Are Flat Earthers Bad in Mathematics?

Quote from: rabinoz on October 22, 2017, 09:34:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 07:56:32 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 07:51:55 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So, you "believe that earth is flat" but haven't the slightest idea as to its shape?
It's must be so handy to always be able to claim ignorance and never able to be proven wrong.

What are you going on about?

in the thread "SYD to SCL and flight range" you near enough to denied any knowledge of the shape of your flat earth.
That is what I am on about!

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:36:27 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on October 22, 2017, 09:34:11 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 07:56:32 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 07:51:55 PM

Then I assume you do not believe that earth is flat.

And, as I just said, you assume wrong.

So, you "believe that earth is flat" but haven't the slightest idea as to its shape?
It's must be so handy to always be able to claim ignorance and never able to be proven wrong.

What are you going on about?

in the thread "SYD to SCL and flight range" you near enough to denied any knowledge of the shape of your flat earth.
That is what I am on about!

It's flat. Most likely a disk, but I'll admit that's just an aesthetically appealing idea to me.

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:51:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:33:00 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:11:30 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:58:40 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:49:14 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:39:19 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:32:45 PM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.

You are at a position A on the earth plain and measure the angular distance d between two stars.

A friend of yours is exactly 5000km away at a position B and measures the distance between the same stars at the same time.

As far as I know the angular distance between the same stars is always the same, regardless where or when you measure them. That's why we have star constellations, right? Because the angular distances are constant. So at A as at B the angular distance is d.

But of course we cannot measure absolutely exact, there is a margin of error. Let the margin of error be 1 arc second. So in our example we cannot say that both at A and B the measured distance between the same stars is the same, we only can say that the difference is smaller than 1 arc second.

My problem is: how far must the stars at least be away from the earth plain in order to allow no measurable difference of the angular distance between them measured from 2 points on earth 5000 km away from each other when the margin of error is 1 arc second.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:54:09 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:51:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:33:00 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:11:30 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:58:40 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:49:14 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:39:19 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:32:45 PM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.

You are at a position A on the earth plain and measure the angular distance d between two stars.

A friend of yours is exactly 5000km away at a position B and measures the distance between the same stars at the same time.

As far as I know the angular distance between the same stars is always the same, regardless where or when you measure them. That's why we have star constellations, right? Because the angular distances are constant. So at A as at B the angular distance is d.

But of course we cannot measure absolutely exact, there is a margin of error. Let the margin of error be 1 arc second. So in our example we cannot say that both at A and B the measured distance between the same stars is the same, we only can say that the difference is smaller than 1 arc second.

My problem is: how far must the stars at least be away in order to allow no measurable difference of the angular distance between them measured from 2 points on earth 5000 km away from each other when the margin of error is 1 arc second.

Want to skip to the point? When did I ever claim the stars were close by?

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 10:32:31 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:54:09 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:51:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:33:00 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:11:30 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:58:40 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:49:14 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:39:19 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:32:45 PM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.

You are at a position A on the earth plain and measure the angular distance d between two stars.

A friend of yours is exactly 5000km away at a position B and measures the distance between the same stars at the same time.

As far as I know the angular distance between the same stars is always the same, regardless where or when you measure them. That's why we have star constellations, right? Because the angular distances are constant. So at A as at B the angular distance is d.

But of course we cannot measure absolutely exact, there is a margin of error. Let the margin of error be 1 arc second. So in our example we cannot say that both at A and B the measured distance between the same stars is the same, we only can say that the difference is smaller than 1 arc second.

My problem is: how far must the stars at least be away in order to allow no measurable difference of the angular distance between them measured from 2 points on earth 5000 km away from each other when the margin of error is 1 arc second.

Want to skip to the point? When did I ever claim the stars were close by?

You did not.

But now suddenly I have a different trigonometrical problem.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 10:34:09 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 10:32:31 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:54:09 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:51:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 09:33:00 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 09:11:30 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:58:40 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:49:14 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 08:39:19 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 08:32:45 PM

And you genuinely believe that earth is a flat plain?

Are you seriously asking me that for a third time? What is your degree in? Redundancy? Poor reading comprehension?

And the stars, are they circling above the plain?

In a sense, yes. Why? Could you get to your point if you have one?

Could you help me solving a trigonometrical problem? cause I am actually rather bad in math.

Maybe. Really, though, can you please get to your point?

My point is I have a trigonometric problem regarding the stars.

Your mechanism of speech is absolutely infuriating. If you have something to say just say it. I will ignore you beyond this point if you don't just ask your question.

You are at a position A on the earth plain and measure the angular distance d between two stars.

A friend of yours is exactly 5000km away at a position B and measures the distance between the same stars at the same time.

As far as I know the angular distance between the same stars is always the same, regardless where or when you measure them. That's why we have star constellations, right? Because the angular distances are constant. So at A as at B the angular distance is d.

But of course we cannot measure absolutely exact, there is a margin of error. Let the margin of error be 1 arc second. So in our example we cannot say that both at A and B the measured distance between the same stars is the same, we only can say that the difference is smaller than 1 arc second.

My problem is: how far must the stars at least be away in order to allow no measurable difference of the angular distance between them measured from 2 points on earth 5000 km away from each other when the margin of error is 1 arc second.

Want to skip to the point? When did I ever claim the stars were close by?

You did not.

But now suddenly I have a different trigonometrical problem.

You really don't need to stretch this one out into 6 different posts.
I told you I'd start to ignore you if you keep doing what you're still doing.

When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:03:35 PM

When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

You are a being a dishonest troll, again.  The problem is simple and has been presented several times on this forum with the same tired crap being offered in response.   

Your answer provides several issues:

1.  Atmoplanic lensing - a lovely catch all when confronted by difficult realities that can't be reconciled by the FE model.  Do you care to explain, or even offer in layman's terms how light would behave in this manner?  Can you cite a study where an experiment reproduced this phenomenon? 

2. The aether.  This is another element that has been soundly debunked multiple times.  Is there a journal or some other publication that you'd care to direct us to confirm the existence of this "aether"? 

3.  UA.  Utter tripe.  With your background in Doppler effect, I'm highly surprised you'd even go to this one as a support.  Again, any citations?

The problem with the quality of your posts is that you carefully try to tread a narrow path of never really stating anything.  Maps are flexible approximations to you and, until now from what I've seen, you've never really gone on record concerning what elements of this half-baked baloney you subscribe to. 

So UA, aether, and "atmoplanic nonsense", check. 

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

Care to list the factors?  Again, can you give us a citation in a peer-reviewed publication where this phenomenon has been observed and reproduced in a way that supports your conclusion?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:03:35 PM

When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

You are a being a dishonest troll, again.  The problem is simple and has been presented several times on this forum with the same tired crap being offered in response.   

Your answer provides several issues:

1.  Atmoplanic lensing - a lovely catch all when confronted by difficult realities that can't be reconciled by the FE model.  Do you care to explain, or even offer in layman's terms how light would behave in this manner?  Can you cite a study where an experiment reproduced this phenomenon? 

2. The aether.  This is another element that has been soundly debunked multiple times.  Is there a journal or some other publication that you'd care to direct us to confirm the existence of this "aether"? 

3.  UA.  Utter tripe.  With your background in Doppler effect, I'm highly surprised you'd even go to this one as a support.  Again, any citations?

The problem with the quality of your posts is that you carefully try to tread a narrow path of never really stating anything.  Maps are flexible approximations to you and, until now from what I've seen, you've never really gone on record concerning what elements of this half-baked baloney you subscribe to. 

So UA, aether, and "atmoplanic nonsense", check.

1. I would guess you should look into refraction. Different mediums do weird things to the waves travelling through them.

2. For one, an Einstein lecture: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

3. What does Doppler have to do with that? The main evidence is that things fall downwards.

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:29:45 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:43:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:29:45 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:45:08 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:43:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:29:45 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

If you fit it to a globe model, it sure can look like that. 

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:47:30 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:45:08 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:43:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:29:45 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

If you fit it to a globe model, it sure can look like that. 

But historically it was exactly the other way round. By observing the celestial bodies people came to the conclusion that earth is round.

So the observed position of a star from a certain place on earth at a certain time is determined by 2 factors, right?

1.The movement of the celestial gears
2. light bending by atmoplanic lensing

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:57:32 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:47:30 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:45:08 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:43:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:29:45 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

If you fit it to a globe model, it sure can look like that. 

But historically it was exactly the other way round. By observing the celestial bodies people came to the conclusion that earth is round.

So the observed position of a star from a certain place on earth at a certain time is determined by 2 factors, right?

1.The movement of the celestial gears
2. light bending by atmoplanic lensing

Are you doing that thing again where you stretch a point out into several posts?

Quote from: Gumwars on October 22, 2017, 11:35:29 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:03:35 PM

When I am at home near the equator Polaris is directly at the horizon at the northern sky. Always.

When I am in Germany, at a latitude of 45 degree, Polaris is 45 degree above the horizon. That does never change either.

In Australia I cannot see it at all. Never.

So when the stars are "not close by", as you say, why does Polaris have different altitudes at different locations? Shouldn't they all be at the same position in the sky for every observer?

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

You are a being a dishonest troll, again.  The problem is simple and has been presented several times on this forum with the same tired crap being offered in response.   

Your answer provides several issues:

1.  Atmoplanic lensing - a lovely catch all when confronted by difficult realities that can't be reconciled by the FE model.  Do you care to explain, or even offer in layman's terms how light would behave in this manner?  Can you cite a study where an experiment reproduced this phenomenon? 

2. The aether.  This is another element that has been soundly debunked multiple times.  Is there a journal or some other publication that you'd care to direct us to confirm the existence of this "aether"? 

3.  UA.  Utter tripe.  With your background in Doppler effect, I'm highly surprised you'd even go to this one as a support.  Again, any citations?

The problem with the quality of your posts is that you carefully try to tread a narrow path of never really stating anything.  Maps are flexible approximations to you and, until now from what I've seen, you've never really gone on record concerning what elements of this half-baked baloney you subscribe to. 

So UA, aether, and "atmoplanic nonsense", check.

1. I would guess you should look into refraction. Different mediums do weird things to the waves travelling through them.

2. For one, an Einstein lecture: http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Extras/Einstein_ether.html

3. What does Doppler have to do with that? The main evidence is that things fall downwards.

1.  Refraction won't work here.  You're assuming a lot without any support.  We both know that the behavior of light required to make Polaris appear the way it does, assuming a flat earth, makes no sense given what we know about the subject.  Again, a layman's description from you, the individual claiming that refraction is the culprit, would go a long way towards building support for the position.

2.  Did you read the entire article you referenced?  Up to and including his conclusion?  Ether did not appear to be something he firmly believed in.  The take away is that gravitational and magnetic fields exert some degree of influence on all of space-time.

3.  The Doppler effect on light as viewed from an object under constant acceleration.

Absent citations all of what you "conclude" are opinion. 

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:08:32 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:57:32 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:47:30 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:45:08 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:43:04 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:29:45 PM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 22, 2017, 11:17:46 PM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 22, 2017, 11:10:28 PM

I would guess it has something to do with atmoplanic lensing or some sort of effect from the aether eddies caused by the UA.

I would also guess you don't travel the world that often.

Germany, Australia and Indonesia are 3 places were I have lived so far (though I'm from Malaysia).

How does atmoplanic lensing work?

Bends light based on a variety of factors.

But it works in a way that it creates the perfect illusion that earth is round, right? Celestial mechanics works, I know that. It describes the movement of the celestial bodies flawlessly. But celestial mechanics actually only makes sense when earth is either
1. round or
2. flat with an atmoplanic lensing at work that has the remarkable feature of causing apparent celestial movements compatible with the notion that earth is a spinning ball.

So we know at least that feature of atmoplanic lensing. That's remarkable, isn't it? Can't be just by accident.

Why does atmoplanic lensing bend light exactly in a way that makes observers believe that we live on a sphere?

It has nothing to do with the illusion of spinning. That's more the motion of the celestial gears.

That's right, it has nothing to do with spinning (I just deleted this word in my post, but I was too slow). But it obviously creates the illusion that earth is a ball, you can hardly deny that.

If you fit it to a globe model, it sure can look like that. 

But historically it was exactly the other way round. By observing the celestial bodies people came to the conclusion that earth is round.

So the observed position of a star from a certain place on earth at a certain time is determined by 2 factors, right?

1.The movement of the celestial gears
2. light bending by atmoplanic lensing

Are you doing that thing again where you stretch a point out into several posts?

No, why?

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:18:57 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:18:57 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

I can't believe you're calling this guy out for the exact same crap you pull.  Pot meet kettle.

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:28:13 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:18:57 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

I can't believe you're calling this guy out for the exact same crap you pull.  Pot meet kettle.

What crap do I pull? I answer any question that's posed to me. If I have a point, I don't stretch it out into 6 posts. If I don't have a point, I don't respond, because there's no point to it.

Quote from: Gumwars on October 23, 2017, 12:29:28 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:28:13 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:18:57 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

I can't believe you're calling this guy out for the exact same crap you pull.  Pot meet kettle.

What crap do I pull? I answer any question that's posed to me. If I have a point, I don't stretch it out into 6 posts. If I don't have a point, I don't respond, because there's no point to it.

I'd say a more accurate reply is that you respond.  To say that you answer a question is a stretch.  Both threads regarding flight distances you basically said nothing for two whole pages.  Your "answers" lacked anything of substance and did little to move your position towards a definitive conclusion.  Assuming the earth is flat and then declaring we have to make these flights work within that model is silly.  The flights don't work if the earth is flat, period.  Same with the questions asked here.  Polaris isn't visible south of the equator - refraction won't make that happen, period.  The Southern Cross and Sigma Octanis don't make sense if the earth is flat, period.  We can assume the earth is flat but then we are left with contradictions.  Unreconciliable contradictions.

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:18:57 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

But, again..isn't it a remarkable thing, that this combination of the movement of the celestial gears and atmoplanic lensing results in a movement of the stars that can be perfectly described with the assumption that earth is a ball?

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:28:13 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:18:57 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

But, again..isn't it a remarkable thing, that this combination of the movement of the celestial gears and atmoplanic lensing results in a movement of the stars that can be perfectly described with the assumption that earth is a ball?

Not really. There are often multiple explanations for an observed phenomenon.

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:50:35 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:28:13 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:27:18 AM

Quote from: th3rm0m3t3r0 on October 23, 2017, 12:18:57 AM

Quote from: FalseProphet on October 23, 2017, 12:16:56 AM

No, why?

Because you didn't really leave room to properly respond. You just made a statement.

It was actually a question, like "do I understand you right?". I'm a slow thinker.

I can tell. I write very deliberately.

But, again..isn't it a remarkable thing, that this combination of the movement of the celestial gears and atmoplanic lensing results in a movement of the stars that can be perfectly described with the assumption that earth is a ball?

Not really. There are often multiple explanations for an observed phenomenon.

For example?