Explain

None of the tools are based on any model; the mathematics has been built up via tabulation and have existed for thousands of years, independent on whether the groups that used them believed in a flat or round earth.

Aside from this, simply stating a tool exists says nothing.

Stating that a tool based on a model supported by thousands of years of observations that accurately represents reality says quite a lot.

So, the "tool" shows what you would see on a globe.  You go outside and look and the "tool" was correct to what you actually see, for multiple times.  Sounds to me like eye witness verification.  So where are the "tools" that are based on a flat model then?  What is the correct flat model anyway?

Mikey's asking the real questions.

Wherever you are, the sky always moves counterclockwise. You cannot understand this direction because you are far from the center of rotation in the southern hemicircle.

It's not really hard.

You are correct that it isn't really hard.
In the southern hemisphere, you are just as close to the centre of rotation as in the northern hemisphere.
You can see the south celestial pole to your south and you can observe the stars rotate around it.
They rotate clockwise, not counter clockwise.

This is not a difficult concept. It just refutes a FE.

But to go to the more complex version, you don't even need to be in the south to confirm this. You just need to make sure you aren't too far north.

Set up 2 cameras back to back. One points directly at the north celestial pole, one points towards the south celestial pole, 180 degrees opposite.
That also means one is pointing up while the other points down.
Then record a time lapse photo/video.

You will observe the stars circling the centre point of the FOV.
Counterclockwise for the one facing north, clockwise for the one facing south.

None of the tools are based on any model; the mathematics has been built up via tabulation and have existed for thousands of years, independent on whether the groups that used them believed in a flat or round earth.

To have a massive table for every star and every location would be completely ridiculous.
But the software is open source so we can easily see how it works.
Can you point out where these tables are in their Git repository (or the code which pulls them from elsewhere)?
https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium

See, this file:
https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/blob/master/data/ssystem_major.ini
instead of showing a table for any of these celestial objects has data which can be used to calculate its position (i.e.a model).
Likewise, this file:
https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/blob/master/data/base_locations.txt
instead of showing massive tables for locations has a small set of data which can be used to calculate the relative position of a star.

Sure seems to look like it uses a model to determine where to find things, rather than a table.

This argument is all down to the same old problem of flat Earth believers not wanting or not being willing to accept any evidence that seems to place doubt on their contention that of the Earth being flat.

Are there no members here in the southern hemisphere who can verify what I have said from their own observations? No 'tools' needed other than their own eyes.  Anywhere in Australia, S AFrica or most of S America will do. As long as you can see the southern celestial pole you will see the stars rotating around it in a clockwise direction.

Or indeed the equator.  Look to the north and the NCP low down by the horizon and the stars will rise from the right (east) of north and set to the left (west) of north.  Now look to the south and the SCP area due south and you will see the stars move upwards to the left (east) of the SGP and downwards to the right (west) of the SGP. 

Flat Earthers will contort the sky in whatever way they have to to try and make things work according to their beliefs but the RE version will always work much more simply and conform to exactly what we observe.

Quote from: Solarwind on February 03, 2020, 08:52:28 AM

I'm afraid you are wrong. You can easily see why for yourself. First download Stellarium for free.  I have used Starry Night 8 but it does the same thing. Install it, set your viewing location to anywhere in the southern hemisphere (I chose Sydney in Australia) and face the SGP which will also be to the south.  The Sky rotates from east (to your left) to west (to your right) which is undeniably clockwise. You can switch on the constellation lines if you wish to make the effect more obvious.

The Sun and Moon rise in the east, swing around to the north (so that shadows point south) and then set in the west.

It is not really hard.

So stellarum tells you so, hence I am wrong. You can simply bring the founder of stellarum and I can simply refute or deny him.

It is not really hard.

No, Mr Wise, both "stellarum tells you so" and real life observations that I can personally make "tell you so" "hence you are wrong"!

It is not really hard.

This argument is all down to the same old problem of flat Earth believers not wanting or not being willing to accept any evidence that seems to place doubt on their contention that of the Earth being flat.

Are there no members here in the southern hemisphere who can verify what I have said from their own observations? No 'tools' needed other than their own eyes.  Anywhere in Australia, S AFrica or most of S America will do. As long as you can see the southern celestial pole you will see the stars rotating around it in a clockwise direction.

I live near Brisbane in Australia and know that what you say about the Southern Hemisphere is correct - at least here!

MaNaeSWolf lives in South Africa and I certain he'd be only too willing to help.
But I know of no one off-hand from South Africa.

Or indeed the equator.  Look to the north and the NCP low down by the horizon and the stars will rise from the right (east) of north and set to the left (west) of north.  Now look to the south and the SCP area due south and you will see the stars move upwards to the left (east) of the SGP and downwards to the right (west) of the SGP. 

Flat Earthers will contort the sky in whatever way they have to to try and make things work according to their beliefs but the RE version will always work much more simply and conform to exactly what we observe.

Thank you..  Compared to my location at a mid northern latitude you will also see the Moon 'upside down' and Orion will be upside down (Rigel higher in the sky than Betelgeuse) and Taurus below Orion.

I have never been south of the equator myself but I know enough about the sky (after 40 years of studying astronomy you get to know these things) to know that what I say about the rotation direction of the stars near the NCP and SCP is correct.  If I was wrong I would be more than willing to admit it.  Unlike it seem Mr Wise.

None of the tools are based on any model; the mathematics has been built up via tabulation and have existed for thousands of years, independent on whether the groups that used them believed in a flat or round earth.

Aside from this, simply stating a tool exists says nothing.

And those ancient tabulations explain the motion of the stars in the Southern Hemisphere do they?

The software mentioned works anywhere in the world, not just at one location.  ie. these tools work better than than your tools.

Why don't flat earthers ever seem to be willing to say 'OK, hands up, we were wrong' even when they come up with a claim that is clearly wrong?  Instead they just go strangely silent (don't they Mr Wise).

Yet they quickly jump on anything stated by RE which they believe to be wrong. I have already said in this discussion that if I ever made a statement or a claim which turned out to be incorrect in any way I would be quite open to admit it.

Why don't flat earthers ever seem to be willing to say 'OK, hands up, we were wrong' even when they come up with a claim that is clearly wrong?  Instead they just go strangely silent (don't they Mr Wise).

Yet they quickly jump on anything stated by RE which they believe to be wrong. I have already said in this discussion that if I ever made a statement or a claim which turned out to be incorrect in any way I would be quite open to admit it.

Yet here you are, still shilling the earth as a globe....

Absolutely and there is a very good reason for that. Perhaps one day you will discover it for yourself as well.

Why would you think it is anything else but a globe? There is plenty of real evidence  out there that it is but you are clearly of the mind that it isnt. So go on convince me that you are right and I am wrong.

None of the tools are based on any model; the mathematics has been built up via tabulation and have existed for thousands of years, independent on whether the groups that used them believed in a flat or round earth.

Aside from this, simply stating a tool exists says nothing.

If you are talking about "tabulation" of the positions of the planets that could not "have existed for thousands of years" for the positions of Uranus, Neptune nor Pluto (now a dwarf planet).

Uranus was not identified as a planet until 13 March 1781. But "By the mid 1800s, it was clear that the orbit of Uranus didn’t quite agree with Newton, and in particular with Kepler’s second law: that planets should sweep out equal areas in equal times. For a time Uranus moved faster than predicted (sweeping out too much area), and later it moved slower than predicted (sweeping out too little)." From: Gravity’s Oldest Puzzles.
And as a result Neptune was located.

The expected obit of Uranus was based on Kepler's "model" and the observed deviation from that led to the discovery of Neptune.

So your claim that "None of the tools are based on any model" simply dies not hold water.

And there are many similar cases.

Yet here you are, still shilling the earth as a globe....

What about actually adding to the debate instead of your usual personal attacks?

Quote from: Shifter on February 04, 2020, 12:25:23 AM

Yet here you are, still shilling the earth as a globe....

What about actually adding to the debate instead of your usual personal attacks?

Well that's easy enough I suppose

To assert the Earth is a globe is simply wrong to do unless you know everything else that it isn't

Would you still call it a globe if the Holographic principle turned out to be correct?
Would you still call it a globe if the nature of the universe boiled down to nothing more than bits in a simulation?

There are some very wacky ideas that eggheads smarter than you (but not an ASI) are still working on to determine the nature of the universe

To say 'The Earth is a globe' is to say conversely everything it is not

So why are these eggheads bothering to understand the nature of the universe at all when they could just look at posts like yours?

If they are still searching for answers it means the answer is still unknown. Only a fool jumps in to an answer without all the data to back it up

To Shifter, you are obviously someone who has already made their mind up about what you think the true shape of the Earth is. So please provide me with just one example of a real world experience that provides evidence that the world is not a globe. 

In other words give me an example of something that we experience or see in the real world that would be impossible if the Earth was not flat.

To Shifter, you are obviously someone who has already made their mind up about what you think the true shape of the Earth is. So please provide me with just one example of a real world experience that provides evidence that the world is not a globe. 

In other words give me an example of something that we experience or see in the real world that would be impossible if the Earth was not flat.

Are you suggesting this theory is nonsense?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
https://www.vox.com/2015/6/29/8847863/holographic-principle-universe-theory-physics

I'm simply stating that mankind has yet to find the answer. Better to sit on the fence picking splinters out of your arse from time to time that asert yourself on 1 side only to find out later your life was a lie

(in the sitting on the fence metaphor, people like rab are the splinters one gets)

There are many theories. The Earth being a globe is still in the theoretical stage, so it should not be asserted as fact

What I am doing is asking you to provide me with is a simple and directly accessible example of an everyday observation that strongly evidences that the Earth is flat and not a globe. 

The ISS has recorded hundreds if not thousands of hours of video from 400km above the Earth and clearly shows it to have a curved surface regardless of its position over the Earth.

Quote from: Solarwind on February 04, 2020, 01:17:40 AM

To Shifter, you are obviously someone who has already made their mind up about what you think the true shape of the Earth is. So please provide me with just one example of a real world experience that provides evidence that the world is not a globe. 

In other words give me an example of something that we experience or see in the real world that would be impossible if the Earth was not flat.

There are many theories. The Earth being a globe is still in the theoretical stage, so it should not be asserted as fact

Why don't you simply answer Solarwind's question: "In other words give me an example of something that we experience or see in the real world that would be impossible if the Earth was not flat."

I guess you haven't any evidence so just post crap like "The Earth being a globe is still in the theoretical stage, so it should not be asserted as fact".

Quote from: Shifter on February 04, 2020, 01:28:19 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on February 04, 2020, 01:17:40 AM

To Shifter, you are obviously someone who has already made their mind up about what you think the true shape of the Earth is. So please provide me with just one example of a real world experience that provides evidence that the world is not a globe. 

In other words give me an example of something that we experience or see in the real world that would be impossible if the Earth was not flat.

There are many theories. The Earth being a globe is still in the theoretical stage, so it should not be asserted as fact

Why don't you simply answer Solarwind's question: "In other words give me an example of something that we experience or see in the real world that would be impossible if the Earth was not flat."

I guess you haven't any evidence so just post crap like "The Earth being a globe is still in the theoretical stage, so it should not be asserted as fact".

Insufficent data to honestly answer the question.

Though I know you are very loose with the truth. You get stumped when you encounter honest answers

The problem is that no one on the flat Earth side seems to be able to answer directly a simple question.

As we go about our daily lives, year on year we see changes in the world around us which a global Earth model can explain easily. Far more easily than any flat Earth model I have come across.  So to shifter once again I ask you... what simple, every day observation have you made that convinces you that the Earth is not a globe?

The problem is that no one on the flat Earth side seems to be able to answer directly a simple question.

As we go about our daily lives, year on year we see changes in the world around us which a global Earth model can explain easily. Far more easily than any flat Earth model I have come across.  So to shifter once again I ask you... what simple, every day observation have you made that convinces you that the Earth is not a globe?

Again very simple, the Earth may or may not be. But to assert that it is means we know for sure what it isn't. Why are scientists still working on the nature of the universe if we already know the answer

And yes, the nature of the universe directly impacts the shape of the Earth or what it fundamentally is or is not

Again very simple, the Earth may or may not be. But to assert that it is means we know for sure what it isn't. Why are scientists still working on the nature of the universe if we already know the answer

And yes, the nature of the universe directly impacts the shape of the Earth or what it fundamentally is or is not

Shifter, I admire your position to be "open" for any possibility, but I think this is a bad argument.

I agree that we should be allowed to change our views as we experience things. We dont believe in Santa as we grew up. We will never know 100% that anything is true, we could all be in a simulation.
But there are things that you have to admit have a much higher probability of being true than not true. And the earth being round has many 9's of certainty after 99%.

Every conspiracy has a chance of being true, but your saying is that the whole world is being run by reptilian aliens unless we know for certain (which we cant) that they are not.
Your saying that until we have eliminated every other possibility we can not make a statement of the truth.
This is impossible, and would result in never being able to make any assertions about anything.

Stellarium is a real sky simulator.  It wouldn't be of much use if it didn't simulate accurately what you see in the real sky would it.  Starry Night shows me the same thing. That is also a real sky simulator.
So yes, contrary to what you clearly believe, in this case you are most definitely wrong.

I told you did you ever record the sky? You did not. Because if you did it so you should to know that simulator is wrong. this is a program and may have been planned to deceive me. This is not real. simulator is not evidence. just like this world isn't evidence but a simulator.

You can spend your life questioning absolutely everything around you and refusing to accept anything as true and definite if you wish but what would be the point of that? 

There is a thing in life we call 'beyond reasonable doubt' and I personally think (yes it is just my opinion but it is also a widely shared one I think)  that the shape of the Earth is one of those things that we have established 'beyond reasonable doubt'.  I say that because to my mind the available evidence tips the balance most definitely in favour of the Earth being a globe.

RE has come up with a universally agreed model that matches real world observations very nicely.  So far as I can tell there are various FE models which are chopping and changing all the time. 

Because if you did it so you should to know that simulator is wrong.

How is Stellarium or Starry Night wrong?  In all the time I have been using Starry Night, it's on version 8 now and I have been using it since version 4 it has never proved itself to be wrong.  It is even accurate on cometary positions. So much so that when I link my telescope mount to Starry Night and use it to aim the mount, the comet is always in the field of view. It is also accurate on the satellite positions of Jupiter and Saturn as well.  So I hardly think it would get something as basic as the rotation direction of the stars wrong, do you?

this is a program and may have been planned to deceive me

O come on... why the heck would anyone set out to plan to deceive you... you as in singularly you?  Especially as whoever developed any of these planetarium software programs don't know you even exist.

You don't accept these programs because they don't show you what you want to see. You would never entertain the possibility that you are wrong I'm sure so in your judgement it must be the software that is wrong, right?.  It is as simple as that. 

As a test, why don't you install and run Stellarium (it's free!) and then check its prediction of what the Moon phase and its position relative to the surrounding stars is going to be tonight. Then have a look at the real Moon in the sky and see if it matches on both counts.  O and by the way it is now 12.02 local time when the Sun should be due south. Loading up Stellarium it shows the Sun due south.  What a surprise!  Both easily verifiable tests to compare the accuracy of Stellarium with the real sky.

Just admit you are wrong for once in your life instead of throwing around misguided accusations about being deceived.

Would you still call it a globe if the Holographic principle turned out to be correct?

I'd love love love to know how the upper bound of information in a volume being proportional to the volume's surface area has anything to do with the shape of the earth.

And I would love to know how Wise still seems to be convinced that the stars rotate anticlockwise around the SCP when anyone in the southern hemisphere will be able to confirm they don't. 

This is not real. simulator is not evidence. just like this world isn't evidence but a simulator.

But this is real and not a simulation!

Time-Lapse of Southern Star Trails, Taken at Large Millimeter Telescope in Mexico by UMass


The Moving Stars of the Southern Hemisphere by AmazingSky

This one compares the Northern and Southern Hemisphere stars:

Startrail & Timelapse 2015 - Northern vs Southern Hemisphere by jungynz

This one is largely explanations:

Southern Skies and Southern Cross - Sixty Symbols by Sixty Symbols

Enjoy !

And I would love to know how Wise still seems to be convinced that the stars rotate anticlockwise around the SCP when anyone in the southern hemisphere will be able to confirm they don't.

They are looking to the wrong direction. They need compass. Don't ask me anything, because I have decided you are trolling us.

Quote from: Solarwind on February 04, 2020, 07:18:27 AM

And I would love to know how Wise still seems to be convinced that the stars rotate anticlockwise around the SCP when anyone in the southern hemisphere will be able to confirm they don't.

They are looking to the wrong direction. They need compass. Don't ask me anything, because I have decided you are trolling us.

In other words you have no answers so you are giving up, thanks for admitting that!