Proof that Earth is round, not flat

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 15, 2010, 04:37:08 PM

I blew it up and now the top one has 15cm 2mm and the bottom one has 15cm 1mm

Ok, a difference of less than 1%. The difference in perspective between the car and the sign is much greater, because they are closer to the points of observation.

So, the more distant objects are from the observation points, the less difference in perspective is seen, and vice versa.

Since different observers on the Earth see no differences in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations, they are very far away compared to distances on Earth. And since yet, observers at different latitudes on the Earth see the Pole Star at different altitudes above horizon, the surface on the Earth must be curved, not flat.

Except the difference between the vantage points is only a foot or two at best. The things you claim we would see is happening to individuals hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.

Quote from: Erland on November 16, 2010, 07:00:53 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 15, 2010, 04:37:08 PM

I blew it up and now the top one has 15cm 2mm and the bottom one has 15cm 1mm

Ok, a difference of less than 1%. The difference in perspective between the car and the sign is much greater, because they are closer to the points of observation.

So, the more distant objects are from the observation points, the less difference in perspective is seen, and vice versa.

Since different observers on the Earth see no differences in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations, they are very far away compared to distances on Earth. And since yet, observers at different latitudes on the Earth see the Pole Star at different altitudes above horizon, the surface on the Earth must be curved, not flat.

Except the difference between the vantage points is only a foot or two at best. The things you claim we would see is happening to individuals hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.

Excellent point! Thanks so much. Even given the huge baseline, two observers on the flat Earth can't find a parallax (at the same time). A great victory for RET with the wonderful support of today's honorary REer, EG!

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 16, 2010, 10:14:57 AM

Quote from: Erland on November 16, 2010, 07:00:53 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 15, 2010, 04:37:08 PM

I blew it up and now the top one has 15cm 2mm and the bottom one has 15cm 1mm

Ok, a difference of less than 1%. The difference in perspective between the car and the sign is much greater, because they are closer to the points of observation.

So, the more distant objects are from the observation points, the less difference in perspective is seen, and vice versa.

Since different observers on the Earth see no differences in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations, they are very far away compared to distances on Earth. And since yet, observers at different latitudes on the Earth see the Pole Star at different altitudes above horizon, the surface on the Earth must be curved, not flat.

Except the difference between the vantage points is only a foot or two at best. The things you claim we would see is happening to individuals hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.

Excellent point! Thanks so much. Even given the huge baseline, two observers on the flat Earth can't find a parallax (at the same time). A great victory for RET with the wonderful support of today's honorary REer, EG!

What is this nonsense? How can you not have parallax as a phenomenon on a flat earth, round earth or even a hollow earth? If you look at two objects, from two different places, then you get parallax. I don't think you are up to debating with EG. You haven't grasped the basics of his argument. 

Quote from: ClockTower on November 16, 2010, 10:26:14 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 16, 2010, 10:14:57 AM

Quote from: Erland on November 16, 2010, 07:00:53 AM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 15, 2010, 04:37:08 PM

I blew it up and now the top one has 15cm 2mm and the bottom one has 15cm 1mm

Ok, a difference of less than 1%. The difference in perspective between the car and the sign is much greater, because they are closer to the points of observation.

So, the more distant objects are from the observation points, the less difference in perspective is seen, and vice versa.

Since different observers on the Earth see no differences in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations, they are very far away compared to distances on Earth. And since yet, observers at different latitudes on the Earth see the Pole Star at different altitudes above horizon, the surface on the Earth must be curved, not flat.

Except the difference between the vantage points is only a foot or two at best. The things you claim we would see is happening to individuals hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.

Excellent point! Thanks so much. Even given the huge baseline, two observers on the flat Earth can't find a parallax (at the same time). A great victory for RET with the wonderful support of today's honorary REer, EG!

What is this nonsense? How can you not have parallax as a phenomenon on a flat earth, round earth or even a hollow earth? If you look at two objects, from two different places, then you get parallax. I don't think you are up to debating with EG. You haven't grasped the basics of his argument. 

That's so lame! But thanks for trying.

The point remains that no one has ever measured a parallax of the stars along any baseline on the Earth. If the stars were only 3100 miles above the Earth as all models of FE (except Username's) hold, then a parallax would be measure. The FEW admits a parallax of the Sun at 3000 mile above the Earth on a baseline of less than 1/8 of the distance across the FE, yet FEers can't find stellar parallax at 3100 miles above the Earth using even more of the available baseline. Victory for RET!

Except the difference between the vantage points is only a foot or two at best. The things you claim we would see is happening to individuals hundreds or thousands of miles away from each other.

Hundreds and thousands of miles isn't much compared to the trillions of miles that is the distance to the nearest star (apart from the sun), according to mordern astronomy.
If it is wrong that the stars are very very far away compared to distances on Earth, why do the shapes, sizes, and relative positions of the constellations look the same from all locations on the Earth?

What is this nonsense? How can you not have parallax as a phenomenon on a flat earth, round earth or even a hollow earth? If you look at two objects, from two different places, then you get parallax. I don't think you are up to debating with EG. You haven't grasped the basics of his argument. 

Congratulations! You have mastered the art of making fool out of yourself.

Congratulations! You have mastered the art of making fool out of yourself.

Stay on topic and try to keep up.

As for seeing no parallax in the stars, FE I'm sure would claim that if at the north Pole the North Star is almost exactly above your head, and at the equator, the North star is very close to the horizon. That is a huge change of angle (90 degrees in 12000 miles). Parallax that can only be brought about by the stars being very close.

Quote from: zork on November 16, 2010, 11:23:46 AM

Congratulations! You have mastered the art of making fool out of yourself.

Stay on topic and try to keep up.

As for seeing no parallax in the stars, FE I'm sure would claim that if at the north Pole the North Star is almost exactly above your head, and at the equator, the North star is very close to the horizon. That is a huge change of angle (90 degrees in 12000 miles). Parallax that can only be brought about by the stars being very close.

That's not parallax. Please review the definition here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallax. Please understand that a star's changing apparent position is based on changing its position based on its background. Since Polaris still maintains its relative position to the stars in its neighborhood (Ursa Minor, Ursa Major, Cassiopeia, etc.), there's no astral parallax in your example.

 I guess Thork is in need for another "Congratulations!".

I wonder how much crying would happen if there was a "TH-TH-TH-THORK FAIL!!!!!" thread

I wonder how much crying would happen if there was a "TH-TH-TH-THORK FAIL!!!!!" thread

It doesn't have the same ring to it imo. There aren't enough syllables in Thork.

C-C-C-CLOCKTOWER FAIL just seems to role off the tongue as nicely as it does with M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL.

E-E-E-ENGLSHGENTLEMAN FAIL doesn't have an appealing sound to it either.



Also, much of the crying would be from RE'ers, since there are so little Thork fails. The thread wouldn't make it past the first page.

 The fewer the better. And they are truly ingenious ones. They have the unique flavor of true ignorance and belief in yourself. Much more worth of saving.

Ok, Thork and EnglshGentleman, now you just need to observe changes in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations when you observe from different loacations on the Earth. Perhaps you could see the Square of Pegasus change into an parallellogram with very unequal angles, Orion's belt into a triangle, Cassiopeia into a hexagon or something like that. Then you really would prove that the stars are close to the Earth! Good luck!

Ok, Thork and EnglshGentleman, now you just need to observe changes in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations when you observe from different loacations on the Earth. Perhaps you could see the Square of Pegasus change into an parallellogram with very unequal angles, Orion's belt into a triangle, Cassiopeia into a hexagon or something like that. Then you really would prove that the stars are close to the Earth! Good luck!

Let's not forget that if the constellations don't change, then FET is false. Enjoy your night of discovery!

Ok, Thork and EnglshGentleman, now you just need to observe changes in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations when you observe from different loacations on the Earth.

If you are willing to help fund our excursions I will would most happy to do this service for science.

Quote from: Erland on November 16, 2010, 02:50:24 PM

Ok, Thork and EnglshGentleman, now you just need to observe changes in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations when you observe from different loacations on the Earth.

If you are willing to help fund our excursions I will would most happy to do this service for science.

Gee. Isn't there another FEer you could cooperate with?

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 16, 2010, 03:20:55 PM

Quote from: Erland on November 16, 2010, 02:50:24 PM

Ok, Thork and EnglshGentleman, now you just need to observe changes in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations when you observe from different loacations on the Earth.

If you are willing to help fund our excursions I will would most happy to do this service for science.

Gee. Isn't there another FEer you could cooperate with?

I'd be happy to go on this trip with several of the FE'ers here. Are you suggesting you would help fund us if it were Wilmore instead of Thork?

Quote from: ClockTower on November 16, 2010, 03:26:37 PM

Quote from: EnglshGentleman on November 16, 2010, 03:20:55 PM

Quote from: Erland on November 16, 2010, 02:50:24 PM

Ok, Thork and EnglshGentleman, now you just need to observe changes in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations when you observe from different loacations on the Earth.

If you are willing to help fund our excursions I will would most happy to do this service for science.

Gee. Isn't there another FEer you could cooperate with?

I'd be happy to go on this trip with several of the FE'ers here. Are you suggesting you would help fund us if it were Wilmore instead of Thork?

Why would you need a trip to do this experiment? You do have the creative abilities to design an experiment with just one other FEer without travel, right?

Quote from: Erland on November 16, 2010, 02:50:24 PM

Ok, Thork and EnglshGentleman, now you just need to observe changes in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations when you observe from different loacations on the Earth.

If you are willing to help fund our excursions I will would most happy to do this service for science.

Wouldn't taking money from an RE'er for FET research constitute a conflict of interest?

Quote from: General Disarray on November 16, 2010, 01:21:07 PM

I wonder how much crying would happen if there was a "TH-TH-TH-THORK FAIL!!!!!" thread

It doesn't have the same ring to it imo. There aren't enough syllables in Thork.

C-C-C-CLOCKTOWER FAIL just seems to role off the tongue as nicely as it does with M-M-M-MONSTER FAIL.

E-E-E-ENGLSHGENTLEMAN FAIL doesn't have an appealing sound to it either.



Also, much of the crying would be from RE'ers, since there are so little Thork fails. The thread wouldn't make it past the first page.

G-G-G-GENTLEMEN FAIL is a possibility.

If you are willing to help fund our excursions I will would most happy to do this service for science.

Oh, there is no need of funding, I'm willing to go out tonight and look at sky if it is clear. You and other people on this forum can do the same. We must also take past experinece into consideration. For myself, I've looked at the sky many times, from Scandinavia, southern Europe, the United States (east and west) and the Carribean. I have never seen any differences in the shapes, sizes, and relative positions of the constellations. And nether has anybody else in the last centuries, for what I know. If there was any noticeable differences, I'm sure the Flat Earthers would know about it and tell us about it...

I'm willing to go out tonight and look at sky if it is clear. You and other people on this forum can do the same.

It was a little hazy, but I saw Ursa Major, Cygnus, and Auriga, and they looked exactly as they always looked everytime I looked at them, wherewer I was.

For those who subscribe to the FET belief, I would like to know your thoughts on how you view the laws of nature and physics.  Do you also believe that all of the universe is made up of flat planets?  Do you also believe that rain drops are flat?  And what about the atom, is it flat also in your thinking?

For those who subscribe to the FET belief, I would like to know your thoughts on how you view the laws of nature and physics.  Do you also believe that all of the universe is made up of flat planets?  Do you also believe that rain drops are flat?  And what about the atom, is it flat also in your thinking?

Why would we believe such things? 

Calling the Earth flat is merely colloquial. It is used to convey that there isn't curvature to the Earth. We do not believe the Earth is literally flat (2D), it is a cylinder. Like a disk.

If the stars were that close (circa 3000 miles), either we would be burnt to a crisp or we need to rewrite the laws of nuclear physics, which work in lab and on the sun (the strong force would need to be stronger and the weak force would need a longer range, which would play havoc with the universe as we know it).
The gravitational force would need to be stronger and the electromagnetic force weaker.
These adjustments would be needed to balance the much smaller mass of the celestial bodies with their need to generate enough radiation pressure through fusion to balance out the gravitational force. (the extra gravity would be needed in order to keep the stars together, the other forces would need adjusting to increase the rate of fusion)
These adjustments would make the sun burn out in a very short time.
However, if we increased the energy of the proton-proton fusion reaction and decreased the weak interaction, it may also work.

My point?
Neither of these scenarios are observed in the real world.

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.

Sorry, the "it looks flat out my window" argument has been disproved now by my demonstration that other things that are referrred to as "flat" do not have the same visual or physical properties as the surface of the earth, therefore the standard definition of "flat" [even in an approximate macroscopic context allowing for local variation] cannot be applied to the earth's surface. Next.

Sorry, the "it looks flat out my window" argument has been disproved now by my demonstration that other things that are referrred to as "flat" do not have the same visual or physical properties as the surface of the earth, therefore the standard definition of "flat" [even in an approximate macroscopic context allowing for local variation] cannot be applied to the earth's surface. Next.

Have you personally looked out of Tom Bishop's window? If not, you're hardly in a position to judge how the Earth looks from it.

Ok, Thork and EnglshGentleman, now you just need to observe changes in the shapes, sizes and relative positions of the constellations when you observe from different loacations on the Earth. Perhaps you could see the Square of Pegasus change into an parallellogram with very unequal angles, Orion's belt into a triangle, Cassiopeia into a hexagon or something like that. Then you really would prove that the stars are close to the Earth! Good luck!

This experiment has already been done from many locations around the earth and the minimal parallax variations prove the distances are of the orders of magnitude suggested in RET, and not what FET claims. Next.

Quote from: Thermal Detonator on December 18, 2010, 05:34:58 AM

Sorry, the "it looks flat out my window" argument has been disproved now by my demonstration that other things that are referrred to as "flat" do not have the same visual or physical properties as the surface of the earth, therefore the standard definition of "flat" [even in an approximate macroscopic context allowing for local variation] cannot be applied to the earth's surface. Next.

Have you personally looked out of Tom Bishop's window? If not, you're hardly in a position to judge how the Earth looks from it.

Yes, I have.

In fact, even if I hadn't, for the earth to be a flat plane then all views should exhibit the same effect, so any window will do.

Yes, I have.

Please support this claim with a life size model of you looking out of Tom Bishop's window.