Where exactly is it?

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

That's up to you, but it pretty much renders any opinion you have on the matter null and void.

While the Satellite is indeed in the vacuum of space this discussion isn't. But please yourself.

 The video in question:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=33&v=CFrP6QfbC2g&feature=emb_logo

The camera that did the deed:
Key Measurements
EPIC is a 10-channel spectroradiometer that uses a Cassegrain type telescope, built by SSG Inc., comprised of two filter wheels with six positions each (the open hole plus five spectral filters). Itisa reflecting Ritchey-Chretien design with an aperture diameter of 30.5 cm, f 9.38, a FOV of 0.61° and an angular sampling resolution of 1.07 arcsec. (Once at L1, Earth varies from 0.45° to 0.53° full width.)
It images the irradiance from the sunlit face of Earth on a 2048x2048 pixel CCD (charge-coupled device) in 10 narrowband channels: 317, 325, 340, 388, 443, 552, 680, 688, 764 and 779 nm. The wavelength spans ultraviolet and near-infrared, and the exposure time for each channel is about 40 ms. This combination of UV and visible channels is unique to DSCOVR, and they were selected, in part, to match with other satellite imaging instruments so data products can be directly compared. These comparisons will validate both calibration and data reduction algorithms.

Before we can proceed the detractors have need to state what they believe to be true in regard to the mission. If they believe it to be a hoax there is no point going any farther as  the hoax trump card makes any discussion pointless.

But...if you do believe there is such a mission underway using a camera as detailed aboard a satellite orbiting as per the mission parameters then the video is clear proof that the earth is rotating. If you don't then we can all go home. The video could not have been made as it stands if that were not the case. From the way the video appears, unchanging exposure, for just one example, proves a constant and unchanging light source, namely the sun was illuminating the face of the earth for each of the shots. That proves the camera was in a constant position relative to the sun at all times. If it were in orbit around the earth, giving a mission distance of one million miles from the earth to have taken sets of images every two hours would have required the satellite to do a complete orbit every two hours to take the sets of images. Imagine the speed the satellite would have to have traveled to complete the orbit, and imagine what the video would have looked like! I'll let you work that one out for yourself.

If you are saying the satellite traveled around the stationary earth snapping away happily every two hours then you really are up a gum tree thinking that video could be the result.

Now I spend quite a bit of time in the studio photographing with one stationary light/strobe and a subject. If I move relative to both a stationary subject  and strobe,on a circular path which I often do the change between the shots is obvious. The lighting in each is very different, for obvious reasons.

To reiterate the video in question could never in a million years be replicated by having the earth stationary and the satellite doing the orbiting to give an impression of a spinning globe, it just ain't possible. Thinking otherwise is just plain wrong...

Any detractor would have to invoke all sorts of conspiracy based arguments and other unfounded arguments in relation to how the planets move that again would render any such discussion pointless.

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

The moral of this story is that ist a question about photographyusing one hard light source. Pure and simple.  From experience, people imagine they know about photography as they may have a camera set to auto that they use once a year on holiday. The reality is people rarely think about it that's why so many people take such rubbish photographs.

The camera set on a rotating mount is yet another question. Think about this:

A crystal clear night in the desert, with the Milkyway standing out in all its glory

Two identical cameras with identical F1.2 lenses pointed at the night sky. Camera 1 is locked off on a fixed tripod with an intervalometer set to take a shot every 25/30 secs.
Camera 2 is on a rotating mount locked on to a set point on the sky for reference. It to has an intervalometer set to take a shot every 25/30 secs.

The question is what will be the difference between the resulting time-lapses? What conclusions if any can be drawn from such an experiment?

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:32:56 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

I don't make the rules. I leave that to nature. I just follow them.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:32:56 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

Fine, fine.  That’s what I meant.  I thought that was obvious.

Care to answer the relevant points in my post?  Could you define what you mean by a “vacuum of information”.  Can I for example use my knowledge of basics mechanics in analysing this video?  Or do I have to pretend I’m a caveman with no idea where to start?

I’m not asking Timeisup, I’m asking you.  You have claimed the “simple fact” that it’s impossible to tell from the video if the Earth is spinning.  But you haven’t said why it’s impossible, or clarified what you mean by a “vacuum of information”, or provided an alternative explanation.

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 07:37:04 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:32:56 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

Fine, fine.  That’s what I meant.  I thought that was obvious.

Care to answer the relevant points in my post?  Could you define what you mean by a “vacuum of information”.  Can I for example use my knowledge of basics mechanics in analysing this video?  Or do I have to pretend I’m a caveman with no idea where to start?

I’m not asking Timeisup, I’m asking you.  You have claimed the “simple fact” that it’s impossible to tell from the video if the Earth is spinning.  But you haven’t said why it’s impossible, or clarified what you mean by a “vacuum of information”, or provided an alternative explanation.

This really isn't a difficult concept. Using -ONLY- the video that Tim posted, there is not enough information to determine whether the Earth is the thing in motion or not. The motion can be described equally as valid by assuming the Earth is stationary and the camera and light source are in motion. It takes more information that what the video provides to demonstrate that the Earth is definitely the thing that is spinning.

Another way to frame this is to say: Is it possible to model what I'm seeing from a perspective where the ball on the screen is at rest, but the camera still seems the same thing? And the clear answer to that question is yes, yes that can be modeled, you do it by making the rest of the things move accordingly.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:49:07 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 07:37:04 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:32:56 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

Fine, fine.  That’s what I meant.  I thought that was obvious.

Care to answer the relevant points in my post?  Could you define what you mean by a “vacuum of information”.  Can I for example use my knowledge of basics mechanics in analysing this video?  Or do I have to pretend I’m a caveman with no idea where to start?

I’m not asking Timeisup, I’m asking you.  You have claimed the “simple fact” that it’s impossible to tell from the video if the Earth is spinning.  But you haven’t said why it’s impossible, or clarified what you mean by a “vacuum of information”, or provided an alternative explanation.

This really isn't a difficult concept. Using -ONLY- the video that Tim posted, there is not enough information to determine whether the Earth is the thing in motion or not. The motion can be described equally as valid by assuming the Earth is stationary and the camera and light source are in motion. It takes more information that what the video provides to demonstrate that the Earth is definitely the thing that is spinning.

Yeah, yeah.  But you’re still avoiding my point and my question.  There’s really no such thing as “only the video”.  See, I have some understanding of the physics behind how things move.  Can I apply any of that understanding to drawing conclusions from this video or not?

Another way to frame this is to say: Is it possible to model what I'm seeing from a perspective where the ball on the screen is at rest, but the camera still seems the same thing? And the clear answer to that question is yes, yes that can be modeled, you do it by making the rest of the things move accordingly.

Modeled in a way that makes physical sense or just doing what you like with it?

I think this is the third time I've jumped in here, but maybe that will be the charmed one.

If you restrict your knowledge to just a very narrow view you can't 'prove' anything.

So yes, if all you see is the video and you have no knowledge of anything other than those pictures, you can't determine if it's the Earth spinning or objects orbiting it or rotating around it or being driven around on a chariot.

If your knowledge is restricted to "There is a series of pictures of an object from multiple angles" then there is very little you will be able to determine from that.

So a single video, alone, with no context is not enough to determine anything at all.  That is true.

If you start to expand your knowledge and evidence though, it quickly becomes easy to determine what's going on.

This is a silly argument though. If all I tell you an object is red, can you tell me if it's a baseball cap or an apple? Of course not. But once I let you lick it, you will be able to tell. It doesn't seem all that surprising that if you limit information then you limit your ability to learn anything from it.

The debate now seems to be what does "only a video" mean and you can argue for weeks if knowing how compression artifacts affect the image is included in that knowledge or are we allowed to know how RGB pixels work or how light works or what "only the video" really means. But if it's fun, then go on. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:49:07 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 07:37:04 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:32:56 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

Fine, fine.  That’s what I meant.  I thought that was obvious.

Care to answer the relevant points in my post?  Could you define what you mean by a “vacuum of information”.  Can I for example use my knowledge of basics mechanics in analysing this video?  Or do I have to pretend I’m a caveman with no idea where to start?

I’m not asking Timeisup, I’m asking you.  You have claimed the “simple fact” that it’s impossible to tell from the video if the Earth is spinning.  But you haven’t said why it’s impossible, or clarified what you mean by a “vacuum of information”, or provided an alternative explanation.

This really isn't a difficult concept. Using -ONLY- the video that Tim posted, there is not enough information to determine whether the Earth is the thing in motion or not. The motion can be described equally as valid by assuming the Earth is stationary and the camera and light source are in motion. It takes more information that what the video provides to demonstrate that the Earth is definitely the thing that is spinning.

I think we on the stationary earth may have noticed had the light source gone walkabout! By all means, offer your own scenario but make it believable and not ridiculous. The relative motion between the sun and the earth is known and can't just be 'made up' on your whim, talk about inventing your own rules based on need. This is the problem, you object to presented evidence based on prejudice and then use an illogical impossible scenario to support your argument.

I think this is the third time I've jumped in here, but maybe that will be the charmed one.

If you restrict your knowledge to just a very narrow view you can't 'prove' anything.

So yes, if all you see is the video and you have no knowledge of anything other than those pictures, you can't determine if it's the Earth spinning or objects orbiting it or rotating around it or being driven around on a chariot.

If your knowledge is restricted to "There is a series of pictures of an object from multiple angles" then there is very little you will be able to determine from that.

So a single video, alone, with no context is not enough to determine anything at all.  That is true.

If you start to expand your knowledge and evidence though, it quickly becomes easy to determine what's going on.

This is a silly argument though. If all I tell you an object is red, can you tell me if it's a baseball cap or an apple? Of course not. But once I let you lick it, you will be able to tell. It doesn't seem all that surprising that if you limit information then you limit your ability to learn anything from it.

The debate now seems to be what does "only a video" mean and you can argue for weeks if knowing how compression artifacts affect the image is included in that knowledge or are we allowed to know how RGB pixels work or how light works or what "only the video" really means. But if it's fun, then go on. 

This is the thing though. Timeisup constantly makes terrible arguments, then starts moving the goalposts, then deflecting to someone else, while never actually owning the fact that he made a terrible argument and, in fact, seemingly never even understanding why what he said was wrong. So if I'm being persistent in trying to get him to actually realize something, that is why.

Another way to frame this is to say: Is it possible to model what I'm seeing from a perspective where the ball on the screen is at rest, but the camera still seems the same thing? And the clear answer to that question is yes, yes that can be modeled, you do it by making the rest of the things move accordingly.

What you say, albeit in a rather confused way is just not possible.

There are just three elements to consider. The light source, the sun, the camera, and the subject the earth.
The camera has produced an animation made from a sequence of still images all shot with a constant light source. The only way to explain this is if the camera was fixed in relation to the light source. Any other explanation you wish to invoke would not produce the video as we see it, that is unless you wish to reinvent the laws of nature and move the sun around to suit your argument, as that is your only option.

Quote from: JJA on July 31, 2020, 08:41:55 AM

I think this is the third time I've jumped in here, but maybe that will be the charmed one.

If you restrict your knowledge to just a very narrow view you can't 'prove' anything.

So yes, if all you see is the video and you have no knowledge of anything other than those pictures, you can't determine if it's the Earth spinning or objects orbiting it or rotating around it or being driven around on a chariot.

If your knowledge is restricted to "There is a series of pictures of an object from multiple angles" then there is very little you will be able to determine from that.

So a single video, alone, with no context is not enough to determine anything at all.  That is true.

If you start to expand your knowledge and evidence though, it quickly becomes easy to determine what's going on.

This is a silly argument though. If all I tell you an object is red, can you tell me if it's a baseball cap or an apple? Of course not. But once I let you lick it, you will be able to tell. It doesn't seem all that surprising that if you limit information then you limit your ability to learn anything from it.

The debate now seems to be what does "only a video" mean and you can argue for weeks if knowing how compression artifacts affect the image is included in that knowledge or are we allowed to know how RGB pixels work or how light works or what "only the video" really means. But if it's fun, then go on. 

This is the thing though. Timeisup constantly makes terrible arguments, then starts moving the goalposts, then deflecting to someone else, while never actually owning the fact that he made a terrible argument and, in fact, seemingly never even understanding why what he said was wrong. So if I'm being persistent in trying to get him to actually realize something, that is why.

This maybe true, but in return, you made the same mistake by stating something as a “simple fact” without saying why you thought it was a fact.  You think it’s so obvious that it didn’t need explaining.  But what if you missed something?

I might contest your “fact” if you ever explain exactly what you meant by a “vacuum of information“.

Quote from: JJA on July 31, 2020, 08:41:55 AM

I think this is the third time I've jumped in here, but maybe that will be the charmed one.

If you restrict your knowledge to just a very narrow view you can't 'prove' anything.

So yes, if all you see is the video and you have no knowledge of anything other than those pictures, you can't determine if it's the Earth spinning or objects orbiting it or rotating around it or being driven around on a chariot.

If your knowledge is restricted to "There is a series of pictures of an object from multiple angles" then there is very little you will be able to determine from that.

So a single video, alone, with no context is not enough to determine anything at all.  That is true.

If you start to expand your knowledge and evidence though, it quickly becomes easy to determine what's going on.

This is a silly argument though. If all I tell you an object is red, can you tell me if it's a baseball cap or an apple? Of course not. But once I let you lick it, you will be able to tell. It doesn't seem all that surprising that if you limit information then you limit your ability to learn anything from it.

The debate now seems to be what does "only a video" mean and you can argue for weeks if knowing how compression artifacts affect the image is included in that knowledge or are we allowed to know how RGB pixels work or how light works or what "only the video" really means. But if it's fun, then go on. 

This is the thing though. Timeisup constantly makes terrible arguments, then starts moving the goalposts, then deflecting to someone else, while never actually owning the fact that he made a terrible argument and, in fact, seemingly never even understanding why what he said was wrong. So if I'm being persistent in trying to get him to actually realize something, that is why.

The goal post have never moved from the start, they are still the very same as placed by the laws of nature.

We have a camera in space taking a series of images of the earth using the sun as the constant light source. A series of still images are produced and combined into an animation that shows a spinning earth. That was the situation at the beginning and the situation now. It is as it was, nothing has changed, how could it?

I said that it was impossible to produce such a video by spinning the camera, and still say that and have explained why your argument is wrong.

Nothing has changed, go check it out. What you are doing is flapping around as you know you have not a single leg to stand on and are clutching at the proverbial straws by deflecting. Can you explain how this video could have be produced by moving the light source? That might make for interesting reading!

I think this is the third time I've jumped in here, but maybe that will be the charmed one.

If you restrict your knowledge to just a very narrow view you can't 'prove' anything.

So yes, if all you see is the video and you have no knowledge of anything other than those pictures, you can't determine if it's the Earth spinning or objects orbiting it or rotating around it or being driven around on a chariot.

If your knowledge is restricted to "There is a series of pictures of an object from multiple angles" then there is very little you will be able to determine from that.

So a single video, alone, with no context is not enough to determine anything at all.  That is true.

If you start to expand your knowledge and evidence though, it quickly becomes easy to determine what's going on.

This is a silly argument though. If all I tell you an object is red, can you tell me if it's a baseball cap or an apple? Of course not. But once I let you lick it, you will be able to tell. It doesn't seem all that surprising that if you limit information then you limit your ability to learn anything from it.

The debate now seems to be what does "only a video" mean and you can argue for weeks if knowing how compression artifacts affect the image is included in that knowledge or are we allowed to know how RGB pixels work or how light works or what "only the video" really means. But if it's fun, then go on. 

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video where the subject is seen to be spinning?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

Well, if the earth were stationary, then the sun wouldn’t be fixed, but moving round the earth.   One could argue that DSCOVR is orbiting the Earth with the same period as the sun.

However, that’s not all we can see in the video.

 For people who have no axe to grind the video is pretty clear evidence of a spinning globe...

Using your logic magicians really make things disappear.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 31, 2020, 09:09:16 AM

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

Well, if the earth were stationary, then the sun wouldn’t be fixed, but moving round the earth.   One could argue that DSCOVR is orbiting the Earth with the same period as the sun.

However, that’s not all we can see in the video.

While I do hear what you are saying there is a point where some reality has to be injected into the discussion.

But irrespective of that it does all boil down to the subject, camera, and light, however, one would wish to reinvent the solar system.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 31, 2020, 04:24:17 AM

 For people who have no axe to grind the video is pretty clear evidence of a spinning globe...

Using your logic magicians really make things disappear.

Ah...the quote out of context....  do try and keep up.

I might contest your “fact” if you ever explain exactly what you meant by a “vacuum of information“.

I did. More than once. It is impossible to prove that the Earth is spinning using just the images in the video that Tim linked to with no further information (this is the thing he said the video accomplished).

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 09:00:51 AM

I might contest your “fact” if you ever explain exactly what you meant by a “vacuum of information“.

I did. More than once. It is impossible to prove that the Earth is spinning using just the images in the video that Tim linked to with no further information (this is the thing he said the video accomplished).

But you have repeated ignored my question of whether any knowledge   of physics, geometry, logic, etc can be used in making that assessment. 

Presumably I have to know what a camera is?  And what time lapse video means?  I also have to understand English to be able to refute any argument.  This is all information/knowledge as well.  So where do you draw the line?

The reason I’m harping on about this is that the video DOES clearly demonstrate what I regard as the main problem with geocentrism.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 09:24:52 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 31, 2020, 09:09:16 AM

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

Well, if the earth were stationary, then the sun wouldn’t be fixed, but moving round the earth.   One could argue that DSCOVR is orbiting the Earth with the same period as the sun.

However, that’s not all we can see in the video.

While I do hear what you are saying there is a point where some reality has to be injected into the discussion.

But irrespective of that it does all boil down to the subject, camera, and light, however, one would wish to reinvent the solar system.

Are we really talking about reinventing the solar system? No, we're talking about where FEr's get their info from. At least that was the OP. And here again, you present earth rotation "evidence" from YouTube even in spite of this:

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 18, 2020, 03:35:12 AM

Quote

The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?

Youtube

Youtube!.....now that’s hardly a well of scientific knowledge is it. I suppose I should have said verifiable.

Irony aside, what has been explained numerous times in myriad ways is that just being presented with one data point, in this case, the satellite composite video showing a seemingly rotating earth is not enough. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. One really can't tell by ONLY looking at the YT video whether the earth is stationary or rotating. Supplementary data is required. It's really that simple. Here, look, this would perhaps be the stationary set-up:



I can equally infer the above by ONLY looking at the video as I can infer a rotating earth.

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:32:56 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

You have to take the audio with the video
Only by ignoring the audio can you make your claim so put a cork in it.

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 07:37:04 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:32:56 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

You have to take the audio with the video
Only by ignoring the audio can you make your claim so put a cork in it.

I just watched it again and reread the transcript. I didn't read or hear anything in the audio that would prove the earth is the thing in motion. It just says the satellite is parked at L1 one million miles from earth always between the earth and the sun. Just like in the image I made in my last post.

Quote from: MouseWalker on July 31, 2020, 12:18:54 PM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 07:37:04 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 07:32:56 AM

Quote from: boydster on July 31, 2020, 06:33:39 AM

I don't need to offer a detailed alternate explanation to point out the simple fact that the video you linked to, all by itself, in what would otherwise be a vacuum of information, does not prove that the Earth is spinning. You need to spend a second reflecting on that instead of continuing to lash out.

Well, that all depends on what you mean by a “vacuum of information”. 

Do we have to forget everything we know about anything for this  “simple fact” to work?  How cameras work?  How light behaves?  The basic laws of motion?

You could easily say nothing is evidence of anything if we have to clear our minds of everything related to how stuff works and how we can logically piece things together.  Trying to analyse anything in a complete “vacuum of information” is practically impossible.  You have to have some knowledge to try to understand what we are looking at.

So what in your view are we allowed to bring into an analysis of the video?

You say it’s a “simple fact” that the video doesn’t show the Earth is spinning.  That itself is a claim.  You don’t think you should explain why you think that’s a simple fact?

I did not say it doesn't show the Earth spinning. I said it is impossible to prove, from that video alone, that the Earth is the thing in motion. And it was Timmy that said that video alone was proof that the Earth was spinning, so take it up with him if you don't like how restrictive he made his own set of rules.

You have to take the audio with the video
Only by ignoring the audio can you make your claim so put a cork in it.

I just watched it again and reread the transcript. I didn't read or hear anything in the audio that would prove the earth is the thing in motion. It just says the satellite is parked at L1 one million miles from earth always between the earth and the sun. Just like in the image I made in my last post.

You are not thinking simply enough. Its a problem as I have said about photography, not planets. There is a subject that is lit by a single light source from an unmoving camera. A sequence of shots is taken that are then joined together to form an animation. The resulting animation reveals the subject is rotating. Its as simple as that. Having spent many years in the studio with lights/strobes there is no other explanation that would yield such a video. If the camera moved there would be a massive variation in the shots with shadows creeping across and some underexposed/ or if properly exposed for the low light stars would be visible. Leaving the moon shadow and the movement of the ice caps aside, the only other way such a video could be made possible is if either the sun moved or a second light source was employed, but even then the video would not look the
same. If you don't believe me, give it a try. It would be an easy experiment to carry out.

Quote from: Timeisup on July 31, 2020, 10:31:56 AM

Quote from: Unconvinced on July 31, 2020, 09:24:52 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on July 31, 2020, 09:09:16 AM

....but you can, irrespective of anything else.

Replace the sun with a fixed unmovable light while the subject, the earth moves on a rail as does the camera.

Now think about the video.

How would the two objects, the subject and the camera have to move to obtain an animation that was lit in a constant and unchanging way, and produce a result similar to the previously posted video?

There is only one scenario that would fit that would produce such a video. The camera position fixed relative to the light with the subject spinning. There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light, or in the case of the real world moving the sun!


PS
.....Or invoking a second moving light source equal in brightness to the sun, but even then the videos would not be the same unless the second sun had a complex dimmer arrangement fitted!

Well, if the earth were stationary, then the sun wouldn’t be fixed, but moving round the earth.   One could argue that DSCOVR is orbiting the Earth with the same period as the sun.

However, that’s not all we can see in the video.

While I do hear what you are saying there is a point where some reality has to be injected into the discussion.

But irrespective of that it does all boil down to the subject, camera, and light, however, one would wish to reinvent the solar system.

Are we really talking about reinventing the solar system? No, we're talking about where FEr's get their info from. At least that was the OP. And here again, you present earth rotation "evidence" from YouTube even in spite of this:

Quote from: Timeisup on July 18, 2020, 02:11:43 PM

Quote from: Code-Beta1234 on July 18, 2020, 03:35:12 AM

Quote

The question is where exactly do flat earthers get their information from?

Youtube

Youtube!.....now that’s hardly a well of scientific knowledge is it. I suppose I should have said verifiable.

Irony aside, what has been explained numerous times in myriad ways is that just being presented with one data point, in this case, the satellite composite video showing a seemingly rotating earth is not enough. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp. One really can't tell by ONLY looking at the YT video whether the earth is stationary or rotating. Supplementary data is required. It's really that simple. Here, look, this would perhaps be the stationary set-up:



I can equally infer the above by ONLY looking at the video as I can infer a rotating earth.

Is moving the sun to illuminate the subject really an option? OR do we have to conclude, bringing in some reality, that the sun should be stationary?