How many stars?

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 02:11:45 PM

It's measured using IR (Infrared) thermometers, so it is not dependent on any earth shape theory.

Thank you: that being said, it's hard to categorically state something would not depend on the Earth-shape theory applied. There can be many knock-on effects.
For example, IR thermometers do specifically rely on radiation (such as light) behaving identically to the RE model.

Light behaviour has no connection to shape of earth what-so-ever. And IR thermometers work, you can buy them yourself.

Light behaviour has no connection to shape of earth what-so-ever. And IR thermometers work, you can buy them yourself.

Light would behave very differently on large scales in the FE model, and RE models. A ship going over the horizon demonstrates that.
IR thermometers may work fine on a small scale. This does not preclude a force not taken into account interfering on a large scale.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 02:41:13 PM

Light behaviour has no connection to shape of earth what-so-ever. And IR thermometers work, you can buy them yourself.

Light would behave very differently on large scales in the FE model, and RE models. A ship going over the horizon demonstrates that.
IR thermometers may work fine on a small scale. This does not preclude a force not taken into account interfering on a large scale.

As far as I'm aware things like ships sinking over the horizon based on phenomenon x is just baseless unscientific claims from the FE side. There is no reason for light to depend on a certain model. If there is an unknown force affecting light it would and should not depend on the shape of the earth. But no such observations have been made. We have sent probes close to the sun, and any difference in observations made from these probes and objects in earth orbit would have been noticed, unless it is an extremely weak force in which case it wont mess with our readings of the sun. And bringing up random possibilities with no observations behind them is not very scientific, but the opposite.

As far as I'm aware things like ships sinking over the horizon based on phenomenon x is just baseless unscientific claims from the FE side. There is no reason for light to depend on a certain model. If there is an unknown force affecting light it would and should not depend on the shape of the earth. But no such observations have been made. We have sent probes close to the sun, and any difference in observations made from these probes and objects in earth orbit would have been noticed, unless it is an extremely weak force in which case it wont mess with our readings of the sun. And bringing up random possibilities with no observations behind them is not very scientific, but the opposite.

It depends how you define baseless. if the world is flat, those laws would necessarily be different: for developing a FE hypothesis, as I am doing, it is automatically true that the laws that govern light are altered. The RE model would not test such a possibility because it would have no need of doing so.
Probes going close to the Sun assumes genuine space travel (possible under certain FE models, but not necessary), and still assumes light behaves as expected. It may be something at that altitude which behaves oddly.

As for "bringing up random possibilities with no observations behind them," this is scientific at the correct stage. I am developing a hypothesis: it is necessary to examine 'random possibilities' that could be used as explanations. When one works, then it is tested, and then observations are made. Before that however, it's premature to run experiments and take observations without any concrete idea of what it is you're testing.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 20, 2015, 03:20:07 PM

As far as I'm aware things like ships sinking over the horizon based on phenomenon x is just baseless unscientific claims from the FE side. There is no reason for light to depend on a certain model. If there is an unknown force affecting light it would and should not depend on the shape of the earth. But no such observations have been made. We have sent probes close to the sun, and any difference in observations made from these probes and objects in earth orbit would have been noticed, unless it is an extremely weak force in which case it wont mess with our readings of the sun. And bringing up random possibilities with no observations behind them is not very scientific, but the opposite.

It depends how you define baseless. if the world is flat, those laws would necessarily be different: for developing a FE hypothesis, as I am doing, it is automatically true that the laws that govern light are altered. The RE model would not test such a possibility because it would have no need of doing so.
Probes going close to the Sun assumes genuine space travel (possible under certain FE models, but not necessary), and still assumes light behaves as expected. It may be something at that altitude which behaves oddly.

As for "bringing up random possibilities with no observations behind them," this is scientific at the correct stage. I am developing a hypothesis: it is necessary to examine 'random possibilities' that could be used as explanations. When one works, then it is tested, and then observations are made. Before that however, it's premature to run experiments and take observations without any concrete idea of what it is you're testing.

It is not automatically true that everything would need to be different. Light can still, and should still, behave as it does on a round earth. There is only one way light could work on a flat earth, as I've said in another thread, as far as I can think of. And it would only make sense on a flat earth, yes. But it would either contradict well-understood behaviour of light, or introduce a new undiscovered force/property of space-time. But this does not involve light behaving differently. Light would not change it's wavelength from it, and if there was an unknown force that did this, then where would:
1. The extra energy come from? or:
2. The excess energy go?
There is no need for light to change it's properties depending on the shape of earth.

Probes going close to the sun has nothing with light to do. You don't need light to behave in a certain way to use rockets, as they don't depend on light. And my point was that any change in light behaviour would be noticeable  when you are much closer to the source. If no change then either there is no unknown force or it is way to weak to mess with our perception of the sun from earth. And you have admitted in another thread that you believe space travel is genuine.

Making a theory without any observations is actually not very scientific, but yours may not be as ship sinking over horizon and such are observations that requires a different theory on round earth and flat earth.

And for the discussion, the important part is that light does not change it's wavelength as it travels. As this would require energy or create excess energy it won't work in an empty vacuum of space, where there is nothing to draw the energy from or give energy.

It is not automatically true that everything would need to be different. Light can still, and should still, behave as it does on a round earth.

Everything would not need to be different, but observably many things would be. If light behaves identically on a FE and RE, how do you explain sunset and the horizon?
There clearly is a need for light to change its properties, or at the very least for something else to influence. You're working under the assumption that the RE model is the only necessary one, and should be treated as a default: that is a useless perspective when I'm trying to determine a FE model.

1. The extra energy come from? or:
2. The excess energy go?

There are many sources for energy. The excess energy may have gone into the light and heat produced by the Sun, or into the mechanism that keeps it moving: and could come from similar places. There are virtual particles, for another source of energy: and if you accept a UA model a near-infinite source of energy is involved.
Regardless, in reality there are knock-on effects. Something used to explain one thing may end up having an effect in a completely different setting: perhaps an atmospheric anomaly that causes the Coriolis force would also interfere with readings of things that pass through it. Sheer speculation, merely an illustration. Uncomfortable conveniences feel less like an assumption when the same principle applies over dozens of areas.

Probes going close to the sun has nothing with light to do. You don't need light to behave in a certain way to use rockets, as they don't depend on light. And my point was that any change in light behaviour would be noticeable  when you are much closer to the source. If no change then either there is no unknown force or it is way to weak to mess with our perception of the sun from earth. And you have admitted in another thread that you believe space travel is genuine.

I have said I favor that idea, I have not fully accepted it yet, until I can run the test.
Rockets don't depend on light, but their observations clearly do. Changes in the behavior of light are only noticable if you expect to see them: light is the one thing it's very difficulty to observe, because you rely on it in order to perform any observations.

And for the discussion, the important part is that light does not change it's wavelength as it travels. As this would require energy or create excess energy it won't work in an empty vacuum of space, where there is nothing to draw the energy from or give energy.

There is plenty of energy: vacuum is the lack of matter, not of energy. Cosmic radiation, sun and starlight, in just the RE model. In the FE possibilities we could have a dome or an accelerator.

Quote

It is not automatically true that everything would need to be different. Light can still, and should still, behave as it does on a round earth.

Everything would not need to be different, but observably many things would be. If light behaves identically on a FE and RE, how do you explain sunset and the horizon?
There clearly is a need for light to change its properties, or at the very least for something else to influence. You're working under the assumption that the RE model is the only necessary one, and should be treated as a default: that is a useless perspective when I'm trying to determine a FE model.

I posted elsewhere my only explanation for how light on a flat earth could possibly work (in a response to you). And it does not involve changing the wavelength anyways. And it's a pretty weak argument, it COULD be, but you don't have any kind of evidence. Until there are evidence of different behavior we should only assume that light behaves as currently recorded, observed and accepted.

Quote

1. The extra energy come from? or:
2. The excess energy go?

There are many sources for energy. The excess energy may have gone into the light and heat produced by the Sun, or into the mechanism that keeps it moving: and could come from similar places. There are virtual particles, for another source of energy: and if you accept a UA model a near-infinite source of energy is involved.
Regardless, in reality there are knock-on effects. Something used to explain one thing may end up having an effect in a completely different setting: perhaps an atmospheric anomaly that causes the Coriolis force would also interfere with readings of things that pass through it. Sheer speculation, merely an illustration. Uncomfortable conveniences feel less like an assumption when the same principle applies over dozens of areas.

So the excess energy from light would be absorbed by light? I think you misunderstood. What I meant is that as the light travels to earth through the vacuum known as space, it can't change it's wavelength because there is nothing to transfer energy to or from. Not enough at least to make any noticeable change

Quote

Probes going close to the sun has nothing with light to do. You don't need light to behave in a certain way to use rockets, as they don't depend on light. And my point was that any change in light behavior would be noticeable  when you are much closer to the source. If no change then either there is no unknown force or it is way to weak to mess with our perception of the sun from earth. And you have admitted in another thread that you believe space travel is genuine.

I have said I favor that idea, I have not fully accepted it yet, until I can run the test.
Rockets don't depend on light, but their observations clearly do. Changes in the behavior of light are only noticable if you expect to see them: light is the one thing it's very difficulty to observe, because you rely on it in order to perform any observations.

It doesn't matter. If probes near the sun get the same temperature readings as probes in earth orbit, or close to, then obviously nothing has changed as the light traveled to earth.

Quote

And for the discussion, the important part is that light does not change it's wavelength as it travels. As this would require energy or create excess energy it won't work in an empty vacuum of space, where there is nothing to draw the energy from or give energy.

There is plenty of energy: vacuum is the lack of matter, not of energy. Cosmic radiation, sun and starlight, in just the RE model. In the FE possibilities we could have a dome or an accelerator.

But that doesn't change the wavelength of light from the sun in any meaningful way.


Going on about there maybe being something that changes light doesn't disprove anything. We can only assume that reality is what we observe. As we observe light behaving in a certain way, we can only assume it does behave in that way until we make an observation that suggests a different behavior. We have made an observation of suns temperature, and we have not observed anything that would or could change this result. Probes sent close to the sun can confirm that as light travels nothing changes in it's properties.

I posted elsewhere my only explanation for how light on a flat earth could possibly work (in a response to you). And it does not involve changing the wavelength anyways. And it's a pretty weak argument, it COULD be, but you don't have any kind of evidence. Until there are evidence of different behavior we should only assume that light behaves as currently recorded, observed and accepted.

You posted one explanation: it may be your only explanation, but there is no reason to think it the only explanation.
I don't need evidence: I'm constructing a hypothesis. All i need is what could be, and that explains observations: that's sufficient. Then when the model is complete, I can test it. Assuming a FE is all the justification I need to accept that light behaves differently, or that something that affects it is at play, because I am not yet proposing this is a complete theory. It's a hypothesis.

It doesn't matter. If probes near the sun get the same temperature readings as probes in earth orbit, or close to, then obviously nothing has changed as the light traveled to earth.

Or it's changing when close to the Sun: probes don't get that close. Or we get onto fun, if unlikely, bastardizations of the quantum observer effect. Or probes don't go as far as we think they do.

But that doesn't change the wavelength of light from the sun in any meaningful way.

As far as the current model goes.

As we observe light behaving in a certain way, we can only assume it does behave in that way until we make an observation that suggests a different behavior.

Yes, but if the world is flat, the way we observe it behaving is different.

Quote

It doesn't matter. If probes near the sun get the same temperature readings as probes in earth orbit, or close to, then obviously nothing has changed as the light traveled to earth.

Or it's changing when close to the Sun: probes don't get that close. Or we get onto fun, if unlikely, bastardizations of the quantum observer effect. Or probes don't go as far as we think they do.

They go really close. Closer than the closest planet. And it doesn't matter. If our instruments shows us a certain temperature then it should be assumed that it is that temperature.

Quote

But that doesn't change the wavelength of light from the sun in any meaningful way.

As far as the current model goes.

And that's what we should assume to be the right model.

As we observe light behaving in a certain way, we can only assume it does behave in that way until we make an observation that suggests a different behavior.

Yes, but if the world is flat, the way we observe it behaving is different.
[/quote]

Only in it's directions - wavelengths doesn't matter between flat or round earth. IR thermometers work, there is no doubt about that. If those thermometers tell us that the sun has a certain temperature, then the sun will have that temperature (more or less, may vary by a few degrees).

They go really close. Closer than the closest planet. And it doesn't matter. If our instruments shows us a certain temperature then it should be assumed that it is that temperature.

That's not particularly close on cosmic scales. Even so, instruments should only be trusted if you know there is no interference: if you measure someone's temperature with a mercury thermometer, while your fingers are touching the base, you're going to taint the readings. You shouldn't trust what the instrument says.

And that's what we should assume to be the right model.

Unless you're developing a hypothesis, in which case assuming your hypothesis is wrong is basically the worst possible first step.

Only in it's directions - wavelengths doesn't matter between flat or round earth. IR thermometers work, there is no doubt about that. If those thermometers tell us that the sun has a certain temperature, then the sun will have that temperature (more or less, may vary by a few degrees).

Without a well-defined or confirmed mechanism, there's no way to be certain if wavelengths would alter. The best thing we can say about IR thermometers is that they work without interference.
Personally I do like the idea that the Sun is indeed powered by fusion (theoretically the strong interaction component of the gravity exerted by hydrogen and helium would provide more gravity than the RE model predicts, to hold the Sun together), though that model isn't perfect: it wouldn't explain the spotlight shape, for example (though that may not be necessary, after all).

Quote from: Evar

They go really close. Closer than the closest planet. And it doesn't matter. If our instruments shows us a certain temperature then it should be assumed that it is that temperature.

That's not particularly close on cosmic scales. Even so, instruments should only be trusted if you know there is no interference: if you measure someone's temperature with a mercury thermometer, while your fingers are touching the base, you're going to taint the readings. You shouldn't trust what the instrument says.

Quote

And that's what we should assume to be the right model.

Unless you're developing a hypothesis, in which case assuming your hypothesis is wrong is basically the worst possible first step.

Quote

Only in it's directions - wavelengths doesn't matter between flat or round earth. IR thermometers work, there is no doubt about that. If those thermometers tell us that the sun has a certain temperature, then the sun will have that temperature (more or less, may vary by a few degrees).

Without a well-defined or confirmed mechanism, there's no way to be certain if wavelengths would alter. The best thing we can say about IR thermometers is that they work without interference.
Personally I do like the idea that the Sun is indeed powered by fusion (theoretically the strong interaction component of the gravity exerted by hydrogen and helium would provide more gravity than the RE model predicts, to hold the Sun together), though that model isn't perfect: it wouldn't explain the spotlight shape, for example (though that may not be necessary, after all).

As far as we now, there is no interference. You cannot base an hypothesis on loose speculations. We don't observe any interference, and it makes no sense that there'd be any interference. No interference has been observed by probes. The temperature of the sun is considered to be a fact. We COULD be wrong, but there's NO evidence against the current model.

I never said that you should assume your flat earth model wrong, only that you should assume the current light model to be at least mostly right. Otherwise we ain't getting anywhere.

And what spotlight shape? If you have the right telescope you can study the sun for a few days or weeks and see that it is round and mostly spherical.

As far as we now, there is no interference. You cannot base an hypothesis on loose speculations. We don't observe any interference, and it makes no sense that there'd be any interference. No interference has been observed by probes. The temperature of the sun is considered to be a fact. We COULD be wrong, but there's NO evidence against the current model.

I never said that you should assume your flat earth model wrong, only that you should assume the current light model to be at least mostly right. Otherwise we ain't getting anywhere.

And what spotlight shape? If you have the right telescope you can study the sun for a few days or weeks and see that it is round and mostly spherical.

As far as we know, yes. This does not preclude the possibility of it existing, that is all. I'm not saying it definitely does, simply that a hypothesis would still be valid even if it assumed there was.
The evidence against the current model would be in the FE aspect: I make no assumptions that do not immediately follow from the Earth being flat.
The spotlight shape is typicaly justified by the existence of night: light clearly doesn't cover the whole surface, as it would with an orb. Curved light wouldn't be a full answer, as some light would still make it to each part of the disc.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 21, 2015, 10:12:58 AM

As far as we now, there is no interference. You cannot base an hypothesis on loose speculations. We don't observe any interference, and it makes no sense that there'd be any interference. No interference has been observed by probes. The temperature of the sun is considered to be a fact. We COULD be wrong, but there's NO evidence against the current model.

I never said that you should assume your flat earth model wrong, only that you should assume the current light model to be at least mostly right. Otherwise we ain't getting anywhere.

And what spotlight shape? If you have the right telescope you can study the sun for a few days or weeks and see that it is round and mostly spherical.

As far as we know, yes. This does not preclude the possibility of it existing, that is all. I'm not saying it definitely does, simply that a hypothesis would still be valid even if it assumed there was.
The evidence against the current model would be in the FE aspect: I make no assumptions that do not immediately follow from the Earth being flat.
The spotlight shape is typicaly justified by the existence of night: light clearly doesn't cover the whole surface, as it would with an orb. Curved light wouldn't be a full answer, as some light would still make it to each part of the disc.

In any case, we should no matter the shape of the earth we take as fact assume that the temperature readings are correct. Nothing speaks against them, and wavelengths has nothing to do with the shape of the earth anyways.

In any case, we should no matter the shape of the earth we take as fact assume that the temperature readings are correct. Nothing speaks against them, and wavelengths has nothing to do with the shape of the earth anyways.

Just because there isn't a direct, immediately obvious relationship doesn't mean there wouldn't be a knock-on effect. Take the dome model, for example: the Sun may be passing through matter in order to reach us.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 21, 2015, 12:49:00 PM

In any case, we should no matter the shape of the earth we take as fact assume that the temperature readings are correct. Nothing speaks against them, and wavelengths has nothing to do with the shape of the earth anyways.

Just because there isn't a direct, immediately obvious relationship doesn't mean there wouldn't be a knock-on effect. Take the dome model, for example: the Sun may be passing through matter in order to reach us.

Something still needs to be very hot in order to get those temperature readings. If they come from the dome then the dome itself has to be so hot that it is made out of plasma. And again, it doesn't matter that there could be something else manipulating, bringing such points up doesn't get a discussion anywhere unless you can base it on something. If there is something that would change (in this case, increase drastically) the wavelength of light, you have to figure out what it would be (it can't be any matter, as this change apparently would occur in vacuum) and make an experiment which can prove it. Until then it is no point in bringing it up or to base another model on it. Actually, saying that light has to behave differently for an unproven and unfinished model to work is pseudoscience - you come to a conclusion that something has to be and try to find any evidence that would prove it.

Something still needs to be very hot in order to get those temperature readings. If they come from the dome then the dome itself has to be so hot that it is made out of plasma. And again, it doesn't matter that there could be something else manipulating, bringing such points up doesn't get a discussion anywhere unless you can base it on something. If there is something that would change (in this case, increase drastically) the wavelength of light, you have to figure out what it would be (it can't be any matter, as this change apparently would occur in vacuum) and make an experiment which can prove it. Until then it is no point in bringing it up or to base another model on it. Actually, saying that light has to behave differently for an unproven and unfinished model to work is pseudoscience - you come to a conclusion that something has to be and try to find any evidence that would prove it.

The change would only occur in vacuum if you assume the RE model, or an FE model with space travel.
If you can't bring something up until it's confirmed in an experiment, that ruins most of science. It is necessary to construct a hypothesis which could possibly explain an observation, before tetsing it: that's what I'm doing, so bringing such points up is very relevant. It's not pseudoscience, it's an early and necessary step of real science.
Again, I'm not saying that it is the case, only that it should be acknowledged as a possibility.
And also again, I am constructing a hypothesis: I am developing the best FE model as a hypothesis, so that I may test whether or not the theory holds. It would be utterly ridiculous for me to do this by allowing the world to not be flat: it is a necessary step of developing a hypothesis to assume what you want to test is the case. Then you can look at what the testable consequences of that would be.

Quote from: Master_Evar on September 21, 2015, 02:01:40 PM

Something still needs to be very hot in order to get those temperature readings. If they come from the dome then the dome itself has to be so hot that it is made out of plasma. And again, it doesn't matter that there could be something else manipulating, bringing such points up doesn't get a discussion anywhere unless you can base it on something. If there is something that would change (in this case, increase drastically) the wavelength of light, you have to figure out what it would be (it can't be any matter, as this change apparently would occur in vacuum) and make an experiment which can prove it. Until then it is no point in bringing it up or to base another model on it. Actually, saying that light has to behave differently for an unproven and unfinished model to work is pseudoscience - you come to a conclusion that something has to be and try to find any evidence that would prove it.

The change would only occur in vacuum if you assume the RE model, or an FE model with space travel.
If you can't bring something up until it's confirmed in an experiment, that ruins most of science. It is necessary to construct a hypothesis which could possibly explain an observation, before tetsing it: that's what I'm doing, so bringing such points up is very relevant. It's not pseudoscience, it's an early and necessary step of real science.
Again, I'm not saying that it is the case, only that it should be acknowledged as a possibility.
And also again, I am constructing a hypothesis: I am developing the best FE model as a hypothesis, so that I may test whether or not the theory holds. It would be utterly ridiculous for me to do this by allowing the world to not be flat: it is a necessary step of developing a hypothesis to assume what you want to test is the case. Then you can look at what the testable consequences of that would be.

Well, sure then. But it definitely is most likely that the temperature readings we get are genuine, in any case.

Well, sure then. But it definitely is most likely that the temperature readings we get are genuine, in any case.

Only if you assume there's no interference, which cannot be assumed as we already know there is odd behavior when the Sun's light meets the flat Earth. All I'm concerned with right now are possibilities: what could be used as a building block for a successful hypothesis.

Do you think that all the newly discovered stars (using telescopes) are a part of a conspiracy?

Stars are the lights of demons. We know the Sun is the light provided by God (Genesis 1:3-5), and the stars shine only when God moves away and tests us. Lucifer is named the Morning Star, and night has universally been known throughout history as a time of danger.

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on September 18, 2015, 12:32:19 AM

Do you think that all the newly discovered stars (using telescopes) are a part of a conspiracy?

Stars are the lights of demons. We know the Sun is the light provided by God (Genesis 1:3-5), and the stars shine only when God moves away and tests us. Lucifer is named the Morning Star, and night has universally been known throughout history as a time of danger.

You've previously said that stars can't be seen during the day when the sun is shining?

WRONG!!!!

Stars ARE visible during the day through a telescope.

http://skysurfer.eu/daystars.php

Now you've going to tell us all that a telescope is an instrument of Satan because the images that we see through a telescope are false and designed to fool/deceive us?

Quote from: Testify on September 22, 2015, 01:51:26 PM

Quote from: FlatEarthDenial on September 18, 2015, 12:32:19 AM

Do you think that all the newly discovered stars (using telescopes) are a part of a conspiracy?

Stars are the lights of demons. We know the Sun is the light provided by God (Genesis 1:3-5), and the stars shine only when God moves away and tests us. Lucifer is named the Morning Star, and night has universally been known throughout history as a time of danger.

You've previously said that stars can't be seen during the day when the sun is shining?

WRONG!!!!

Stars ARE visible during the day through a telescope.

http://skysurfer.eu/daystars.php

Now you've going to tell us all that a telescope is an instrument of Satan because the images that we see through a telescope are false and designed to fool/deceive us?

If you can find me an image of stars and the Sun that was taken without digital alteration, I will listen. Otherwise the only stars you view are when you omit God's light, one way or another.