nicked that one from wikipedia. Look up lunar libration.
I just don't like hotlinking.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: The Moons craters
« on: October 08, 2008, 03:33:15 AM »
The same face of the Moon is always facing the Earth.  If the Moon is accelerating in the same direction as the Earth, this would put all of the impacts on the far side of the Moon.
Again, how do we know the same face of the moon has always faced the earth?

First off, the earth doesn't always face the same face of the moon.

Lunar libration causes a slow rolling effect wherein we're able to see 59% percent of the moons surface at various times.

Second off, not all current theories cite a moon that has always faced the earth. It very well might not have. The far side is much more heavily impacted though, so it's been in this position for a good percentage of the earths existence. Whether or not this side has always faced the earth is irrelevant, because meteors still continue to hit our visible side. During the Leonids, Taurids, and Geminids they are visible with a half decent telescope and a lot of patience.

If we look at the effect of gravitation, the much more massive Earth, only 3000 miles from a 32 mile diameter Moon, would seemingly prevent impacts of meteorites anywhere but along the edges of the Moon.

Every indication is that the moon, while smaller, is more massive than the earth.

FE explanations of the stellar bodies are backed up with observations of the flat earth.
FE explanations of the flat earth are backed up with observations of the stellar bodies.

Did he actually explain it? I'll have to check that thread.

He has started to, but his graphics abilities aren't as good as yours.

I'm not getting it yet... I'll wait for him to explain it better.

Cool graphics.  I don't suppose you can make one that shows OBLSteve's "sky mirrors."

Did he actually explain it? I'll have to check that thread.

Cool graphics.  I don't suppose you can make one that shows OBLSteve's "sky mirrors."

Only if there's a plugin for 3DSmax or similar that allows "bendy raytracing".
I'll have to look...


The problem you're having Punisher, is that you started making your point with your animation labeled summer, and tried finishing it with your animation labeled winter.


If you count 12hrs of daylight in the summer, and 12hrs of nighttime in the winter of the same geographical location (Australia), that translates to 12hrs of nighttime in the summer and 12hrs of daytime in the winter. Your argument better get better and with the spirit to shed truth and understanding or you're just another I ignore.

If you count 14 hours of daylight in the summer, that only leaves 10 hours of nighttime.
If you count 14 hours of nighttime in the winter, that only leaves 10 hours of daytime.

I Third that... I added a little transparency to make it more apparent.

You have a confused notion and this infection you spread unknowingly. Your diagram is complete bogus. First, don't add the transparency it makes just impossible to understand the dots positions. Second, increase the light so that a clear distinction against darkness can be observed without difficulty. And third, the North axis should on both the left and right globe or summer and winter position be pointing the same direction only have the light at opposites sides, like the clear and simple example I provided you with.

Waiting for you to shed truth on this matter.

Ok. I hope you've got broadband...

Reference 1. Front and back view.

Reference 2. Front with reference spheres.

Both of these are 96 frames. Each frame is equivalent to 15 minutes. Using your Australia example, a point along the yellow reference point's longitude spends 13.5 hours in daylight, and 10.5 hours in night in their summer, which is the northern hemispheres winter solstice. It spends 10.5 hours in daylight and 13.5 hours in night in their winter, which is the northern hemispheres summer solstice... It only experiences 12 hour days and nights on the equinoxes.

If you don't believe my counts you can check them yourself. The master psd files are here.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Star maps for Chile and Australia
« on: October 05, 2008, 08:14:59 AM »
I think that my post:

Sits better in this section as I am not a 'newb' (so please forgive the double posting).

There are plenty of astronomers working in the southern hemisphere from Chile to Australia.  I think they would notice if there were multiple celestial poles and their star maps were wrong.

The Flat Earth Society has found that when you compare starmaps from Chile and starmaps from Australia, the constellations are different.

Tom is now saying that there aren't any star maps (communication off-site).

So I am saying that he is just making up all his nonsense as he goes along ...

Then saying different things on different days.

You can't have a proper, grown-up debate with people like that.

You can't even have a childish debate... Why would you bother? Off-site? Damn man...

Gears theory entails minimum 3-fold replication of the southern stellar hemisphere. I wouldn't even bother to debate it if I wasn't so caught up in it.

Flat Earth Debate / Re: Atmosphere
« on: October 05, 2008, 07:08:56 AM »

This is one of the subjects where I won't argue anymore. FET can't set a definitive theory explaining it. To attempt to debate it is to debate the masses.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8