# Aisantaros' Challenge Submission

• 137 Replies
• 18438 Views

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« on: November 04, 2016, 05:47:46 PM »
A submission for aisantaros's challenge.

* Please feel free to ask for clarification if something isn't clear *

Overview

This model demonstrates the possibility of accurately predicting the location of any star from any location on a flat earth, specifically, the Octans Constellation.

The earth is surrounded by a large "celestial shell", which is normally opaque to visible light. There are numerous holes in the celestial shell, which allows directional light to penetrate the shell and reach the earth. Each hole corresponds to a specific star seen at a specific spot on earth. For each star, there is exactly one hole in the celestial shell that allows a ray of light to hit a specific spot on earth. Given a high enough resolution of the shell (which can be arbitrarily increased by increasing its radius and thickness), the non-continuous nature of the stars would go unnoticed. While this specific arrangement of directional holes seems improbable in the extreme, there is a plausible natural explanation for it, which will be explained in the next section. This plausible natural explanation can be demonstrated to result in the exact same arrangement of stars as what we would expect to see on a globe shaped earth.

Origin of Directional Holes in Celestial Sphere

Imagine a small sphere sitting at the North Pole of the earth. The sphere explodes. Particles are shot outwards in all directions. Once these "guide particles" hit the celestial shell, they drill holes in the shell. These holes allow light from outside the shell to shine back on the earth. Due to the thickness of the celestial shell, the light that penetrates the holes will be highly directional. In fact, the light will only hit the exact spot where the original small sphere exploded. If a person stands in the exact spot where the sphere exploded, he will be able to see light leaking through the numerous holes in the celestial shell. However, if he moves slightly to the side, those holes will disappear, and the sky will again be black.

Now imagine billions (or more) identical small spheres covering the surface of the earth in a single layer. Each sphere is completely identical in every way. When each sphere explodes, it will emit the exact same arrangement of guide particles as every other sphere.

However, each sphere is facing a slightly different direction. Each sphere is rotated towards the North Pole by an amount corresponding to its latitude. Whereas when a sphere at the North Pole explodes, it will shoot a "Polaris particle" straight up, a sphere at 45° north latitude will shoot its "Polaris particle" at an angle of 45°, resulting in a hole that can be seen at an altitude of 45°. The exact same altitude that Polaris would be expected to be seen at from a globe earth.

Likewise, each exploding sphere has its own "Sirius particle", "Betelgeuse particle", "Rigel particle", etc, which allows those stars to be seen from anywhere on earth.

This is roughly illustrated in figure A. This is a side view of the earth. I know it looks like a confetti bomb, but bear with me. Each sphere has exactly 5 rays coming from it, corresponding to 5 major stars. The colored rays are emitted by each sphere at the exact same angle relative to the north (red) side of the sphere. The spheres and rays are each rotated to match the latitude that they are located at.

Figure A: Side view of exploding spheres and guide particles rotated according to latitude

[continued]
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 06:36:49 PM by TotesReptilian »

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #1 on: November 04, 2016, 05:49:01 PM »

Terminology

Celestial Shell: Opaque, spherical shell surrounding the earth. Holes in this shell allow light to leak through. The radius of the shell is much, much greater than the size of the earth.
Guide Particle: Particle emitted by the exploding spheres that drilled holes in the celestial shell. Each location on earth had a guide particle corresponding to every star.
Exploding Sphere: The sphere that explodes and emits guide particles in identical directions. Rotation based on latitude.

Latitude: For this flat earth model, latitude corresponds with a radial distance away from North Pole. Each degree corresponds to the same distance as it does on the globe earth.
Longitude: Angle relative to the Prime Meridian, just like on the globe earth.

Declination: The latitude of the stars for a globe earth, measured from the equatorial plane.
Right Ascension: The longitude of the stars for a globe earth, measured from the vernal equinox (towards Aries).

For the flat earth model Right Ascension and Declination corrospond to the direction that each guide particle is emmitted from the unrotated exploding spheres.

Sidereal Time: The earth is rotating relative to the stars, obviously. Sidereal time is a measurement of time based on the rotation of the stars, rather than the sun. Tells us which direction the earth is facing relative to the vernal equinox.
Greenwich Mean Sidereal Time (GMST): The direction that the Prime Meridian of the earth is facing relative to the vernal equinox. Allows us to correlate earthly longitude with the right ascension of the stars.

The Math

The key to demonstrating this model's plausibility, is to show that the above explanation results in the correct azimuth and altitude of the the stars for any time and location on earth.

Given:

1. A star's right ascension and declination.
2. A latitude and longitude of a location on earth.
3. A time, converted to GMST.

Step (1) Use the right ascension and declination of the star to define an unrotated direction for the guide particle. Store the direction as a 3D vector.
Step (2) Use the location's longitude and GMST to rotate the vector towards the North Pole according to the location's latitude. This vector should now point towards the apparent location of the star.
Step (3) Calculate the altitude and azimuth of the vector on a flat earth.

Following the above steps does indeed result in the correct azimuth and altitude for any given star, location, and time, as shown by the provided simulation. Specifically, the simulation demonstrates predicting the azimuth and altitude for four stars in the Octans Constellation from Perth, Rio de Janeiro, and Cape Town, to more than 1 degree of accuracy, as requested in the challenge.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 05:56:40 PM by TotesReptilian »

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #2 on: November 04, 2016, 05:49:34 PM »
The Simulation

All of the above steps are accomplished in the provided file [flat.py]. If you want to know how it works, I recommend looking at the source directly with syntax highlighting. But I will copy the relevant bits here for completion's sake. Line numbers subject to change.

Step (1) starts on line 45 in [flat.py]:

Code: [Select]
def base_ray_direction(self):

direction = Vector3(0,1,0) # starts pointing towards the Y axis and vernal equinox
direction.rotateX(self.dec.rad()) # declination rotation around X axis
direction.rotateZ(self.ra.rad()) # right ascension rotation around Z axis

return direction

Step (2) starts on line 58 in [flat.py]:

Code: [Select]
def local_ray_direction(self, location, gmst):

direction = self.base_ray_direction() # get base vector
lst = self.local_sidereal_time(location, gmst).rad() # calculate sidereal time for given location

direction.rotateZ(-lst) # rotate to align the longitude with the Y axis to allow easy rotation
direction.rotateX(math.pi/2.0 - location.lat.rad()) # rotate around X axis, towards north pole based on latitude
direction.rotateZ(lst) # undo previous rotation to unalign with Y axis

return direction

Step (3) starts on lines 78 in [flat.py] for altitude:

Code: [Select]
def altitude(self, location, gmst):

direction = self.local_ray_direction(location, gmst) # guide vector

return Angle(math.asin(direction.z / direction.length()))

And line 89 in [flat.py] for azimuth:

Code: [Select]
def azimuth(self, location, gmst):

direction = self.local_ray_direction(location, gmst) # guide vector

absolute_direction = 0 # initialize to zero

# avoid divide-by-zero errors
if direction.x == 0:
if direction.y > 0:
absolute_direction = math.pi/2
else:
absolute_direction = -math.pi/2
else:
# calculate direction relative to global coordinate system
absolute_direction = math.atan(direction.y/direction.x)

# arctan() range is limited to -90 to 90 degrees. To detect 90 to 270 degrees, test sign of x component.
if direction.x < 0:
absolute_direction += math.pi

# adjust angle relative to direction of North Pole. Towards North Pole should be zero degrees.

# normalize azimuth to range of 0 to 360 degrees
if azimuth < 0:
azimuth -= int(azimuth/math.pi/2.0 - 1)*math.pi*2.0
if azimuth >= math.pi*2:
azimuth -= int(azimuth/math.pi/2.0)*math.pi*2.0

return Angle(azimuth)

The Result

Code: [Select]
GMST: 4h 2m 28.0481977458s

rio:
delta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 182° 14' 8.16945010277" /17° 0' 23.2793430696"
flat:  Az/Alt: 182° 14' 8.16945010288" /17° 0' 23.2793430696"
nu_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 191° 30' 39.9641734517" /30° 20' 49.4339413289"
flat:  Az/Alt: 191° 30' 39.9641734518" /30° 20' 49.4339413289"
beta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 185° 49' 29.3377905984" /29° 52' 39.4527891844"
flat:  Az/Alt: 185° 49' 29.3377905985" /29° 52' 39.4527891844"
theta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 184° 35' 35.7804448498" /35° 18' 6.116723158"
flat:  Az/Alt: 184° 35' 35.7804448499" /35° 18' 6.116723158"

perth:
delta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 174° 53' 26.5083250361" /36° 34' 43.6337723387"
flat:  Az/Alt: 174° 53' 26.5083250362" /36° 34' 43.6337723386"
nu_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 173° 6' 45.755684795" /20° 51' 23.5551479106"
flat:  Az/Alt: 173° 6' 45.755684795" /20° 51' 23.5551479106"
beta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 177° 37' 2.84549070348" /23° 30' 19.1594183771"
flat:  Az/Alt: 177° 37' 2.84549070348" /23° 30' 19.159418377"
theta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 180° 58' 40.6675376947" /18° 57' 23.613682431"
flat:  Az/Alt: 180° 58' 40.6675376947" /18° 57' 23.613682431"

cape_town:
delta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 175° 14' 33.9679261964" /29° 8' 57.1516169648"
flat:  Az/Alt: 175° 14' 33.9679261965" /29° 8' 57.1516169648"
nu_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 193° 14' 5.03808523773" /28° 12' 2.92270096098"
flat:  Az/Alt: 193° 14' 5.03808523773" /28° 12' 2.92270096099"
beta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 190° 14' 41.8928838067" /32° 24' 51.9823178602"
flat:  Az/Alt: 190° 14' 41.8928838067" /32° 24' 51.9823178602"
theta_oct:
globe: Az/Alt: 195° 44' 34.2066908047" /35° 31' 58.5052555279"
flat:  Az/Alt: 195° 44' 34.2066908047" /35° 31' 58.5052555279"

As you can see, the model correctly predicts the azimuth and altitude for the Octans Constellation from Perth, Rio de Janeiro, and Cape Town. The azimuth and altitude were calculated for the globe using standard (admittedly nasty) spherical trigonometry. You can compare these values with Stellarium if you wish. Make sure to set the time/date corectly. The above simulation was run at about 2016/11/5 01:05:00 UTC.

[Fin]
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 06:35:43 PM by TotesReptilian »

#### boydster

• Assistant to the Regional Manager
• Planar Moderator
• 17769
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #3 on: November 04, 2016, 05:56:00 PM »
I am posting in this thread. And excited to see the reserved posts filled in!

Edit: TOTALLY AWESOME! Totes, your head squish has performed admirably. To quote the great Wayne and his best friend Garth: "We're not worthy!"
« Last Edit: November 04, 2016, 07:16:16 PM by boydster »

#### Bom Tishop

• 11198
• Official friend boy of the FES!!
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #4 on: November 04, 2016, 06:42:07 PM »
Wow......

Bar tab on totes tonight.

Aisantaros......open your purse strings, you got a check to write
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

#### disputeone

• 25601
• Or should I?
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #5 on: November 04, 2016, 06:45:41 PM »
Nice Totes, it looks like you are the proud winner of my challenge also aisantaros' scam.

I am happy to post your carton over as your prize. I can't see any problems.

Whats the bet aisantaros nevar posts again? P.S. told you he wasn't bluffing Ais.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

#### Bullwinkle

• The Elder Ones
• 21053
• Standard Idiot
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2016, 03:46:47 AM »
What did I miss this time?

#### aisantaros

• 462
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2016, 07:36:17 AM »
Haha i like this, good job, at least more effort then all the FE community did in the last 150 years.

So you use the good old spherical coordinate system, and invented an "explanation" for it, classic case of circumvent some of the contradictions of FE and creating new ones

well sure you are ready to waste my time and don't mind yours But the checklist in my challange pretty straightforward it asked for a comprehensive model oh and to somewhat represent reality, comprehensive means that the local geometric setup is have to be true to every other observations  at different locations, and your calculator spitting out celestial SPHERE coordinates is just don't cut that, at least for flat earth.

But thats my preliminary opinion, i don't rejected your submission yet, because I find it an interesting case.

#### aisantaros

• 462
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2016, 08:06:49 AM »
Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math, assuming flat earth with a local celestial sphere is a good way to easily compute a correct planetarium view, but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?

?

#### Twerp

• Gutter Sniper
• Flat Earth Almost Believer
• 6540
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2016, 04:31:41 PM »
Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math, assuming flat earth with a local celestial sphere is a good way to easily compute a correct planetarium view, but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?
Two thumbs down.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2016, 05:07:20 PM »
But the checklist in my challange pretty straightforward it asked for a comprehensive model oh and to somewhat represent reality, comprehensive means that the local geometric setup is have to be true to every other observations  at different locations, and your calculator spitting out celestial SPHERE coordinates is just don't cut that, at least for flat earth.

*Sigh* And the moving goalposts begins... no, you did not ask for a comprehensive model. Feel free to quote yourself if you did. Here is what you DID say:

You can make whatever assumption and use whatever magic , I even allow huge margin of error like more than a degree or so, just show the octans visible from all over the south hemisphere lol on a flat earth, oh and VAGUELY match observation, so a south azimuthal map will dont cut it.

2. Please explicitly confirm that the challenge quoted above can be completed independently of the others.
2 of course, but in a way its connected, because the main rule apply for it : a predictive model above flat earth, best would be a 3d animation with all the data of flat earth,  height speed and position but diagrams are also acceptable.

...

But some more direction for you if you choose the Octans options:

1 accept stellarium software as a common ground of checking empirical observations, else debunk it first

2 For convenience use these three locations when they share nighttime, Cape Town, Perth , Rio de Janeiro

3 your predictive model have to show what our three observers could expect when they looking south 180° at the same time in a single geometric model.

And I'm not sure which part of that my model doesn't fulfill. Please be specific.

Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math

I certainly didn't try to hide anything. If that's an "EXHAUSTING" amount of math to you... well... sorry? Funnily enough, the math for calculating the Az/Alt of stars for a globe is more complicated than the math in my model in my opinion.

Quote
but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

Good eye. The model does indeed start to fail as we leave the surface of the earth. But that wasn't part of the original requirements as you specified them. See above. It does work for anywhere on the surface of the earth, including the 3 locations that you specified.

The model can be modified to allow for different heights above the ground, although the explanation would admittedly get quite convoluted. But like I said, that wasn't part of the challenge.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?

Of course I don't have evidence. The challenge was for an explanation, not evidence.

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2016, 05:14:48 PM »
Nice Totes, it looks like you are the proud winner of my challenge also aisantaros' scam.

I am happy to post your carton over as your prize. I can't see any problems.

Awesome, thanks!

I'm actually about to move in a few weeks, so if you mail it now, chances are I might never see it. Can I let you know when I get settled at my new place?

#### disputeone

• 25601
• Or should I?
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2016, 06:14:18 PM »
UPDATE ! another 50 000 usd for explaining how the octans constellation could be visible all around the southern hemisphere. The first two points of the checklist apply.
The 50 000 usd flat earth sun challange.

...

- The model have to use clearly labeled data and geometry, angles and distances.
- the model have to show the actual geometrical setup of the scenario.

For clarification, can this challenge be completed independently of the others? No prerequisites?

Even though the earth is not flat, this particular challenge does not seem impossible. I have certainly not seen any explanations from flat earthers that would win your challenge, but I reckon I could develop an explanation if I put my mind to it.

I only say this because you seemed confident that no one would be able to meet these challenges, and therefore confident that you would not have to pay up. Are you sure you want to leave your challenge as is? Are you sure you are willing to pay up if/when the time comes?

Pay up, you lose, this satisfies all requisites.

You will forever be painted with the same brush as Heiwa.

You have done the exact same thing, in hindsight do you realise why we all asked you for proof you could pay?

I don't have 50k, just wanted to feel like a big man in front of the FES

We knew.

Nice Totes, it looks like you are the proud winner of my challenge also aisantaros' scam.

I am happy to post your carton over as your prize. I can't see any problems.

Awesome, thanks!

I'm actually about to move in a few weeks, so if you mail it now, chances are I might never see it. Can I let you know when I get settled at my new place?

Of course no problem, just let me know when you are settled in.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

#### disputeone

• 25601
• Or should I?
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #13 on: November 05, 2016, 06:18:00 PM »
Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math, assuming flat earth with a local celestial sphere is a good way to easily compute a correct planetarium view, but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?
Two thumbs down.

Four thumbs down.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

#### aisantaros

• 462
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #14 on: November 05, 2016, 06:36:31 PM »
But the checklist in my challange pretty straightforward it asked for a comprehensive model oh and to somewhat represent reality, comprehensive means that the local geometric setup is have to be true to every other observations  at different locations, and your calculator spitting out celestial SPHERE coordinates is just don't cut that, at least for flat earth.

*Sigh* And the moving goalposts begins... no, you did not ask for a comprehensive model. Feel free to quote yourself if you did. Here is what you DID say:

You can make whatever assumption and use whatever magic , I even allow huge margin of error like more than a degree or so, just show the octans visible from all over the south hemisphere lol on a flat earth, oh and VAGUELY match observation, so a south azimuthal map will dont cut it.

2. Please explicitly confirm that the challenge quoted above can be completed independently of the others.
2 of course, but in a way its connected, because the main rule apply for it : a predictive model above flat earth, best would be a 3d animation with all the data of flat earth,  height speed and position but diagrams are also acceptable.

...

But some more direction for you if you choose the Octans options:

1 accept stellarium software as a common ground of checking empirical observations, else debunk it first

2 For convenience use these three locations when they share nighttime, Cape Town, Perth , Rio de Janeiro

3 your predictive model have to show what our three observers could expect when they looking south 180° at the same time in a single geometric model.

And I'm not sure which part of that my model doesn't fulfill. Please be specific.

Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math

I certainly didn't try to hide anything. If that's an "EXHAUSTING" amount of math to you... well... sorry? Funnily enough, the math for calculating the Az/Alt of stars for a globe is more complicated than the math in my model in my opinion.

Quote
but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

Good eye. The model does indeed start to fail as we leave the surface of the earth. But that wasn't part of the original requirements as you specified them. See above. It does work for anywhere on the surface of the earth, including the 3 locations that you specified.

The model can be modified to allow for different heights above the ground, although the explanation would admittedly get quite convoluted. But like I said, that wasn't part of the challenge.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?

Of course I don't have evidence. The challenge was for an explanation, not evidence.

That quote is not part of my challange, but its true, but you also have to fulfill the requirements, and those are asking for angles distances and geometric relations of stars and the three given observers.

What you only did is just grabbed the standard planetarium software which is already assuming local flat plain in a celestial sphere, (stressword : local) and made up something to transform it to reality, where we have multiple stars conveniently at right places.

And again I did asked for a comprehensive model with geometric relations at least "geometrical setup " in my dictionary means that, and yes I told you to use whatever magic TO GIVE ME THAT. So dont you dare accusing me moving goal posts which are the following in case you forget :

- The model have to use clearly labeled data and geometry, angles and distances.

- the model have to show the actual geometrical setup of the scenario.

Provide a diagram showing distances also, oh and the one which is not failing for the slightest vertical movement of the observer, because i dont specify the height of the observer just the approx position around those cities.

#### aisantaros

• 462
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #15 on: November 05, 2016, 06:39:12 PM »
Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math, assuming flat earth with a local celestial sphere is a good way to easily compute a correct planetarium view, but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?
Two thumbs down.

Four thumbs down.

Nice sock puppeting by the way.

#### disputeone

• 25601
• Or should I?
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #16 on: November 05, 2016, 06:45:48 PM »
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

#### aisantaros

• 462
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #17 on: November 05, 2016, 06:52:21 PM »
I don't have 50k

Mommy people are wrong on the internet ! I have to punish them by misquoting them and dropping a  childish tantrum.

Let me know when you finished, and tell me where do you see the required DISTANCES in the reptile submission ? Nowhere ? RIGHT

Also I did not rejected this answer, as I stated we just in the evaluating phase where i sometimes use aggressive debate tactics in pointing out flaws.

Is that to much to you ?

#### disputeone

• 25601
• Or should I?
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #18 on: November 05, 2016, 06:54:26 PM »
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

?

#### Twerp

• Gutter Sniper
• Flat Earth Almost Believer
• 6540
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #19 on: November 05, 2016, 07:05:52 PM »
Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math, assuming flat earth with a local celestial sphere is a good way to easily compute a correct planetarium view, but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?
Two thumbs down.

Four thumbs down.

Nice sock puppeting by the way.

I don't know who you are referring to but I can assure you that I am nobodies sock puppet. The only things I know about Totes or disputeone I have learned from reading their posts in the last few weeks. Their posts aren't very similar either, so it's highly unlikely that they are sock puppet accounts IMHO.

BTW if you had taken my advice and offered a flat earth mug or a case of beer as a prize you wouldn't be in the bind you're in. And you are in a bind. You're two choices are 1. Pay up or 2.
You will forever be painted with the same brush as Heiwa.

You might be able to start another account but you'll probably have to mask your IP address and I doubt you will be able to use the same username.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

#### aisantaros

• 462
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #20 on: November 05, 2016, 07:10:25 PM »
Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math, assuming flat earth with a local celestial sphere is a good way to easily compute a correct planetarium view, but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?
Two thumbs down.

Four thumbs down.

Nice sock puppeting by the way.

I don't know who you are referring to but I can assure you that I am nobodies sock puppet. The only things I know about Totes or disputeone I have learned from reading their posts in the last few weeks. Their posts aren't very similar either, so it's highly unlikely that they are sock puppet accounts IMHO.

BTW if you had taken my advice and offered a flat earth mug or a case of beer as a prize you wouldn't be in the bind you're in. And you are in a bind. You're two choices are 1. Pay up or 2.
You will forever be painted with the same brush as Heiwa.
You might be able to start another account but you'll probably have to mask your IP address and I doubt you will be able to use the same username.

LOL, did you saw somebody won my challenge ? By actually showing geometrical setup DISTANCES which i asked for ? No ? Then why dont you  provide something useful to the discussion instead rambling about your good advices ?

#### disputeone

• 25601
• Or should I?
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #21 on: November 05, 2016, 07:12:52 PM »
I really like this Boots guy.

In case it has escaped your powers of observation Aisantanot, Totes is much more educated than I am.

I am flattered but you are incorrect.
Why would that be inciting terrorism?  Lorddave was merely describing a type of shop we have here in the US, a bomb-gun shop.  A shop that sells bomb-guns.

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #22 on: November 05, 2016, 07:26:37 PM »
Let me know when you finished, and tell me where do you see the required DISTANCES in the reptile submission ? Nowhere ? RIGHT

Run the program (\$ python compare.py)

> verbose on
> go
GMST: 4h 59m 32.2599279019s

rio:
Lat/Lon: 22° 54' 24.48" S/43° 10' 22.44" W
delta_oct:
RA/Dec: 14h 29m 45.43s/-83° 44' 13.5"
Local Hour Angle: -12h 22m 54.6660720981s
Local Sidereal Time: 2h 6m 50.7639279019s
globe: Az/Alt: 180° 39' 4.32951767219" /16° 40' 25.9979121648"
flat:  Az/Alt: 180° 39' 4.32951767229" /16° 40' 25.9979121648"
Base Ray Direction:  <0.06631863535,-0.0866180030561,-0.994031770192>
Local Ray Direction: <-0.494246556117,0.820606466767,0.286923976805>
Celstial Sphere Intersept: <-199803718.443,326989241.03,114980505.942>

...

These are the coordinates, in meters, on the Celestial Shell of the hole for each star/location combination. This can easily be converted into a distance using this formula:

assuming:
R_earth = 40008000 meters (distance from North to South Pole)
R_shell = 400080000 meters (10x the radius of earth, this is fairly arbitrary)

distance = sqrt((x + latitude*40008000/360*sin(gmst + longitude))2 + (y - latitude*40008000/360*cos(gmst + longitude))2 + z2)

Does this satisfy your distance requirement?

(fyi, I noticed a bug in the sphere_intercept function. I forgot to take into account GMST when calculating the location offset, so those values are wrong. Will push a fix momentarily.)

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #23 on: November 05, 2016, 07:39:59 PM »
That quote is not part of my challange, but its true, but you also have to fulfill the requirements, and those are asking for angles distances and geometric relations of stars and the three given observers.

I will give you the exact distances in a moment. Angles are given by altitude/azimuth... obviously. I am assuming light travels in a straight line, so there is nothing more to it than that.

Quote
What you only did is just grabbed the standard planetarium software which is already assuming local flat plain in a celestial sphere, (stressword : local) and made up something to transform it to reality, where we have multiple stars conveniently at right places.

I gave you an explanation for the location of the holes. All math followed from that explanation. Why is this a problem?

Quote
And again I did asked for a comprehensive model

[CITATION NEEDED]

Quote
- The model have to use clearly labeled data and geometry, angles and distances.

- the model have to show the actual geometrical setup of the scenario.

I already gave a not-to-scale diagram which demonstrates the geometrical setup. If you really want a too scale diagram including distances to the 3 cities you asked for, that should be fairly trivial...

#### Crouton

• Flat Earth Inspector General of High Fashion Crimes and Misdemeanors
• Planar Moderator
• 16720
• Djinn
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #24 on: November 05, 2016, 07:41:37 PM »
Anyway, nice attempt to hide your "exploding spheres" bullshit into an EXHAUSTING amount of very correct celestial sphere math, assuming flat earth with a local celestial sphere is a good way to easily compute a correct planetarium view, but your model starts to fail when the observer leave ground level, stars appearing below the horizon by altitude needs an infinite amount of exploding spheres also in vertical arrangements, oh and a sphericall ground.

So do you think ironically give me and infinite amount of Octans which are conveniently placed in the right spot from every observer will win this challange ? Do you have any evidence for the Octans not representing a single object on the celestial sphere as I assumed in my original challange ?
Two thumbs down.

Four thumbs down.

Nice sock puppeting by the way.

I don't know who you are referring to but I can assure you that I am nobodies sock puppet. The only things I know about Totes or disputeone I have learned from reading their posts in the last few weeks. Their posts aren't very similar either, so it's highly unlikely that they are sock puppet accounts IMHO.

BTW if you had taken my advice and offered a flat earth mug or a case of beer as a prize you wouldn't be in the bind you're in. And you are in a bind. You're two choices are 1. Pay up or 2.
You will forever be painted with the same brush as Heiwa.

You might be able to start another account but you'll probably have to mask your IP address and I doubt you will be able to use the same username.

Well there's still the option of going full heiwa. Which involves committing years of his life posting variations of the same ten posts while simultaneously throwing his online reputation into a garbage fire.

There's pros and cons either way.
Intelligentia et magnanimitas vincvnt violentiam et desperationem.
The truth behind NASA's budget

#### Bom Tishop

• 11198
• Official friend boy of the FES!!
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #25 on: November 05, 2016, 07:49:04 PM »
I really like this Boots guy.

In case it has escaped your powers of observation Aisantanot, Totes is much more educated than I am.

I am flattered but you are incorrect.

It sounds like you have been a target of some rage dispute, think that heiwa comment really stung lol....

Notice how the new poster on the vacuum tthread and aisantaros both logged out at the same time. As well as scepti stopped posting. Also, when I called out scepti the other day on using denspressure to bump my thread to post right afterwards...then explained to denspressure that the mirror wording he and scepti uses are quite "suspicious" denspressure hasn't been back. Scepti has sure stuck around though.

So so curious...

Totes ...you put ALOT of time into these calculations. Since it is obvious you won't get anything from the organizer of the challenge...I would like to send you some Texas specials in liquor for your work. Just let me know what type you like (vodka, tequila etc)..

Then, you can take shots and chase with disputes beer.

Just remember....

Beer then liquor never been sicker..
Liquor then beer, you are in the clear!
Quote from: Bom Tishop
LordDave is quite alright even for a bleeding heart liberal. Godspeed good sir

#### aisantaros

• 462
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #26 on: November 05, 2016, 07:54:17 PM »
That quote is not part of my challange, but its true, but you also have to fulfill the requirements, and those are asking for angles distances and geometric relations of stars and the three given observers.

I will give you the exact distances in a moment. Angles are given by altitude/azimuth... obviously. I am assuming light travels in a straight line, so there is nothing more to it than that.

Quote
What you only did is just grabbed the standard planetarium software which is already assuming local flat plain in a celestial sphere, (stressword : local) and made up something to transform it to reality, where we have multiple stars conveniently at right places.

I gave you an explanation for the location of the holes. All math followed from that explanation. Why is this a problem?

Quote
And again I did asked for a comprehensive model

[CITATION NEEDED]

Quote
- The model have to use clearly labeled data and geometry, angles and distances.

- the model have to show the actual geometrical setup of the scenario.

I already gave a not-to-scale diagram which demonstrates the geometrical setup. If you really want a too scale diagram including distances to the 3 cities you asked for, that should be fairly trivial...

Distance to

Celestial sphere :

Between the stars in the Octans :

Between the observers expressed in number of exploding spheres :

Lets see if your model really have the geometricall quality or its just a kiddy drawing as it looks like.

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #27 on: November 05, 2016, 08:37:14 PM »
Distance to

Celestial sphere :

Arbitrary, but I used 400,080,000 meters. You can set it to whatever you want in the program:

>go

Quote
Between the stars in the Octans :

Odd requirement... but it can be calculated.

>verbose on
>go

Look for the "Sphere Intercept" value. This gives the coordinates of each "star" from a given location, in the format <x,y,z>

Just use a standard distance formula. (Wait for me to fix the bug mentioned above first, shell intercept values are currently slightly wrong.)

Quote
Between the observers expressed in number of exploding spheres :

Exploding sphere density is completely arbitrary. Increase density to get greater resolution/accuracy. Since you only required accuracy to within one degree... 1000 should be plenty. Eh, make it a million, because why not.

If this model were actually true (obviously it isn't), one of the first orders of business would be to attempt to measure the exploding sphere density.

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #28 on: November 05, 2016, 08:43:09 PM »
Totes ...you put ALOT of time into these calculations. Since it is obvious you won't get anything from the organizer of the challenge...I would like to send you some Texas specials in liquor for your work. Just let me know what type you like (vodka, tequila etc)..

Then, you can take shots and chase with disputes beer.

Just remember....

Beer then liquor never been sicker..
Liquor then beer, you are in the clear!

Not a huge fan of hard liquor. Beer is more my thing.

Honestly, the main reason I bothered doing this was because I wanted to learn Python. Best way to learn a language is to give yourself a project. I have no delusions of Aisantaros ever giving out any money no matter how well his challenge is completed. No need for everyone to start sending me stuff, lol. The thought is appreciated though!

#### TotesReptilian

• 2210
##### Re: Aisantaros' Challenge Submission
« Reply #29 on: November 05, 2016, 08:48:46 PM »
Also, fyi:

You can tell the program to use whatever star/location that you want. Just add the lat/lon coordinates to "data/locations.csv" and the RA/Dec coordinates to "data/stars.csv".

I already added several major stars. Just remove the # to enable them.