Telescopes

I have a simple question: Everytime I magnify more than 250x with my telescope, I can see the object I'm viewing moving through my eyepiece from one side to the other. How would you explain that ? I mean is the flat earth some sort of spinning plate? Or is it simply because of the angular momentum round planets tend to have?

I quote:

Earth spins because of the way it was formed. Our solar system formed about 4.6 billion years ago when a huge cloud of gas and dust started to collapse under its own gravity. As the cloud collapsed, it started to spin. Some of the material within this cloud gathered into swirling eddies and eventually formed into planets. As the planets formed they kept this spinning motion. This is similar to what you see when skaters pull in their arms and spin faster. As material gathered in more closely to form a planet, like Earth, the material spun faster. The Earth keeps on spinning because there are no forces acting to stop it.

As this is related to Flat Earth Theory, I've moved it to Debate & Discussion.

Thanks mate

No problem at all.

I have a simple question: Everytime I magnify more than 250x with my telescope, I can see the object I'm viewing moving through my eyepiece from one side to the other.

Maybe the answer is to keep your magnification below 250x.

The real question was "How would you explain that ? I mean is the flat earth some sort of spinning plate? Or is it simply because of the angular momentum round planets tend to have?" + It doesn't matter how much you magnify, the image will always move

it is useless to debate with anyone on this forum.

The real question was "How would you explain that ? I mean is the flat earth some sort of spinning plate? Or is it simply because of the angular momentum round planets tend to have?" + It doesn't matter how much you magnify, the image will always move

You can minimise the impact of the telescope images moving by using an equatorial mount.  I'm not going to answer your basic question though, I think that FE believers should give you the answer to this sort of question.

The night sky is in motion above the earth.

The night sky is in motion above the earth.

Please describe the mechanism that drives this movement of the night sky. Does it also operate during daylight hours?

it is useless to debate with anyone on this forum.

Yeah, especially when they come up with no argumentation whatsoever..

Quote from: semperround on July 21, 2009, 05:01:26 AM

it is useless to debate with anyone on this forum.

Yeah, especially when they come up with no argumentation whatsoever..

Keep asking the same question. If they can't or won't answer it, then you have your answer - FET doesn't work.

Simple.

Then why make a complete arse of yourself and place such ridiculous nonsense on the internet in the first place ?

The motion of the sky and its residents is much more compatible with a round earth than a flat earth. Therefore....

It's not only less compatible with FE. Motion of the sky is impossible within FET, because stars would have to 'fly' faster than light, or some of them would hit earth within ~4 years(blueshift of some objects).

The night sky is in motion above the earth.

Another corker of an argument!

Evidence Tom...don't forget the Scientific Method...!

Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 21, 2009, 06:25:26 AM

The night sky is in motion above the earth.

Another corker of an argument!

Evidence Tom...don't forget the Scientific Method...!

You forget, zetetics shun the scientific method.  They believe that forming a hypothesis skews the interpretation of the experimental evidence.  Apparently they don't realize how many scientific breakthroughs have been made when the experimental evidence contradicts the hypothesis.

The night sky is in motion above the earth.

It would have to be faster than speed of light, or Andromeda(not only) would have to hit us in 4 years from doing blueshift measurements

Quote

The night sky is in motion above the earth.

It would have to be faster than speed of light, or Andromeda(not only) would have to hit us in 4 years from doing blueshift measurements

Doppler shift is interpreted differently under a Flat Earth.

how?
Also, what would cause the sky to rotate? what is accelerating stars toward the axis of rotation?

how?

The color of doppler shift means something else in FET. Obviously we don't actually know what those stars are doing, since it's just an astronomical observation and we cannot go there directly for confirmation.

Also, what would cause the sky to rotate? what is accelerating stars toward the axis of rotation?

I've always said that there was a shared center of attraction somewhere above the North Pole and that the night sky existed in a vast multiple system.

The color of doppler shift means something else in FET. Obviously we don't actually know what those stars are doing, since it's just an astronomical observation and we cannot go there directly for confirmation.

it's just an astronomical observation

just...
i'm wasting my time here...
there are 3 explanation for red/blueshifts, and none of this is 'your' explanation. you just dont know.
you don't know what's powering sun, what stars really are, you dont know how radiowaves can return from opposite side to transmittion... you just know that earth is flat. nothing else.

I've always said that there was a shared center of attraction somewhere above the North Pole and that the night sky existed in a vast multiple system.

center of attraction

what is that center? maybe some mass? oh no, you have no gravity.. strong interaction? oh no, it's too short-ranged... weak? no, it's too weak.. electromagnetic? oh no, our compasses are working quite well! so what?

there are 3 explanation for red/blueshifts, and none of this is 'your' explanation. you just dont know.

Doppler shift is an astronomical observation which could come under any number of different interpretations. For example, if someone sees a blue star it's not a given that the star is accelerating towards the earth, or anywhere. The star may just be blue.

what is that center? maybe some mass? oh no, you have no gravity.. strong interaction? oh no, it's too short-ranged... weak? no, it's too weak.. electromagnetic? oh no, our compasses are working quite well! so what?

Nothing's at the center. It's a shared center of attraction, like that which occurs in a binary star system or a multiple system. As for what causes the stars to attract, that is of course, unknown.

you don't know what's powering sun, what stars really are, you dont know how radiowaves can return from opposite side to transmittion... you just know that earth is flat. nothing else.

Astronomy is a matter of observation and interpretation. There can never be an experiment with the cosmos to come to the absolute truth of the matter like there can in Chemistry. Astronomy is an observing science. Astronomy can never follow the Scientific Method. The Astronomer cannot conduct an experiment on the cosmos. He can only observe and interpret.

Doppler shift is an astronomical observation which could come under any number of different interpretations. For example, if someone sees a blue star it's not a given that the star is accelerating towards the earth, or anywhere. The star may just be blue.

No, it's not, because we see emmision spectra blueshifted, and i hope that you're not saying that all chemists are in conspiracy.

Nothing's at the center. It's a shared center of attraction, like that which occurs in a binary star system or a multiple system. As for what causes the stars to attract, that is of course, unknown.

in RE it's called gravity, and it's caused by mass, not 'nothing'

ronomy is a matter of observation and interpretation. There can never be an experiment with the cosmos to come to the absolute truth of the matter like there can in Chemistry. Astronomy is an observing science. Astronomy can never follow the Scientific Method. The Astronomer cannot conduct an experiment on the cosmos. He can only observe and interpret.

Chemistry is not only an observation, it's also explanation, calculation, deductive and inductive reasoning, as Astronomy is.
If there is any interpretation of some phenomena, it MUST be confirmed in all situations, and if there is any situation that proves interpretation to be wrong, in must be updated or changed.
If there are 2 correct interpretations of phenomena, te cannot say what is the good one until we will conduct any experiment(or observation for astrophysics) that will give different results in different interpretations.

Quote

Doppler shift is an astronomical observation which could come under any number of different interpretations. For example, if someone sees a blue star it's not a given that the star is accelerating towards the earth, or anywhere. The star may just be blue.

No, it's not, because we see emmision spectra blueshifted, and i hope that you're not saying that all chemists are in conspiracy.

Tom doesn't seem to know much about spectroscopy or astrophysics.

(It can be absorbtion specta - missing black lines - too, by the way: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070624.html.)

huh, i found some posts by tom that are stating that there is no evidence for atoms. I think that there is no need to involve him into debate.
if you want to know - there was even act of chemical reaction between individual molecules recorded using electron microscope

I have a simple question: Everytime I magnify more than 250x with my telescope, I can see the object I'm viewing moving through my eyepiece from one side to the other.

Um, how is that possible? I would think that any effect would be constant. If your view actually was shifting then it would be like a panning camera. Waiting long enough would give you a whole new view.

huh, i found some posts by tom that are stating that there is no evidence for atoms. I think that there is no need to involve him into debate.
if you want to know - there was even act of chemical reaction between individual molecules recorded using electron microscope

Tell me more.

No, it's not, because we see emmision spectra blueshifted, and i hope that you're not saying that all chemists are in conspiracy

Right. The star is tinted blue. How does that tell us anything about it or what it's doing?

in RE it's called gravity, and it's caused by mass, not 'nothing'

If gravity is caused by mass, why is it that photons have gravitational fields?

Chemistry is not only an observation, it's also explanation, calculation, deductive and inductive reasoning, as Astronomy is.
If there is any interpretation of some phenomena, it MUST be confirmed in all situations, and if there is any situation that proves interpretation to be wrong, in must be updated or changed.

If there are 2 correct interpretations of phenomena, te cannot say what is the good one until we will conduct any experiment(or observation for astrophysics) that will give different results in different interpretations.

An observation isn't an experiment. In Astronomy the astronomer can only observe and skies and create a hypothesis. That hypothesis cannot be put to the test like it can in other sciences.

Right. The star is tinted blue. How does that tell us anything about it or what it's doing?

A few years ago I read over a friends PhD thesis which was on bright blue stars. You need the right equipment (he was always popping of to Hawaii to do his research) but it seems you can tell quite a lot about it's make up. They are quite young stars.

You won't find out what they're doing cos they take quite a long time to do anything and even longer for the light to reach us - they're a pretty long way away.