Flat Earth Kryptonite

Quote from: Beorn on December 03, 2012, 03:09:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 03, 2012, 02:58:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2012, 02:51:31 PM

Certain phenomena, such as the daytime lunar eclipse, shouldn't happen in the round earth model. In the Round Earth model it should be impossible for both the sun and moon to be above the horizon during a lunar eclipse -- yet astronomers has been reporting such events for hundreds of years.

http://litcorner.net/component/content/article/47-astronomy/7138-daytime-lunar-eclipse-dont-worry-physics-isnt-broken

When FEers post about bendy light it doesn't happen, but when REers post about it you eat it like a sweet cookie.

Since we have to see it to believe it in an FE world, have you ever seen a daytime lunar eclipse?

Also, this doesn't break physics of either version of the world. You don't need refraction for this to occur. RE: The moon rotates around the earth. It wobbles on its axis a little and goes so slowly it takes nearly a month to get around it full 360. The earth rotates much faster. The moon isn't always in position to be directly over a night sky. It can be on the daytime side. If it happens to get between the Earth and Moon you have the aforementioned phenomenon.

In an FE world its also easy to explain. They're both circling overhead and occasionally they're circling over the same point.

Correct me if I have misread you, but it sounds like you are describing a solar eclipse; when the moon passes in front of the sun and either partially or totally obscures it. In a lunar eclipse, the earth passes between the sun and the moon casting it's shadow on the moon. The only way I could conceive this happening during the day is as Major Twang described.

I hope I have not misinterpreted you.

Quote from: i.h87 on February 11, 2013, 10:40:52 PM

Quote from: Beorn on December 03, 2012, 03:09:38 PM

Quote from: markjo on December 03, 2012, 02:58:57 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 03, 2012, 02:51:31 PM

Certain phenomena, such as the daytime lunar eclipse, shouldn't happen in the round earth model. In the Round Earth model it should be impossible for both the sun and moon to be above the horizon during a lunar eclipse -- yet astronomers has been reporting such events for hundreds of years.

http://litcorner.net/component/content/article/47-astronomy/7138-daytime-lunar-eclipse-dont-worry-physics-isnt-broken

When FEers post about bendy light it doesn't happen, but when REers post about it you eat it like a sweet cookie.

Since we have to see it to believe it in an FE world, have you ever seen a daytime lunar eclipse?

Also, this doesn't break physics of either version of the world. You don't need refraction for this to occur. RE: The moon rotates around the earth. It wobbles on its axis a little and goes so slowly it takes nearly a month to get around it full 360. The earth rotates much faster. The moon isn't always in position to be directly over a night sky. It can be on the daytime side. If it happens to get between the Earth and Moon you have the aforementioned phenomenon.

In an FE world its also easy to explain. They're both circling overhead and occasionally they're circling over the same point.

Correct me if I have misread you, but it sounds like you are describing a solar eclipse; when the moon passes in front of the sun and either partially or totally obscures it. In a lunar eclipse, the earth passes between the sun and the moon casting it's shadow on the moon. The only way I could conceive this happening during the day is as Major Twang described.

I hope I have not misinterpreted you.

You misread.  From the link that I provided:

Here's a brainteaser that left some sky-watchers scratching their heads when the moon suddenly and unexpectedly went black during the daytime in an impossible astronomical display.  Why is it impossible to see a Lunar Eclipse during a perfectly cloudless day?  Conventional wisdom suggests it's because Lunar eclipses happen when the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon make a straight line.  So what often overlooked law of physics made it possible for witnesses in the Rocky Mountains to see both the Sun and the Lunar Eclipse at the same time?

The phenomenon is called a selenelion, and it's a rare but not impossible time when both the eclipsed moon and the sun are visible at the same time.  The phenomenon happens because of refraction from the Earth's atmosphere.

Quote from: i.h87 on February 11, 2013, 10:40:52 PM

Since we have to see it to believe it in an FE world, have you ever seen a daytime lunar eclipse?

Also, this doesn't break physics of either version of the world. You don't need refraction for this to occur. RE: The moon rotates around the earth. It wobbles on its axis a little and goes so slowly it takes nearly a month to get around it full 360. The earth rotates much faster. The moon isn't always in position to be directly over a night sky. It can be on the daytime side. If it happens to get between the Earth and Moon you have the aforementioned phenomenon.

In an FE world its also easy to explain. They're both circling overhead and occasionally they're circling over the same point.

Correct me if I have misread you, but it sounds like you are describing a solar eclipse; when the moon passes in front of the sun and either partially or totally obscures it. In a lunar eclipse, the earth passes between the sun and the moon casting it's shadow on the moon. The only way I could conceive this happening during the day is as Major Twang described.

I hope I have not misinterpreted you.

Markjo-I was hoping I had not misread the above by i.h87.

You misread.  From the link that I provided:

Quote

Here's a brainteaser that left some sky-watchers scratching their heads when the moon suddenly and unexpectedly went black during the daytime in an impossible astronomical display.  Why is it impossible to see a Lunar Eclipse during a perfectly cloudless day?  Conventional wisdom suggests it's because Lunar eclipses happen when the Earth, the Sun, and the Moon make a straight line.  So what often overlooked law of physics made it possible for witnesses in the Rocky Mountains to see both the Sun and the Lunar Eclipse at the same time?

The phenomenon is called a selenelion, and it's a rare but not impossible time when both the eclipsed moon and the sun are visible at the same time.  The phenomenon happens because of refraction from the Earth's atmosphere.

Thanks for quoting this, I had not followed the link yet.  Interesting stuff.

Quote from: HippieSaylor on December 02, 2012, 07:25:42 AM

I can shoot a sight of Polaris on my sextant and calculate my latitude, and I can do this anytime Polaris is visible. Now by shooting Polaris one is measuring the angle between the observer, and the center of the "northern star wheel". That's all well and good because now we have an angle, and the angle decreases as one travels north. Now on the flat earth map this makes perfect sense, because if one travels north from any point, one is moving toward the North Pole, which terrestrially corresponds with the celestial center of the northern star wheel, and all is well. Unfortunately the sky in the Southern Hemisphere has a celestial center that is every bit as centered and as measurable as the one in the northern hemisphere, and if I measure that angle I am again given my latitude, exactly as I am in the north. In FE there is no center to the Southern Hemisphere that could give a correct latitude shot and yet this is easily accomplished by any decent navigator with a sextant, and I have personally done this as well. On a flat earth there could be only one center that would give a correct latitude by measuring it, while a round rotating planet has two, just as we observe. Spinning wheels and clockwork arms are inelegant, and perhaps that could be a forgiven quirk of some creator, but the mathematical impossibility of having two points to measure latitude from on a flat earth is inescapable.

I can run at 2000 mph and I can fly. Did I mention I can bench press 2500 lbs and I once saved everyone in Japan form an earthquake? Don't however, expect me to endure the indignity of having to prove my claims.

I don't believe you own, let alone use a sextant for navigation.
I don't believe even if you were navigating in the Southern Hemisphere you'd use a sextant in the 21st century.
I don't believe you've "personally" measured angles for stars in both hemispheres for navigation.

This OP is a coulda woulda shoulda. You've decided how would something differ between round earth and flat. You've then claimed that you've done it. And now you want flat earthers to explain it, knowing that you made up a scenario based on the differences in the first place.

Basically you've tried to set up an argument you can't lose by lying about the circumstances in order to excuse your complete lack of any sources or evidence at all.

What is the point in a debate like that? Lets play chess instead.


I'm black, you're white. Its your move. I hope you don't mind that I set the board up in a way that I can't lose and given you no room to maneuverer; only I've no intention of making this interesting or learning anything or taking you on with a fair and level playing field. Enjoy.

Why don't you just try it yourself and report the results? Equality is Equality, you have to prove your claim that the earth is flat, and that the original poster is incorrect.

Beuller? Bueller?

Eh, I'll do it. So long as you don't mind waiting most of a  decade for the results.

Quote from: Major Twang on December 03, 2012, 09:16:16 AM

Quote from: jroa on December 03, 2012, 08:24:53 AM

How does that prove the shape of the Earth?  Now you are just pulling at straws to make your point.

When you can provide me with a set of equations based on a flat earth that tell me 100% of the time exactly where to point my telescope to see a star regardless of where in the world I am, what day it is & what time it is, then you will have an argument.

Argumentum ex silentio. The fact that a set of equations does not currently exist is not evidence of RET, nor is it a proper refutation of FET.

the fact that none exists means that this is another way that FE is irrefutable (and therefore unscientific). You cannot refute something that offers no logically coherent explanation for anything. furthermore, he was not trying to refute FE, he was trying to point out a deficiency in it. which is perfectly consistent with rational discourse. your "mer mer, does not refute mer mer" is just a red herring

Quote from: jroa on December 03, 2012, 08:24:53 AM

How does that prove the shape of the Earth?  Now you are just pulling at straws to make your point.

It proves the shape of the earth because three of the 4 variables depend on the earth being a sphere, rotating once a day & orbiting the sun once a year. 

If the earth were flat, the angles would all be different & the equations wouldn't work. 

If the earth wasn't rotating every 24 hours wrt the sun, the equations wouldn't work.

If the earth wasn't in orbit around the sun, the equations wouldn't work.

Petitio principii. You're argument essentially breaks down into the Earth is round, therefore the Earth is round.
[/quote]

Explain why this is true. show me the argument in formal language show me where the premises presume the conclusion.

the reason I am asking for this is because you claim there is a fallacy, so you should know how to demonstrate why it is one through informal logic or at least through giving it in very simple terms. it would be very nice of you to provide this informaiion, if you cannot I will presume you do not understand either the evidence he has offered, and further that you do not understand what a fallacy is

Quote from: Father Luke Duke on December 04, 2012, 02:59:50 PM

Major Twang is seriously owning this thread.  That is all.  Carry on.

Not at all.  His trig is mathematically accurate, that much I can tell - how well it relates to the actual geographical / astronomical phenomena in question I humbly admit I can't speak to, as I'm a relative newcomer here. 

How is it that you know it is "not at all"? don't you mean "I don't know, if he is, because I don't know about actual geographical/astronomical theory, so it is beyond me"

That said, I appreciate you sharing, Major Twang.  It is nice to have a round-earther who can engage in civil discourse and provide relevant figures without resorting to name-calling and nonsensical babble.  I am a flat earth theorist, but our model isn't perfect yet.  Compelling challenges like this help us to improve it.

It's not even nearly formulated in any reasonable or sensible manner, let alone "[not] perfect yet".

How long has FE been going a  thousand years plus? and it is still like a raggedy piece of cardboard left out in the rain.

Anyone care to take a crack at answering HippySailors call?

I just dropped in to see the answer to my original flat earth Kryptonite has been, aside from a little shoot the messengering, crickets. This is because a latitude shot with a sextant can only be accomplished to both the north and south if the earth is a sphere. It is among the most simple of geometric facts. If you are a serious flat earther, please study the simplest kind of celestial navigation, the latitude shot. It has been in use for over 400 years. You don't even need a sextant, you can do it with an astrolabe or even a stick and string.

Is there a FE explanation for why latitude is accurately calculable from both celestial poles?

Very interesting thread. I'd like to hear the answer to the above question myself.

Is there a FE explanation for why latitude is accurately calculable from both celestial poles?

Well, here's their FEW page on latitude and longitude.

Trouble with that is, if you go by the apparently popular model of a North pole centered circular earth, with a sun doing circles at 3000 miles above the surface, the errors are too massive. By the time you get to 90 degrees actual latitude, your latitude shot is going to be off by about 26 degrees! In fact, there are only two points at which you will get an accurate shot: 0 degrees, and 45 degrees (the 45 degree shot was used  by Voliva to determine the sun's height above the surface of the earth). Given that the stars in this model are also meant to be at the same height, the same errors apply.

Here's another couple of related threads I found while searching around:

Sextants and latitude

Question about lines of latitude

You'll notice they're quite short, and also unanswered.

Sextant still accurate in determining latitude using either the north or south celestial pole six months later. Cogent flat earth answer, still lacking, six months later.

From the OP:

... In FE there is no center to the Southern Hemisphere that could give a correct latitude shot and yet this is easily accomplished by any decent navigator with a sextant, and I have personally done this as well. On a flat earth there could be only one center that would give a correct latitude by measuring it, while a round rotating planet has two, just as we observe. ...

Karl A. Smith, in his book sampled here, affirms the principle that the shape of the earth is not to be determined by making observations about the sky/heavens/celestial bodies. In the same manner, one wouldn't study the floor of a room by looking at the lights. Instead, the earth should be studied as it is, directly. Separately and secondarily we uncover laws about the celestial phenomena. If these latter do not at first conform to our expectation, we do not discard what we have already discovered about the earth. 'Zetetics are open to further facts but not to deny those received.' He goes on to argue that southern celestial events may establish (illustrate the existence of) two celestial poles, around which ethereal currents may carry celestial lights.

You could tell a lot about the dimensions of your floor using a fixed light and trigonometry, the analogy is not apt. The use of a sextant in theSouthern Hemisphere to successfully and accurately navigate is a direct test of the RE model and is accurate. This should not be discarded in favor if a hypothesis.

The Southern Cross always appears south to the observer.  This allows you to use a sextant to get your position.  The actual location of the Southern Cross is nearly completely underneath the flat earth.  The reason that we can see the constellation is because the earth accelerates upwards approaching (but never reaching) the speed of light, the observer's (us) field of vision increases in so much depth that you can see things behind you.  This is why people on the rim of the world can see what most of us ignorantly call "southern stars".

But the southern stars are constantly rotating, which means that half the time you looked at the southern cross it'd appear in the north.

For example, when I was in the Falkland Islands, Crux was always to the south. But if it rotated it'd continue around until it was near Australia, which according to most FE maps, is almost directly north of the Falkland Islands. So what I was doing is looking south and seeing something farther to the north than Polaris?

https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=a+picture+of+earth+taken+from+space&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=SL3nUaO7PMf7iwL31oGYDA&biw=1280&bih=901&sei=TL3nUdX8COPFigKEgYHIBg#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=UeoOAZsVPOz5EM%3A%3BdYZH967wCNCVUM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fhistory.nasa.gov%252Fap08fj%252Fphotos%252Fa%252Fas08-16-2593hr.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fhistory.nasa.gov%252Fap08fj%252F03day1_green_sep.htm%3B2458%3B2458

Please refrain from posting low content replies in the upper fora. 

The southern stars, which are visible with the sextant and navigational aid, always appear at night, because those stars rotate around above the flat earth...  Polaris lines up with the rim of the flat earth and travels in a circle.

The southern stars, which are visible with the sextant and navigational aid, always appear at night, because those stars rotate around above the flat earth...  Polaris lines up with the rim of the flat earth and travels in a circle.

Yes, I understand the FE model. What I don't understand is that if they rotate around, then for most of the night, they'd be anywhere but south. Instead they're always south.

Unless you can explain how one edge of a spinning merry-go-round is always in the same place to an observer beneath it.

they rotate above the disc on the edge on the ice wall rim... Read this website as well...  They note that Sigma Octantis is the only star that is approximately near to the imaginary point of the southern axis...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star

they rotate above the disc on the edge on the ice wall rim... Read this website as well...  They note that Sigma Octantis is the only star that is approximately near to the imaginary point of the southern axis...  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pole_star

So, it rotates in little circles above the Ice Wall just south of the Falkland Islands, then? Because that's what I observed. Unfortunately, there must be another one just south of New Zealand, and just south of every point in Australia. And just south of Madagascar, and South Africa. There must be hundreds of Sigma Octantises and Southern Crosses--it's a shame nobody's ever seen these copies in the same night sky.

Grand circles, not little tiny ones...  It follows the trail of the entire ice wall...

Grand circles, not little tiny ones...  It follows the trail of the entire ice wall...

If that's true, then the Southern Cross would move a lot more than it does. Consider the 15-hour nights available in many places near the Ice Wall. During those 15 hours, Sigma Octantis (et al.) would traverse over half of the perimeter of the Earth. Our observer would then see it rise in the north-east (when either it gets close enough to be visible or the sun sets rendering it visible), circle around to the south, and set in the north-west (when either it gets too far away to see or the sun rises). Instead it is visible to the south the entire night.

However, during the day it is not visible... So, there is much room for explanations such as the refraction of sunlight.  The transition from vacuum to air creates much refraction...

However, during the day it is not visible... So, there is much room for explanations such as the refraction of sunlight.  The transition from vacuum to air creates much refraction...

So, Refraction is responsible for these stars ALWAYS appearing to the south, despite their long trek around the ice wall each night?

Pull the other one, it's got bells on.

However, during the day it is not visible... So, there is much room for explanations such as the refraction of sunlight.  The transition from vacuum to air creates much refraction...

So you're saying refraction, at the beginning of the night with Sigma Octantis (et al.) in the north-east, bends the light over 90 degrees to the right. Then, over the course of this night, this refraction slowly decreases until midnight when it does nothing at all, and by dawn it's now bending the light 90 degrees to the left.

Refraction is a real thing that, when considering the border between a vacuum and our atmosphere, can account for a few degrees of vertical bending.

The phenomena you describe is not refraction for many reasons. First, it's not even consistent with itself (going from bending over 90 degrees one way to 90 degrees the other in just a few hours). Second there's no evidence of this happening anywhere else (you know, carefully controlled experiments about refraction). Third, it's not even operating in the proper axis.

So try again, please.

However, during the day it is not visible... So, there is much room for explanations such as the refraction of sunlight.  The transition from vacuum to air creates much refraction...

Plus, at the beginning of those 15-hour-nights, Sigma Octantis would be much farther away than Polaris, yet the one is clearly visible while the other is very much not visible.

People keep quoting the statement that refraction lies as the key reason that Rowbotham's experiments succeeded.  However, the truth remains that differences from vacuum to air and angles of light entry into the atmosphere result in refraction patterns.  Such refraction is responsible for even the setting sun and changes in color.  The sky being blue during the day proves refraction occurs as well...  In Rowbotham's case, every single experiment used a hygromoter (measures water vapor levels), thermometer, and barometer (measures air pressure).  We desire not to explain away refraction.  We embrace the aforementioned atmospheric phenomena as being probable and realistic.