Proof that Earth is round, not flat

All of you claiming EG's example ridiculous, are relatively new to the site, with the exception of Horatio who should know better. As EG mentions, parallax is something you would expect with the FE model. Our FAQ suggests that the stars are 3100 miles above the earth. Rowbotham suggests that they are 700-800 miles above earth. Whilst there is a discrepancy, the main point is that FE surmises the stars to be very much closer that Round Earth Theorists. Therefore the parallax errors EG uses as an example are very much relevant. One would expect the effects he describes, with the Flat Earth model.

Our FAQ suggests that the stars are 3100 miles above the earth. Rowbotham suggests that they are 700-800 miles above earth.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 05:37:32 PM

What evidence do you have to support your outlandish claim?

I looked out my window and read a copy of Earth Not a Globe.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2010, 05:38:43 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 05:37:32 PM

What evidence do you have to support your outlandish claim?

I looked out my window and read a copy of Earth Not a Globe.

EnaG is fiction. Evidence: Asimov's work.

All of you claiming EG's example ridiculous, are relatively new to the site, with the exception of Horatio who should know better. As EG mentions, parallax is something you would expect with the FE model. Our FAQ suggests that the stars are 3100 miles above the earth. Rowbotham suggests that they are 700-800 miles above earth. Whilst there is a discrepancy, the main point is that FE surmises the stars to be very much closer that Round Earth Theorists. Therefore the parallax errors EG uses as an example are very much relevant. One would expect the effects he describes, with the Flat Earth model.

Quote from: wecl0me12 on November 12, 2010, 02:37:08 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on November 11, 2010, 05:38:43 PM

Quote from: ClockTower on November 11, 2010, 05:37:32 PM

What evidence do you have to support your outlandish claim?

I looked out my window and read a copy of Earth Not a Globe.

EnaG is fiction. Evidence: Asimov's work.

Isaac Asimov's works are works of fiction. If a fictional work claims that Earth not a Globe is fictional, might Earth not a Globe be factive?

Let the ball be thrown upwards from the mast-head of a stationary ship, and it will fall back to the mast-head, and pass downwards to the foot of the mast. The same result would follow if the ball were thrown upwards from the mouth of a mine, or the top of a tower, on a stationary earth. Now put the ship in motion, and let the ball be thrown upwards. It will, as in the first instance, partake of the two motions--the upward or vertical, A, C, and the horizontal, A, B, as shown in fig. 47; but

because the two motions act conjointly, the ball will take the diagonal direction, A, D. By the time the ball has arrived at

D, the ship will have reached the position, 13; and now, as the two forces will have been expended, the ball will begin to fall, by the force of gravity alone, in the vertical direction, D, B, H; but during
 its fall towards H, the ship will have passed on to the position S, leaving the ball at H, a given distance behind it.

Still too far for the change to be noticed.

Epic fail, Thork.

The very idea of the hottest and brightest stars being that close to earth is ridiculous...we would see them in full view...enormous in the sky....affecting the heat and perhaps climate on earth.

But in my first post in this thread, I proved that this is wrong; that the stars are in fact very distant compared to distances on Earth. EnglishGentleman accepted this, at least for the sake of argument.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 12, 2010, 12:54:05 PM

Would you not expect that a star in relation to another would appear different to people in two different locations on a flat plane? They are viewing them from different angles.

Consider these two photos of the same event from different angles. Look at the car in relation to the sign.

Hehe, you're kidding... but I will answer seriously..

First, we must disregard that the camera(s) were held at different angles. We must rotate the photos in our mind so that e.g. the images of the frame holding the sign become parallel in the two photos.

As you say, the position of the car in relation to the sign are different in the two photos. But that is because the distance between the two camera locations is not negligible compared to the distances from the cameras to the car and the sign.
If we instead look at the trees at the far end of the street, we can see no diffence between the silhouttes of those trees in the two photos, not even if we also consider the clouds in the sky behind. This is because in this case, the distance between the camera locations is indeed neglibible compared to the distance from the cameras to those trees and to the clouds. And also, if we measure the height of one of these distant trees above street level in the photos, we would find that it is the same, just as any two persons on a flat Earth would measure the height of the Pole star as the same, since the Pole star is so very far away compared to distances on the Earth.

You have gravely misinterpreted the implication of the experiment.

Quote from: Horatio on November 12, 2010, 03:03:54 PM

Still too far for the change to be noticed.

Epic fail, Thork.

If earth's radius is 12,000 miles and stars are between 700 and 3100 miles above us, then you would notice that change moving from North pole to equator. You are moving 4 times the distance horizontally to their altitude.
Epic failure to understand the thread, Horatio. You seem most out of your depth when you venture from RM.

Quote from: TrollCrusher on November 12, 2010, 02:30:02 PM

The very idea of the hottest and brightest stars being that close to earth is ridiculous...we would see them in full view...enormous in the sky....affecting the heat and perhaps climate on earth.

But FE also doesn't say the sun and stars are huge. The sun's diameter is only 32 miles across and the stars are as you see them. Closer but smaller. They are very small and bright. They do not put out lots of heat like the sun. They are too small. They may well be bioluminesent like the moon anyway.

WEll consider for once that FE may be wrong.....WE have every bit of contradictory information on all points. We also know the sun is only one of many stars in the universe. The do not put off heat like the sun? that's crazy talk and a very childish view...scientists have observed the level of heat given off by them at relative distance..

Some of Isaac Asimov's works are works of fiction.

Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 02:50:54 PM

Most of Isaac Asimov's works are works of fiction.

Fixed.

Quote from: markjo on November 12, 2010, 07:57:50 PM

Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 02:50:54 PM

Most of Isaac Asimov's works are works of fiction.

Fixed.

Fixed your fix.

Quote from: markjo on November 12, 2010, 07:57:50 PM

Quote from: James on November 12, 2010, 02:50:54 PM

Most of Isaac Asimov's works are works of fiction.

Fixed.

Fixed your fix.

Quote from: Thork on November 12, 2010, 03:24:05 PM

Quote from: Horatio on November 12, 2010, 03:03:54 PM

Still too far for the change to be noticed.

Epic fail, Thork.

If earth's radius is 12,000 miles and stars are between 700 and 3100 miles above us, then you would notice that change moving from North pole to equator. You are moving 4 times the distance horizontally to their altitude.
Epic failure to understand the thread, Horatio. You seem most out of your depth when you venture from RM.

Quote from: TrollCrusher on November 12, 2010, 02:30:02 PM

The very idea of the hottest and brightest stars being that close to earth is ridiculous...we would see them in full view...enormous in the sky....affecting the heat and perhaps climate on earth.

But FE also doesn't say the sun and stars are huge. The sun's diameter is only 32 miles across and the stars are as you see them. Closer but smaller. They are very small and bright. They do not put out lots of heat like the sun. They are too small. They may well be bioluminesent like the moon anyway.

WEll consider for once that FE may be wrong.....WE have every bit of contradictory information on all points. We also know the sun is only one of many stars in the universe. The do not put off heat like the sun? that's crazy talk and a very childish view...scientists have observed the level of heat given off by them at relative distance..

Thork puts words in other people's mouths, you should see the thread where he claimed clocktower said there were lions on the moon.

Quote from: sillyrob on November 12, 2010, 09:40:22 PM

Thork puts words in other people's mouths, you should see the thread where he claimed clocktower said there were lions on the moon.

Do provide a link please, and then stop derailing this thread.

Quote from: sillyrob on November 12, 2010, 09:40:22 PM

Thork puts words in other people's mouths, you should see the thread where he claimed clocktower said there were lions on the moon.

Do provide a link please, and then stop derailing this thread.

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 12, 2010, 10:31:27 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on November 12, 2010, 09:40:22 PM

Thork puts words in other people's mouths, you should see the thread where he claimed clocktower said there were lions on the moon.

Do provide a link please, and then stop derailing this thread.

Per your request: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33205.msg1061462#msg1061462.

Quote from: ClockTower on November 12, 2010, 10:42:52 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 12, 2010, 10:31:27 PM

Quote from: sillyrob on November 12, 2010, 09:40:22 PM

Thork puts words in other people's mouths, you should see the thread where he claimed clocktower said there were lions on the moon.

Do provide a link please, and then stop derailing this thread.

Per your request: http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=33205.msg1061462#msg1061462.

Prove that he wasn't putting words in your mouth. Show what he was referring to.



Also, since RE'ers are now just trying to derail this thread instead of actually try and debate, I shall consider this

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR FLAT EARTH!!!

I am not kidding. Yes, it is clear we both agree the car in relation to the sign are different in the two photos. Actually, there isn't a negligible difference in the clouds compared to the trees. Look at the top picture. Part of the cloud is behind the tree, look at the bottom one, there is a gap between the tree and the cloud. Look at the tree and the fence on the left. In the top picture the tree is a good distance away from the fence post. In the second one, the tree is quite close to it. With just a small change in the angle from which the observer is, there is noticeable difference from both close, and afar. And this is all caused by most likely a difference of a perhaps a meter or two in vantage point.

With peoples use of maths here - I find it would be much more likely that you could prove the parallex problem with some math.

You know the height of the stars....  two different numbers but you can work on both.
Figure out two locations, take in their altitude in consideration.
Measure angles.
Compare.

This should be a simple experiment?

Anyhow I still haven't had an explanation of why the stars in the SouthernHemiRegion rotate around a point facing south just as in the NorthernHemiRegion when facing north.

Berny
Doesn't expect much of an explanation

Quote from: berny_74 on November 13, 2010, 07:36:08 AM

With peoples use of maths here - I find it would be much more likely that you could prove the parallex problem with some math.

You know the height of the stars....  two different numbers but you can work on both.
Figure out two locations, take in their altitude in consideration.
Measure angles.
Compare.

This should be a simple experiment?

Anyhow I still haven't had an explanation of why the stars in the SouthernHemiRegion rotate around a point facing south just as in the NorthernHemiRegion when facing north.

Berny
Doesn't expect much of an explanation

The parallax records for RET are well documented and explained. I first learned from George Abell's book http://www.amazon.com/Exploration-Universe-Version-George-Abell/dp/0030946662/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289662995&sr=8-1 about how we determined the distance to the stars. The process and the math involved is relatively easy. The hard (and I mean really hard) part is the precision required. Unlike FET's inane 3100 miles for all stars, RET holds that the stars are so far away that we have to use the diameter of the Earth's orbit as a baseline to get the precision needed to measure the distance to the nearest stars.

Given RET's 3100 mile, parallax should be trivial. Here's the process and the math...

Obtain 3 observers. Place them at least 3,000 miles apart from each other and at mean sea level (to simplify the math). Have them each measure the direction to the target star. Note the math will not work for a star directly overhead. If any observer sees the target star directly overhead then wait one hour and repeat. Note no observer should be on the North Pole if the Polaris is the target star.

Now record the data in the following table

Observer-Number(1-3) Latitude Longitude Compass-Direction(0-360) Ascension(0-90)

The next step requires trigonometry. I'll post a spreadsheet with the math by Monday if you like.

Anyhow I still haven't had an explanation of why the stars in the SouthernHemiRegion rotate around a point facing south just as in the NorthernHemiRegion when facing north.

Actually, there isn't a negligible difference in the clouds compared to the trees. Look at the top picture. Part of the cloud is behind the tree, look at the bottom one, there is a gap between the tree and the cloud. Look at the tree and the fence on the left. In the top picture the tree is a good distance away from the fence post. In the second one, the tree is quite close to it. With just a small change in the angle from which the observer is, there is noticeable difference from both close, and afar. And this is all caused by most likely a difference of a perhaps a meter or two in vantage point.

Is it really absurd that the stars will appear different to two individuals that are hundreds of miles apart?