Silver Bullet Against FET

Assume for a moment that the earth is flat. that would mean that you should be able to see any star constellation from any point on earth.  However, the southern cross is visible in Australia, but not in the USA.  Likewise, the North Star is visible in the USA but not Australia.  What's going on?

This phenomena is easily explained if the earth were a sphere and Australia were simply on the opposite hemisphere that the USA were on. How does FET explain this?

Happy Trolling!

the FAQ states that stars are 3100 Miles above the earth. 100 miles more than the sun.
Being that the sun is 32 miles wide, stars are extremely small.
In different parts of the disc (known earth) it would be extremely difficult to see these tiny balls of light from the opposite side.

You say this as if it was a completely original idea thought only by you. I hate to deflect your silver bullet (we're not werewolves either?) but just about every single person that comes to this site has asked this. It is usually the Sun they ask about, not the stars. Anyway, the atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. You can not endlessly view across it anymore than you can see five meters ahead of you in a thick fog.

You say this as if it was a completely original idea thought only by you. I hate to deflect your silver bullet (we're not werewolves either?) but just about every single person that comes to this site has asked this. It is usually the Sun they ask about, not the stars. Anyway, the atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. You can not endlessly view across it anymore than you can see five meters ahead of you in a thick fog.

ever see my thread on the sun illuminating clouds after the sun is no longer visable? its an odd one because for the clouds to illuminate the light has to travel even further.

Oh hey look more half assed explanations from Irushwithscvs, when is he going to just stop? The correct answer is they do not know. Trig said it best when he helped me explain how the stars would look weird on a flat Earth.

Quote from: BoatswainsMate on May 28, 2012, 02:08:16 PM

I will ook that up, ty Robby. This was a fun conversation, but I think I am done and over it. I do not know enough about astronomy to even try argue specifics of azimuth and why I think a flat earth would be different when obtaining it.

I am sorry to see you moving on. The question about why you think things would look different with a flat Earth is simple: because hovering skies that circle the North Pole are a totally different scenario from distant stars seen from a round planet!
When hovering stars approach the horizon they move in a very noticeable way towards the North West. When hovering stars approach the horizon they become at least 5 to 10 times less brilliant. When the Sun and Moon hover towards the horizon they become at least 3 times smaller. Why do you think you have not seen any of this?

Your instincts are right where they should be. A hovering sky would look absolutely strange, and you have not seen any of those strange phenomena. And that is more than enough.

So I always remember that things look the way they do because we are on a round planet. A flat Earth would look very strange to us. No amount of FE propaganda is able to withstand common sense. 

and what explains the rolling scape of stars in the FET?

the FAQ states that stars are 3100 Miles above the earth. 100 miles more than the sun.
Being that the sun is 32 miles wide, stars are extremely small.
In different parts of the disc (known earth) it would be extremely difficult to see these tiny balls of light from the opposite side.

Nope, that explanation won't hold and I'll show you why:



Anybody inside the red circle can see the north star, regardless of distance, while anybody on the outside of the red circle cannot.  Even if there were two people only 50 miles apart on either side of the red line, one would be able to see the north star, one would not. Meanwhile, if you have 2 people 1000 miles apart and both are in the red circle, they can both see the north star.

Try again...

You say this as if it was a completely original idea thought only by you. I hate to deflect your silver bullet (we're not werewolves either?) but just about every single person that comes to this site has asked this. It is usually the Sun they ask about, not the stars. Anyway, the atmolayer is not perfectly transparent. You can not endlessly view across it anymore than you can see five meters ahead of you in a thick fog.

Still doesn't explain why 2 people can see the North star 1000 miles apart inside the red circle, but not 50 miles apart if one person is outside the circle. Meanwhile someone in Argentina and someone in Australia can both see the southern cross even though they appear to be on opposite sides of the disc. FET makes no sense.


Edit: Maybe there's a cylindrical magnetic field along the red line that bends the light of the stars on either side of it so that anyone inside the red line can only see certain stars, and people outside the red line can only see certain stars.  I'll call this the Cylindrical Magnetic Field Theory.  Feel free to use it.

You have simply failed to understand what irush is saying, because you are so wrapped up in rotundity. On the map you presented the North Star is right in the centre above earth. Now if you were at the North Pole you'd look up through a few miles of air and see the star 3100 miles above you. As you move away from the centre of the disk it becomes harder. At the point where you drew a red line you can no longer see the star. This is because the slant angle has lowered the star to almost where the horizon is and you are no longer looking through a few miles of air. You are looking through several thousand miles of air. And air has stuff in it. Bits of dust, water vapour, all kinds of things. So expecting to see a star (albeit very bright) through several thousand miles of atmosphere (atmolayer) is ridiculous. The fact you can't as you get further from the north pole, only adds weight to FET.

You have simply failed to understand what irush is saying, because you are so wrapped up in rotundity. On the map you presented the North Star is right in the centre above earth. Now if you were at the North Pole you'd look up through a few miles of air and see the star 3100 miles above you. As you move away from the centre of the disk it becomes harder. At the point where you drew a red line you can no longer see the star. This is because the slant angle has lowered the star to almost where the horizon is and you are no longer looking through a few miles of air. You are looking through several thousand miles of air. And air has stuff in it. Bits of dust, water vapour, all kinds of things. So expecting to see a star (albeit very bright) through several thousand miles of atmosphere (atmolayer) is ridiculous. The fact you can't as you get further from the north pole, only adds weight to FET.

(emphasis added)

No, I understood perfectly. That's why I threw in the bit about Australia and Argentina.  By that reasoning (I've bolded it for your convenience) there should be no way that Australia and Argentina can see the same stars without the star being outside the "fog radius" or whatever you'd like to call it.  Pick any point above the earth where the southern cross could be, and I will show you that both Australia and Argentina should not be able to see it by your reasoning.


Zing! The silver bullet strikes Thork, fatality wounding his and irush's logic.  Will they be able to save their reasoning from certain destruction? Can Tom Bishop even save them from this rapidly-collapsing web of lies? Stay tuned.

You are aware that the stars move in the sky? Like a big dial?


The stars further towards the rim are the ones that serve South America and Australia. They see the same stars overhead as they turn above like a record player. The southern cross happens to be nearer the edge of the disk and turns over the heads of those nearer the edge. The slant angle is too great to allow people like me in Europe to see through that much air however. So I can't see the Southern Cross.

Before you go changing the subject onto travel of stars, there is more than one 'gear'. They don't all move in the exact same way, but you can search for that. We have threads like that all the time. However your question is answered. The movement of the stars ensures the same ones are seen by all people at the same latitudes on the disk.

*It should be noted I am not a werewolf either.

You are aware that the stars move in the sky? Like a big dial?

The stars further towards the rim are the ones that serve South America and Australia. They see the same stars overhead as they turn above like a record player...

*naysayer loads his logic gun with another silver bullet*

Sure, I'll go along with that, the stars spin like a big dial.  But you forgot one thing.  Australia and Argentina can both see the southern cross at the same time.  Your reasoning suggests that as the southern cross makes it way around the rim, Australia will get a turn to see it, and then later Argentina.  This is easily disproved: Find someone in Australia, and find someone else in Argentina.  When it is nighttime for them, have them both look up and locate the southern cross.  They will both be able to simultaneously see it, without having to wait for the stars to rotate.  This is a very feasible experiment with the advent of the internet.

Zing! Another bullet wounds Thork. Will he be able to recover? Thork groans - the shot was well-aimed.  Thork and irush writhe inwardly, desperately and hopelessly scrambling for something, anything that will save them from losing face.

Sure, I'll go along with that, the stars spin like a big dial.  But you forgot one thing.  Australia and Argentina can both see the southern cross at the same time.

Really? Because you will notice from the map you provided they are exact opposite sides of the earth. And round earth or flat, that means that when it is night time at one, it is day time at the other. So how do they see the southern cross at the exact same time if one of them must be in daylight? You are letting the crazy in your head, slip out to become crazy in public. This thread isn't going to be pretty unless you take your tablets and a few deep breaths before posting.

And round earth or flat, that means that when it is night time at one, it is day time at the other. So how do they see the southern cross at the exact same time if one of them must be in daylight? You are letting the crazy in your head, slip out to become crazy in public.

*naysayer loads the final bullet. The fatal bullet.*

It is common knowledge that Australia and Argentina share a period of nighttime.



Care to revise your testimony, sir? If you don't believe this image, again, I would urge you to do your own experiment:  Find someone in Australia, and find someone else in Argentina. Using the internet, set up an IRC to have them track, live, what the daylight conditions are like outside.  You'll find a period of shared darkness. Even with the FET map I provided, Argentina and Australia can be shown to be within the same semi-circle on the map.

Zing! Thark is down for the count! His eyes hollows of madness, Thark's sanity begins slipping.  He begins questioning the very bowels of reality. Irush offers no help but instead laughs from the sideline as Thark flails and allows his very mind to unhinge.

Listen. Even if the earth was round, people on it cannot see the same stars at the same time. Because up would be in complete opposite directions. When Argentinians look at the southern cross, Australians must be looking up in the exact opposite direction. So in conclusion, round earth or flat, your sweeping statement that people in these places can see the same stars at the same time is absolute nonsense. You just made it up.

Is that all you've got? A misconception in your own head? You'll be a flat earther in no time. Keep reading, we'll see you find the truth.

Now allow me to finish this thread off.

Visible in the southern skies

The Southern Cross can be seen in the ideal position at the following times:

January 1st 5:00 am
February 1st 3:00 am
March 1st 1:00 am
April 1st 12:00 am
May 1st 10:00 pm
June 1st 8:00 pm
July 1st 6:00 pm
August not visible
September not visible
October not visible
November not visible
December not visible

Its not always visible? Aggghhhh? On a round earth? Aggghhhhh? wtf? But that means .... on a flat earth .... when its too far to see .... you mean ... flat earth ... flat earth ... flat earth for the win!

... Thark flails and allows his very mind to unhinge.

I see my prophecy has come true; your mind has indeed unhinged.

Argentinians look at the southern cross, Australians must be looking up in the exact opposite direction.
...

As for your listing of times when southern cross is visible, what does that have to do with being able to see it simultaneously in 2 locations? It shows when the southern cross is, not where. It seems as though you just googled "southern cross visible" and pasted the first thing you clicked on in a feeble attempt to ward off my cutting logic. It didn't work.

Now allow me to finish this thread off:



I do not wish to drive you further into the depths of insanity, but do as you will.

I showed that you can't even see the Southern Cross from one location all the time. You have yet to show that it can be viewed from both simultaneously. And you based this whole fail thread on that. On an assumption you made. This is an awful thread.

Thork,

The quote you presented says it is visible "at the ideal location".  So a listing of not visible would refer to not visible "at the ideal location.  Another quote from that very same page says "It can be seen all year round."

I showed that you can't even see the Southern Cross from one location all the time. You have yet to show that it can be viewed from both simultaneously. And you based this whole fail thread on that. On an assumption you made. This is an awful thread.

Only as awful as you make it with your ludicrous ideas.  The southern cross is visible in Australia pretty much year round. (Source) and also (Source 2)

Oops?

naysayer's logic further dements Thork, rendering his mind nothing more than a confused cornucopia of truth and lies.

IS IT VISIBLE FROM ARGENTINA AND AUSTRALIA AT THE EXACT SAME TIME? That's your claim. Without it, your argument disintegrates. I'll save you a google. The answer is no.

IS IT VISIBLE FROM ARGENTINA AND AUSTRALIA AT THE EXACT SAME TIME? That's your claim. Without it, your argument disintegrates. I'll save you a google. The answer is no.

I'm sorry to have reduced you to this state, but it ends here. "For locations south of 34°S, Crux (The Southern Cross) is circumpolar and thus always visible in the night sky." (Source: read 'Location')

Also check a world map if you don't believe Australia and Argentina both have major regions south of 34°S.

Also, it's easy enough for you to prove for yourself, as I've pointed out many times.  The internet can easily connect you with people living in Australia and Argentina, but you don't want to know the truth.  You are scared of it.  And now I see why; I see what the truth does to you.  Your mind can't take it.  Like a twig, my logic and reasoning have snapped your very sanity, rendering you nothing more than a shouting troll.

Sorry, I didn't want it to end this way. I've defended, and indeed even proven all of my arguments with silver bullets -- nay -- razors of pure logic, and you've done nothing more than grasped desperately at the straws, so to speak.

I rest my case.
Q.E.D.

You have simply failed to understand what irush is saying, because you are so wrapped up in rotundity. On the map you presented the North Star is right in the centre above earth. Now if you were at the North Pole you'd look up through a few miles of air and see the star 3100 miles above you. As you move away from the centre of the disk it becomes harder. At the point where you drew a red line you can no longer see the star. This is because the slant angle has lowered the star to almost where the horizon is and you are no longer looking through a few miles of air. You are looking through several thousand miles of air. And air has stuff in it. Bits of dust, water vapour, all kinds of things. So expecting to see a star (albeit very bright) through several thousand miles of atmosphere (atmolayer) is ridiculous. The fact you can't as you get further from the north pole, only adds weight to FET.

Thork, on a flat Earth you would never be looking through thousands of miles of atmosphere to see any constellation.  You say you would only be looking through a few miles of atmosphere if you were looking straight up (as if on the North Pole).  If that's true then the atmosphere is only a few miles thick.  If that's true, then when you are 6250 miles from the North Pole (half the radius, which approximately where the red line is drawn) you would be looking up at an angle of something like 26 degrees (since the star is 3100 miles above a flat earth).  That alone doesn't make sense, because the north star should be much closer to the horizon than that, but that's not what's being discussed here, so I'll leave it at that.  The issue here is that at that angle, and with the atmolayer only a few miles thick (we'll say 3 for the sake of math), you would only be looking through around 7 miles of atmolayer because of the steep angle. 

Now, since the atmosphere (or layer) is closer to 60-70 miles thick (though it gets incredibly thin long before that) I also used a thickness of 65 miles and even then you would only be looking through less than 135 miles of atmolayer. 

I realize it's a bit of semantics, but you still would not be looking through thousands of miles of atmolayer.  Only a tiny bit over double what you would be looking through when it was directly overhead. 

This also doesn't explain how someone on one side of the line can see the star fairly well, while a person, say 100 miles away cannot see it at all.  The atmolayer must be strange stuff indeed if anything between 60-125 miles of it can appear virtually totally translucent on a clear night, while 135 miles of it can totally block out the Sun, Moon and the stars. 

IS IT VISIBLE FROM ARGENTINA AND AUSTRALIA AT THE EXACT SAME TIME? That's your claim. Without it, your argument disintegrates. I'll save you a google. The answer is no.

If it is "always visible" in the night sky south of 34 degrees, how does that not equate being visible from both places at the same time? 

I showed that you can't even see the Southern Cross from one location all the time. You have yet to show that it can be viewed from both simultaneously.

As mentioned, your link actually says it can be seen year round.  It mentions only being visible in the optimum position in terms of appearing to be held aloft by the hands of the sculpture described in the link.  If you read the link it clearly says that at certain times it will appear to be held in the hands of the sculpture and it lists the times of the day it lines up with the statue at various times of the year.  I also says that during certain months it won't be visible between the hands of the statue as if being held by it.  This does not mean it isn't visible in the sky at all.  As the link says, it is visible in the sky year round.

If it is "always visible" in the night sky south of 34 degrees, how does that not equate being visible from both places at the same time? 

Because it isn't night time all the time is it? Obviously.

As the link says, it is visible in the sky year round.

Its not visible at midday is it? So you can't see it both places at once.

The stars revolve on a 24 hour period, rise and set times. You can't dispute that. As does the sun. So its obvious when the sun is overhead then Crux is the other side of the disk, and when Crux is overhead then the sun is the other side of the disk. Night time.

This is kind of simple stuff. Look, no more trying to wriggle. You failed to show that you can see both at the exact same time in both Argentina and Australia. It was a mindless assertion. Earth is flat.

Thork,

Argentina and Australia share a period of darkness each night.  During that time, Crux (the southern cross) is visible from both places. 

Several links in this thread suggest (or even explicitly state) that naysayer's point is correct.  Even your own link hurt your point, though you would never admit it.

Do you have any evidence other than your random words that Argentina and Australia don't share a period of darkness at night, during which the constellation Crux is visible from both places?

Argentina and Australia share a period of darkness each night.  During that time, Crux (the southern cross) is visible from both places. 

Bam, prove it. Prove that statement. Show that both can see Crux at the exact same time. Not guess at it. Show it. Find a source, a testimony, anything. Two pages now, still no source. You are the ones making the claim. You say the earth can't be flat as you can see both at once. PROVE that, that is the case. No more crappy maps, no more dodgy reasoning. A source showing both places see Crux at the exact same time. Or leave this thread to die in the hall of RE wreckage, we affectionately call 'Flat Earth Debate'.

Prove that statement. Show that both can see Crux at the exact same time. Not guess at it. Show it. Find a source, a testimony, anything. Two pages now, still no source. You are the ones making the claim. You say the earth can't be flat as you can see both at once. PROVE that, that is the case. No more crappy maps, no more dodgy reasoning. A source showing both places see Crux at the exact same time. Or leave this thread to die in the hall of RE wreckage, we affectionately call 'Flat Earth Debate'.

From Wikipedia:  "For locations south of 34°S, Crux is circumpolar and thus always visible in the night sky."

I don't know how you consider this dodgy reasoning, but if something is always visible at night below a certain latitude, and two places below that latitude share a period of night, that would make it visible from both places at the same time.

Another from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumpolar_star

Worthwhile quotes:  "A circumpolar star is a star that, as viewed from a given latitude on Earth, never sets (that is, never disappears below the horizon), due to its proximity to one of the celestial poles. Circumpolar stars are therefore visible from said location towards nearest pole for the entire night on every night of the year (and would be continuously visible throughout the day too, were they not overwhelmed by the Sun's glare)." 

"Some Stars within the far southern constellations, such as Crux, Musca, and Hydrus, roughly south of the Tropic of Capricorn (-23½°), will also be circumpolar stars."

http://www.constellation-guide.com/constellation-list/crux-constellation/

Another source which claims Crux is visible below 34 degrees south all year.  It specifically says that as a circumpolar constellation, it never goes below the horizon.

I have found many other sources that claim it is visible all night, year round, from any point south of 34 degrees south latitude.  A couple have been posted hear already.  While none specifically say "from both Argentina and Australia", saying from anywhere below those latitudes covers it.

I also have astronomy software that will show what you will be able to see from any point on Earth and any time, day or night.  It clearly shows that Crux would be visible from both places at the same time.  I don't have a way to post this however, and I don't suppose you'd take my word for it.  I suppose this software could be part of the conspiracy. 

I suppose none of this proves anything in the way your capitalization and emphatic way of posting asked.  However, you said a source, a testimony, or anything.  Those are sources.  Is your claim that there is no period of night which both Argentina and Australia share?  Will it actually take a simultaneous call to people in both locations where each claim to be able to see the southern cross stars?

This is just a discussion on a debate forum.  No need to get worked up.

I suppose none of this proves anything in the way your capitalization and emphatic way of posting asked. 

No, it doesn't. It seems the silver bullet missed its mark.

[spoiler]For those of you who can't be bothered to wait to see how this thread turns out in 10 pages time, the round earther's aren't going to be able to show you can see Crux in Australia and Argentina at the exact same time. That's because even on a round earth that would be impossible so there won't be any references. Crux isn't on the South Pole. Its at about -60 degrees declination. And so from most places on earth (south pole excused and anywhere above 25 degrees north) you will only be able to see it for 12 hours of any day. The earth will have its back to it for the other 12. Now if you pick two 'antipodes' (actually opposite longitudes) like Argentina and Australia guess what? Their 12 hour show times will be exactly opposite to each other. So you can't see the Southern Cross on a round earth from Argentina when the Aussies are looking at it BECAUSE THE F*CKING EARTH IS IN THE WAY! Anyway, the RErs seem to think they have all the answers so ho hum, another 12 pages of me asking for proof of these daft claims to follow. You should place bets amongst yourself on what page I lose interest altogether.[/spoiler]

Thork,

You really seem angry (your transparent text seems to really show anger).  Why bother posting in a debate forum if debate makes you mad?

The links do show why and how it would be visible on a round Earth below the 34 degree south latitude.  If you don't agree with that, fine.  Use that as your argument and we can debate it as such.  If you don't want to debate further (regardless of how inaccurate you think my claims are), fine.

To create hidden text which angrily claims that even on a round Earth it would not be possible makes no sense.  If you are convinced that is the case, post it for all to see and it can be debated.  To continue that subject (in addition to the links clearly stating it is so), I have a simulated Earth program with shows the constellations and allows you to put yourself anywhere on the Earth and spin the planet with the stars and constellations visible.  It clearly shows that not only does the Crux constellation remain visible all night (and is still overhead during the day, though not visible to the naked eye due to the brightness of the Sun) at each location, but would be visible at both locations simultaneously for a time during the period where both are experiencing darkness each night.  This program is used by astronomers to determine what should be available for viewing at any given time, so if it was inaccurate it would likely be pointed out and corrected.  If you feel like debating this topic then feel free to do so.  If the debate is making you angry, then simply leave it be and I figure that will be the end of it.  Leaving a debate is not admitting defeat, despite what some may claim. 

If you lost interest and are angry then simply state as much and stop posting (or even easier, simply stop posting).  At that point if the thread continues to 10+ pages it will simply be because others apparently felt like continuing the discussion.  If you continue to contribute, then it's your problem if your lack of interest is making you angry.

Show that both can see Crux at the exact same time. Not guess at it. Show it. Find a source, a testimony, anything. Two pages now, still no source. You are the ones making the claim. You say the earth can't be flat as you can see both at once. PROVE that, that is the case. No more crappy maps, no more dodgy reasoning. A source showing both places see Crux at the exact same time. Or leave this thread to die in the hall of RE wreckage, we affectionately call 'Flat Earth Debate'.

It gets tedious when people drag out a thread for 20 pages when its answered in the first two. You'll all refuse to let FE have the last word and just go on and on until we can't be bothered. Almost all threads are like this. RErs never win in debate. Just relentless monotonous restating of misconceptions already answered in that thread until FErs lose interest in repeating the same things again and again. This thread is the same. Its over. RErs failed to disprove FE by stating you couldn't see Crux at two selected places at once. Well you can't. And it doesn't disprove round earth or flat earth. So its a failed thread. It failed on page two. But it will be dragged out for another 10.

I'll tell you what. Have the last word. I'm bored of this.

MrT,
I regret to point out that your quotes about the crux being "circumpolar" doesn't address Thork's assertion that Argentina and Australia don't share any amount of night time at the same time.  Regardless if the constellation is above the horizon at a given time, if it's daytime, you can't see it.

Quote from: MrT on June 02, 2012, 08:23:27 AM

Argentina and Australia share a period of darkness each night.  During that time, Crux (the southern cross) is visible from both places. 

Bam, prove it. Prove that statement. Show that both can see Crux at the exact same time. Not guess at it. Show it. Find a source, a testimony, anything. Two pages now, still no source. You are the ones making the claim. You say the earth can't be flat as you can see both at once. PROVE that, that is the case. No more crappy maps, no more dodgy reasoning. A source showing both places see Crux at the exact same time. Or leave this thread to die in the hall of RE wreckage, we affectionately call 'Flat Earth Debate'.

Some parts of australia and argentina are less than 12 hours apart.  During the winter, days are more than 12 hours long, which means that even if two places are exactly on opposite sides of the earth, they will still both see darkness at the same time during the winter.  Therefore, at least during the winter, both argentina and australia must experience several hours of darkness at the same time.