An astronomy picture taken from a common camera

  • 242 Replies
  • 53820 Views
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #180 on: March 28, 2009, 04:13:41 PM »
Quote
By any chance, aren't you also aware that the Earth is a celestial body?

Look, ignore whether it's a planet or celestial body or an obscure form of star or a kind of fruit or whatever. Just respond to the point.

I look out from a spot where the horizon is unobstructed and see that I am unable to view the entire <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> at one time. Therefore, I assume that the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a shape that prevents me seeing it all at any one time. A sphere fits this shape, a flat disc does not. Why then should I think that the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a large flat plane, when it doesn't look like one?

So, your question is why, if you were standing on a flat surface, you could not see all the surface? Right? I am not a specialist on that, but I remember reading something on that matter that seemed reasonable to me... Just a moment... Yes, I found it:

"It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about three miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no higher than we stand - say, six feet - and which are at that distance (three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision." From: One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #181 on: March 28, 2009, 05:02:19 PM »
I have just thought it would be interesting to check what is the Carpenter's "sphere of unaided vision". The resolving capacity of a human eye is about 0.5 arc-minute. Say, you are standing on a reasonably flat surface (the maximal size of irregularities not exceeding 1 foot, or 0.3 m), the Sun is shining brightly and the air is absolutely clear. We can find the distance x, at which a 0.3 m object would be visible at an angle less than 0.5 arc-minute, or 1/120 of a degree:

tg(1/120) = 0.3/x

x=0.3/(tg(1/120)) =  0.3/0.000145 = 2063 m

Thus, a man (6 ft) would become "invisible" at a distance 6 times greater, about 12 km, or 7 miles. It is roughly twice more than Carpenter's figure, but his text apparently describes an observation in real conditions, so the opacity of air, amount of light and other factors might play their role.

Added: Sorry, I am not aware if someone has performed calculations like those on this forum. If yes, I would like to ask the moderator to remove this post and simply give the reference.
« Last Edit: March 28, 2009, 05:09:34 PM by Humble_Scientist »
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #182 on: March 28, 2009, 05:05:00 PM »
Quote
So, your question is why, if you were standing on a flat surface, you could not see all the surface? Right? I am not a specialist on that, but I remember reading something on that matter that seemed reasonable to me... Just a moment... Yes, I found it:

"It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about three miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no higher than we stand - say, six feet - and which are at that distance (three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision." From: One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter

So if you can only see a part of the planet at one time and are unable to see that it's a huge disc 40,000 km wide, why do you believe it's a huge disc 40,000 km wide?

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #183 on: March 28, 2009, 05:39:09 PM »
Quote
So, your question is why, if you were standing on a flat surface, you could not see all the surface? Right? I am not a specialist on that, but I remember reading something on that matter that seemed reasonable to me... Just a moment... Yes, I found it:

"It is often said that, if the Earth were flat, we could see all over it! This is the result of ignorance. If we stand on the level surface a plain or a prairie, and take notice, we shall find that the horizon is formed at about three miles all around us: that is, the ground appears to rise up until, at that distance, it seems on a level with the eye-line or line of sight. Consequently, objects no higher than we stand - say, six feet - and which are at that distance (three miles), have reached the "vanishing point," and are beyond the sphere of our unaided vision." From: One Hundred Proofs the Earth is Not a Globe by William Carpenter

So if you can only see a part of the planet at one time and are unable to see that it's a huge disc 40,000 km wide, why do you believe it's a huge disc 40,000 km wide?

Dear NTheGreat,

Which planet do you mean?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #184 on: March 28, 2009, 05:43:03 PM »
Quote
Dear NTheGreat,

Which planet do you mean?

So if you can only see a part of the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> at one time and are unable to see that it's a huge disc 40,000 km wide, why do you believe it's a huge disc 40,000 km wide?

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #185 on: March 28, 2009, 05:48:57 PM »
Quote
Dear NTheGreat,

Which planet do you mean?

So if you can only see a part of the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> at one time and are unable to see that it's a huge disc 40,000 km wide, why do you believe it's a huge disc 40,000 km wide?

Do you mean that you wanted to ask me if I can only see a part of the Earth at one time and unable to see it as a whole, how I could draw a conclusion about its shape?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #186 on: March 29, 2009, 04:23:38 AM »
No, it is you that really must work on your reading skill and write something that actually makes sense. It is really hard for everyone to understand what you really are getting at.
I am tired of your out of context nonsense and repeating my sayings back to me as a parrot. I am now 99% sure that you sit on some funny farm room and have internet connection there. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #187 on: March 29, 2009, 06:08:24 AM »
I am tired...

You are lazy, too... remember?

 ;D
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #188 on: March 29, 2009, 11:09:05 AM »
Quote
Do you mean that you wanted to ask me if I can only see a part of the Earth at one time and unable to see it as a whole, how I could draw a conclusion about its shape?

I simply want to know why you believe the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a huge flat disc when you can't see it's a huge flat disc.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #189 on: March 29, 2009, 04:28:15 PM »

I simply want to know why you believe the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a huge flat disc when you can't see it's a huge flat disc.

Well, strictly speaking, I do not believe in that, precisely for that reason. Since Samuel Rowbotham experimentally proved that the Earth is not a sphere (read just two pages: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm ), the idea of a huge flat disc seems the most compatible with what I see every day - that the Earth is flat.

I also realize that further details of the design of that disc are far beyond the limits of my knowledge, and, frankly, I do not care much about all that stuff. As Tom Bishop once noticed, many details of FE design are still hypothetical. Enjoying and, possibly, a bit abusing intellectual freedom reigning in the FE realm, I would even say that if someone had serious reason to believe that the Earth is a huge flat square or other flat body and could prove that, I would not mind.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2009, 04:35:13 PM by Humble_Scientist »
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42609
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #190 on: March 29, 2009, 06:01:10 PM »

I simply want to know why you believe the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a huge flat disc when you can't see it's a huge flat disc.

Well, strictly speaking, I do not believe in that, precisely for that reason. Since Samuel Rowbotham experimentally proved that the Earth is not a sphere (read just two pages: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm ), the idea of a huge flat disc seems the most compatible with what I see every day - that the Earth is flat.

Have you independently recreated that experiment?  If so, do you have detailed documentation of said experiment that you would be willing to share with us?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #191 on: March 29, 2009, 06:18:26 PM »

I simply want to know why you believe the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a huge flat disc when you can't see it's a huge flat disc.

Well, strictly speaking, I do not believe in that, precisely for that reason. Since Samuel Rowbotham experimentally proved that the Earth is not a sphere (read just two pages: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm ), the idea of a huge flat disc seems the most compatible with what I see every day - that the Earth is flat.

Have you independently recreated that experiment?

No, I have not. Why?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

hi

  • 302
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #192 on: March 29, 2009, 07:49:15 PM »

I simply want to know why you believe the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a huge flat disc when you can't see it's a huge flat disc.

Well, strictly speaking, I do not believe in that, precisely for that reason. Since Samuel Rowbotham experimentally proved that the Earth is not a sphere (read just two pages: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm ), the idea of a huge flat disc seems the most compatible with what I see every day - that the Earth is flat.

Have you independently recreated that experiment?

No, I have not. Why?
How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not then?

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #193 on: March 30, 2009, 05:56:04 PM »

How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not then?

Interesting idea... You are "independently recreating" everything you have met in the literature, aren' t you? Say, if someone found that a certain substance must be a mortal poison, you would not believe that and swallow a tablespoon? Right? How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not?
"It is not necessary that hypotheses should be true, or even probable; it is sufficient that they lead to results of calculation which agree with calculation".
Copernicus

?

hi

  • 302
  • Love the debate, hate the stupidity!
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #194 on: March 30, 2009, 06:03:34 PM »

How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not then?

Interesting idea... You are "independently recreating" everything you have met in the literature, aren' t you? Say, if someone found that a certain substance must be a mortal poison, you would not believe that and swallow a tablespoon? Right? How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not?
Well I wouldn't personally swallow it (that would be stupid), I would probably test it on some rats or some other form of living creatures first.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #195 on: March 30, 2009, 06:21:50 PM »

I simply want to know why you believe the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a huge flat disc when you can't see it's a huge flat disc.

Well, strictly speaking, I do not believe in that, precisely for that reason. Since Samuel Rowbotham experimentally proved that the Earth is not a sphere (read just two pages: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm ), the idea of a huge flat disc seems the most compatible with what I see every day - that the Earth is flat.

Have you independently recreated that experiment?

No, I have not. Why?
How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not then?

Peer review. Rowbotham's experiments have already been peer reviewed numerous times over the last 150 years, all with the same result.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #196 on: March 30, 2009, 11:24:47 PM »
Quote from: http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq3.html#2002
Q: How long is the longest sustained fusion reaction achieved by JET and elsewhere?
A: JET is the only operational machine to observe fusion from D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) reactions. Such fusion reactions have been maintained on JET for around five seconds.

I also found a claim that the French have achieved a 6 minute reaction, but I am currently unable to find confirmation.

The very nature of the atomic nucleus means that deuterium-tritium reactions are far easier to achieve than protium-protium ones. RET claims that the stars are powered by protium-protium reactions, and that is the phenomenon we are lacking evidence for.

I guess the earth is too little for a lab where you can fit the sun. And your life is too short to observe the lifetime of the sun. And we always don't have technology/materials to make happen that which we know happens. It's not just making sun on earth, we also must have some materials/equipment which can contain the sun if we make it here. Otherwise we make it and next second is boom and there is no earth.

We do not ask for a replication of the Sun. Just a simple experiment to demonstrate that sustained protium fusion is a viable source of energy.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #197 on: March 31, 2009, 06:26:52 AM »
Quote
Interesting idea... You are "independently recreating" everything you have met in the literature, aren' t you? Say, if someone found that a certain substance must be a mortal poison, you would not believe that and swallow a tablespoon? Right? How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not?

Depends on who claimed who claimed to find that the substance was a poison. If it was a chemist or someone with suitable qualifications in a similar subject, I would probably trust them. Rowbotham was a socialist lecturer, not a scientist or a geographer, so I don't feel his experiment is all that reliable.


Quote
Peer review. Rowbotham's experiments have already been peer reviewed numerous times over the last 150 years, all with the same result.

And it's been peer reviewed numerous times with a differing result, which suggests there there may be a problem with that experiment.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #198 on: March 31, 2009, 06:35:07 AM »
And it's been peer reviewed numerous times with a differing result

No it hasn't.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42609
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #199 on: March 31, 2009, 08:10:57 AM »
Quote from: http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/faqs/faq3.html#2002
Q: How long is the longest sustained fusion reaction achieved by JET and elsewhere?
A: JET is the only operational machine to observe fusion from D-T (Deuterium-Tritium) reactions. Such fusion reactions have been maintained on JET for around five seconds.

I also found a claim that the French have achieved a 6 minute reaction, but I am currently unable to find confirmation.

The very nature of the atomic nucleus means that deuterium-tritium reactions are far easier to achieve than protium-protium ones. RET claims that the stars are powered by protium-protium reactions, and that is the phenomenon we are lacking evidence for.

I guess the earth is too little for a lab where you can fit the sun. And your life is too short to observe the lifetime of the sun. And we always don't have technology/materials to make happen that which we know happens. It's not just making sun on earth, we also must have some materials/equipment which can contain the sun if we make it here. Otherwise we make it and next second is boom and there is no earth.

We do not ask for a replication of the Sun. Just a simple experiment to demonstrate that sustained protium fusion is a viable source of energy.

Viable source of energy for what purpose?  The parameters for viability in the energy industry are far different from the parameters for viability concerning the sun.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #200 on: March 31, 2009, 08:58:59 AM »
Quote
No it hasn't.

A number of people on this forum have tried to view far off objects with a telescope and have failed to restore it.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17962
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #201 on: March 31, 2009, 09:10:27 AM »
Quote
No it hasn't.

A number of people on this forum have tried to view far off objects with a telescope and have failed to restore it.

No they haven't. They used binoculars to try to restore it despite Rowbotham instructing that it required a high powered telescope.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #202 on: March 31, 2009, 11:24:46 AM »

I simply want to know why you believe the <word that represents the big thing that's under all of us> is a huge flat disc when you can't see it's a huge flat disc.

Well, strictly speaking, I do not believe in that, precisely for that reason. Since Samuel Rowbotham experimentally proved that the Earth is not a sphere (read just two pages: http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za05.htm and http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za06.htm ), the idea of a huge flat disc seems the most compatible with what I see every day - that the Earth is flat.

Have you independently recreated that experiment?

No, I have not. Why?
How else are you supposed to know if it's true or not then?

Peer review. Rowbotham's experiments have already been peer reviewed numerous times over the last 150 years, all with the same result.

Have you seen Lady Blount's photographer's photograph of the experiment she performed?  If so, any chance you could provide a link to it or details of where you found it?  This is one of only two peer reviews you mention in your sig links.  If not, isn't taking as true reports of what has been alleged to have been seen just relying on third-hand information?
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42609
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #203 on: March 31, 2009, 12:30:06 PM »
Quote
No it hasn't.

A number of people on this forum have tried to view far off objects with a telescope and have failed to restore it.

No they haven't. They used binoculars to try to restore it despite Rowbotham instructing that it required a high powered telescope.

Where did Rowbotham ever quantify the magnification properties of his "telescope of sufficient power"?  This is one of the reasons that his experiments are so hard to properly peer review, lack of sufficient documentation.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36118
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #204 on: March 31, 2009, 03:25:30 PM »
Viable source of energy for what purpose?  The parameters for viability in the energy industry are far different from the parameters for viability concerning the sun.

The time integral of output power over the entire reaction needs to be greater than the same integral for input power. That is, there needs to be more energy liberated by the reaction than consumed. In addition, it needs to be shown that with a continuous supply of fuel, the reaction would continue to propagate (and produce more energy than it consumes).
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #205 on: April 01, 2009, 02:10:51 AM »
Viable source of energy for what purpose?  The parameters for viability in the energy industry are far different from the parameters for viability concerning the sun.

The time integral of output power over the entire reaction needs to be greater than the same integral for input power. That is, there needs to be more energy liberated by the reaction than consumed. In addition, it needs to be shown that with a continuous supply of fuel, the reaction would continue to propagate (and produce more energy than it consumes).

Your posts are a hoot.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42609
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #206 on: April 01, 2009, 06:33:38 AM »
Viable source of energy for what purpose?  The parameters for viability in the energy industry are far different from the parameters for viability concerning the sun.

The time integral of output power over the entire reaction needs to be greater than the same integral for input power. That is, there needs to be more energy liberated by the reaction than consumed. In addition, it needs to be shown that with a continuous supply of fuel, the reaction would continue to propagate (and produce more energy than it consumes).

The problem is that lab conditions still wouldn't match the conditions in the sun.  Because of its gravitational conditions, the sun's core only needs to be about 10 million degrees to sustain a fusion reaction.  Because scientists cannot match those gravitational conditions on earth, the temperature must be 100 million degrees to initiate the fusion reaction. 

BTW, if you're looking for more energy out that in, you need look no farther than a hydrogen bomb.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #207 on: April 01, 2009, 10:06:48 AM »
Quote
No it hasn't.

A number of people on this forum have tried to view far off objects with a telescope and have failed to restore it.

No they haven't. They used binoculars to try to restore it despite Rowbotham instructing that it required a high powered telescope.

That argument was also discussed in the other thread. But you chose to ignore it.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=26936.msg631699#msg631699
« Last Edit: April 01, 2009, 10:09:05 AM by jargo »

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #208 on: April 02, 2009, 11:29:09 AM »
I guess the earth is too little for a lab where you can fit the sun. And your life is too short to observe the lifetime of the sun. And we always don't have technology/materials to make happen that which we know happens. It's not just making sun on earth, we also must have some materials/equipment which can contain the sun if we make it here. Otherwise we make it and next second is boom and there is no earth.
We do not ask for a replication of the Sun. Just a simple experiment to demonstrate that sustained protium fusion is a viable source of energy.
Doesn't matter. And how does our ability to create sustainable protium fusion proves that it is possible or not? You really claim that these things which we can't do itself are impossible and don't exist in universe?
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: An astronomy picture taken from a common camera
« Reply #209 on: April 02, 2009, 11:37:09 AM »
Peer review. Rowbotham's experiments have already been peer reviewed numerous times over the last 150 years, all with the same result.
No, they haven't. Lets express things correctly as they were. There were some occasions where some people without qualified scientific background did same experiments. And last one of them was more than 100 years ago. You haven't shown any in the last 100 years. And there is not one real peer review done on Rowbotham work.
 And you still owe me records of Lady Blounts scientific education which you claimed she had.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2009, 12:27:00 PM by zork »
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.