Where exactly is it?

  • 223 Replies
  • 19550 Views
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #180 on: July 31, 2020, 01:07:39 PM »

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.

Actually it’s a year’s worth of data points.

Quote
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.

Unfortunately this diagram doesn’t account for all the motion seen in the video. 

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #181 on: July 31, 2020, 01:15:28 PM »

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.

Actually it’s a year’s worth of data points.

I should have been more clear. I was meaning one data point as one piece of evidence, meaning just this one video in its entirety being one "data point."

Quote
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.

Unfortunately this diagram doesn’t account for all the motion seen in the video.

What motion am I missing?

Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #182 on: July 31, 2020, 01:18:49 PM »

....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
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?

What is the velocity of the sun and satellite to accomplish such a orbits
« Last Edit: July 31, 2020, 09:29:25 PM by MouseWalker »
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #183 on: July 31, 2020, 01:44:27 PM »

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.

Actually it’s a year’s worth of data points.

I should have been more clear. I was meaning one data point as one piece of evidence, meaning just this one video in its entirety being one "data point."

Fair enough.  “Data points” are a bit of nebulous concept anyway.  I probably shouldn’t have made an issue out of that. 

Quote
Quote
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.

Unfortunately this diagram doesn’t account for all the motion seen in the video.

What motion am I missing?

Over the course of the year, the “orbits” (for want of a better word) of both the light source (the sun) and the camera on DISCVR can be seen to shift between being above the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.  You can clearly see views of the Arctic and Antarctic at different times of the year.

That means neither the sun or satellite can be doing a simple loop around the earth.  They’d have to also be moving north, then for some inexplicable reason change direction at the summer solstice and head south, and perform the opposite maneuver 6 months later.

So between the two candidates of stationary earth and a rotating orbiting earth, it seems one is in accordance with the laws of motion, and the other is not.

Even with just this one video, I think there’s enough information to pick the most credible option. 

At least if basic physics works the way we think it does.  Which is why I’ve been asking Boydster if he counts having some understanding of physics as additional information. 

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #184 on: July 31, 2020, 01:52:58 PM »
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.

Right there you are assuming something: An unmoving camera. Let's not assume that. You can, however, assume a single light source, because we only have one, the Sun.

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.

Again, right there you're assuming the animation reveals the subject is rotating. Without a reference point, you can't make that assumption just based upon what you see. The background is black.

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.

I have spent many years in the photog,vid, editing & effects world. Have you ever heard of a dolly or crane shot? I can light a scene with a moving camera without exposure/shadow variation. Why would there be massive variation in the shots when the camera is locked to the light source? That's the point of the diagram.

Option 1: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the earth is rotating
Option 2: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the Sun/Camera are rotating around the earth

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #185 on: July 31, 2020, 01:54:28 PM »

....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
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?

From the video alone, one can't tell. That's the whole point.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #186 on: July 31, 2020, 01:55:27 PM »

....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
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?
What are the speed of the sun and satellite to accomplish such a orbits

Fast.

*

Bullwinkle

  • The Elder Ones
  • 21053
  • Standard Idiot
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #187 on: July 31, 2020, 02:12:12 PM »

. . . an animation.


an·i·ma·tion   /ˌanəˈmāSH(ə)n/

  the technique of photographing successive drawings or positions of puppets or models to create an illusion of movement when the movie is shown as a sequence.




*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #188 on: July 31, 2020, 02:29:51 PM »

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.

Actually it’s a year’s worth of data points.

I should have been more clear. I was meaning one data point as one piece of evidence, meaning just this one video in its entirety being one "data point."

Fair enough.  “Data points” are a bit of nebulous concept anyway.  I probably shouldn’t have made an issue out of that. 

No worries, poor use of the term on my part.

Quote
Quote
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.

Unfortunately this diagram doesn’t account for all the motion seen in the video.

What motion am I missing?

Over the course of the year, the “orbits” (for want of a better word) of both the light source (the sun) and the camera on DISCVR can be seen to shift between being above the tropics of Cancer and Capricorn.  You can clearly see views of the Arctic and Antarctic at different times of the year.

That means neither the sun or satellite can be doing a simple loop around the earth.  They’d have to also be moving north, then for some inexplicable reason change direction at the summer solstice and head south, and perform the opposite maneuver 6 months later.

So between the two candidates of stationary earth and a rotating orbiting earth, it seems one is in accordance with the laws of motion, and the other is not.

Even with just this one video, I think there’s enough information to pick the most credible option. 

At least if basic physics works the way we think it does.  Which is why I’ve been asking Boydster if he counts having some understanding of physics as additional information.

I'm not super well versed in the geocentric model. But my understanding is that there's essentially a 23° ecliptic to the orbit of the sun. Whereby over the course of the year the sun moves between Cancer and Capricorn. Something like this:



Now which is the better candidate, I think you know where I stand. But my only point is given just this one piece of evidence, the video, you can't definitively determine which stuff is moving and which isn't.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #189 on: July 31, 2020, 03:11:20 PM »
The goal post have never moved from the start, they are still the very same as placed by the laws of nature.
No, they have.
You started with just the video, now you also want to invoke "the laws of nature" by which you mean the entire body of scientific understanding of the world. But with that, the video proves bascially nothing about the motion of Earth, as the "laws of nature" alone indicate Earth is rotating.
So again, this makes your entirely circular.
Earth is rotating and orbiting the sun, thus the video shows Earth is rotating and orbiting the sun.
That is not a logical argument, and that doesn't prove anything about the motion of Earth.

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.
Except you haven't actually explained why. Instead you just dismissed that possibility using other evidence, specifically exactly what was pointed out that your argument lacks.
So you are still wrong.
The video still doesn't prove Earth rotates.

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!
Good job projecting your own inadequacies and deflecting yet again.

Once more, explain FROM THE FOOTAGE ALONE how you can tell which is in motion.
That means no appealing to the fact that Earth rotates. No appealing to the fact that Earth orbits the sun.
You are also permitted to use the content of the video.

If you can't, then be honest for once and admit that the video does not prove that Earth is in motion.

....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.
Again, you can't.
Replace Earth with a fixed immovable subject, while the light source and camera both move on rails around the subject.
Now think about the video.

You cannot appeal to the sun being fixed, as that is not in the video.

There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light
i.e. THERE IS A WAY, you just dismiss it.
The video does not tell you which is moving, and thus you are wrong.

Is moving the sun to illuminate the subject really an option?
When you are using the video to prove Earth is rotating YES!
If you want to "bring in reality" then you bring in Earth rotating and the video proves nothing.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #190 on: July 31, 2020, 03:23:36 PM »
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.

Right there you are assuming something: An unmoving camera. Let's not assume that. You can, however, assume a single light source, because we only have one, the Sun.

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.

Again, right there you're assuming the animation reveals the subject is rotating. Without a reference point, you can't make that assumption just based upon what you see. The background is black.

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.

I have spent many years in the photog,vid, editing & effects world. Have you ever heard of a dolly or crane shot? I can light a scene with a moving camera without exposure/shadow variation. Why would there be massive variation in the shots when the camera is locked to the light source? That's the point of the diagram.

Option 1: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the earth is rotating
Option 2: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the Sun/Camera are rotating around the earth

If you say you know about shooting stuff with one light then you should be able to work out why. If you cant then it's pretty pointless trying to explain once more. Though your mention of dolly or crane shots is not really applicable in this situation so am at a loss to why you mentioned either, it kinda tells me you haven't a clue what your talking about.
If you think lighting this scene with a revolving camera will result in evenly exposed shots as in the video then you know nothing about either photography or lighting. Just think when the camera has moved 90/270 degrees you will get a split lighting situation, and when the camera has gone a full 180 the earth will be a black blob with a halo, assuming the exposure remains constant and the sun does what the sun does and remains stationary.....and you say you know lighting....i dont think so!
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #191 on: July 31, 2020, 03:27:07 PM »
It's posts like that, Tim, that make it really hard to just let you say the things you say and let it go. Ugh. Anyway, there are several posts illustrating the thing you are doing your best to dance around actually understanding (or admitting your error about) so it doesn't really make sense to keep going rounds.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #192 on: July 31, 2020, 03:28:39 PM »
Just think when the camera has moved 90/270 degrees you will get a split lighting situation, and when the camera has gone a full 180 the earth will be a black blob with a halo, assuming the exposure remains constant and the sun does what the sun does and remains stationary.....and you say you know lighting....i dont think so!
Are you seriously not comprehending or are you just playing dumb?
Again, you cannot appeal to the sun remaining stationary. That is appealing to more than the video.
That means you still have the option of a single light (the sun) which is moving along with the camera, around a stationary subject (Earth).
How is that incompatible with the video?

There is no split lighting, no Earth being a black blob.
The light is always ~behind the camera, giving the same exposure every time.

*

Timeisup

  • 3554
  • You still think that. You cannot be serious ?
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #193 on: July 31, 2020, 03:31:17 PM »
The goal post have never moved from the start, they are still the very same as placed by the laws of nature.
No, they have.
You started with just the video, now you also want to invoke "the laws of nature" by which you mean the entire body of scientific understanding of the world. But with that, the video proves bascially nothing about the motion of Earth, as the "laws of nature" alone indicate Earth is rotating.
So again, this makes your entirely circular.
Earth is rotating and orbiting the sun, thus the video shows Earth is rotating and orbiting the sun.
That is not a logical argument, and that doesn't prove anything about the motion of Earth.

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.
Except you haven't actually explained why. Instead you just dismissed that possibility using other evidence, specifically exactly what was pointed out that your argument lacks.
So you are still wrong.
The video still doesn't prove Earth rotates.

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!
Good job projecting your own inadequacies and deflecting yet again.

Once more, explain FROM THE FOOTAGE ALONE how you can tell which is in motion.
That means no appealing to the fact that Earth rotates. No appealing to the fact that Earth orbits the sun.
You are also permitted to use the content of the video.

If you can't, then be honest for once and admit that the video does not prove that Earth is in motion.

....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.
Again, you can't.
Replace Earth with a fixed immovable subject, while the light source and camera both move on rails around the subject.
Now think about the video.

You cannot appeal to the sun being fixed, as that is not in the video.

There is no other way to obtain such a video without moving the light
i.e. THERE IS A WAY, you just dismiss it.
The video does not tell you which is moving, and thus you are wrong.

Is moving the sun to illuminate the subject really an option?
When you are using the video to prove Earth is rotating YES!
If you want to "bring in reality" then you bring in Earth rotating and the video proves nothing.

The conclusion I have come to is you are as mad as the fucking preverbial brush and trying to reason with a madman like you who has a dog turd for brains is pretty pointless. I thought Sandokhan was a fucking idiot but you take the madman biscuit.
It looks like given you absence that you were on some bender and have returned foaming at the mouth ready for some madcap action. Well on you go and rave away you stupid fuckwit.
Really…..what a laugh!!!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #194 on: July 31, 2020, 03:35:30 PM »
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.

Right there you are assuming something: An unmoving camera. Let's not assume that. You can, however, assume a single light source, because we only have one, the Sun.

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.

Again, right there you're assuming the animation reveals the subject is rotating. Without a reference point, you can't make that assumption just based upon what you see. The background is black.

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.

I have spent many years in the photog,vid, editing & effects world. Have you ever heard of a dolly or crane shot? I can light a scene with a moving camera without exposure/shadow variation. Why would there be massive variation in the shots when the camera is locked to the light source? That's the point of the diagram.

Option 1: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the earth is rotating
Option 2: Camera is locked to the Sun at L1 1 million miles away from earth and the Sun/Camera are rotating around the earth

If you say you know about shooting stuff with one light then you should be able to work out why. If you cant then it's pretty pointless trying to explain once more. Though your mention of dolly or crane shots is not really applicable in this situation so am at a loss to why you mentioned either, it kinda tells me you haven't a clue what your talking about.
If you think lighting this scene with a revolving camera will result in evenly exposed shots as in the video then you know nothing about either photography or lighting. Just think when the camera has moved 90/270 degrees you will get a split lighting situation, and when the camera has gone a full 180 the earth will be a black blob with a halo, assuming the exposure remains constant and the sun does what the sun does and remains stationary.....and you say you know lighting....i dont think so!

I have no idea what in the world you are talking about. Why do you keep assuming "the sun does what the sun does and remains stationary"?

Look at my diagram again. The sun and the camera are locked to each other. The sun is your sole light source. As you rotate the sun and the camera around the object, the object is always lit by the light source in line with the camera's view. Remember, the light and the camera are locked together both rotating around the object.

You're making it seem like the camera is rotating and the light source is not. Stop that. You're missing the entire point.

Do you get it?

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #195 on: July 31, 2020, 03:51:21 PM »
The conclusion I have come to is you are as mad as the fucking preverbial brush and trying to reason with a madman like you who has a dog turd for brains is pretty pointless.
I'll take that to mean you have come to the conclusion that I am an intelligent and rational individual that understands logic quite well and has clearly shown the flaw in your reasoning but you are far too arrogant to accept that you could ever possibly be wrong on a FE forum so will just resort to throwing insults.

That is also quite clear from how you continue to attack pathetic strawmen rather than the actual argument.

Remember, this argument of yours was put forward on a forum where people reject the vast majority of modern physics including the fact that Earth rotates and orbits the sun.
As such, your argument effectively boils down to:
"If you accept that you are completely wrong about reality, then this video shows you are wrong."
And thus it proves literally nothing.

Again, if you need to start with the sun being stationary for your argument to hold, then you have already lost the argument as virtually no one accepts that. The GC and FE community have the sun move around Earth with Earth remaining fixed in place.
You could even put a camera in place between the sun and Earth and have it move in such a way to remain between the moving sun and fixed Earth.

So yet again you have failed to justify your claim that the video alone shows Earth is fixed.

And see, me being rational and actually caring about the truth means I am not going to accept BS just because the conclusion is true. I actually care about the justification, as the sole distinction between knowledge and belief is justification.


So yet again, if you want to show I am wrong then it is quite simple, explain FROM THE VIDEO ALONE how you can distinguish between the light source and camera being fixed with Earth rotating; the Earth being fixed with the light source and camera circling Earth; or the Earth rotating with the camera and light source circling Earth.

The key part is FROM THE VIDEO ALONE as you seem to think that video is all that is needed.
That means no appealing to the fact that Earth rotates or obits the sun or anything else like that.
All you can use is the video itself as well as anything common to all photos.

For example, all you can prove from the lighting is that the camera is roughly between the light source and subject.

It looks like given you absence that you were on some bender and have returned foaming at the mouth ready for some madcap action. Well on you go and rave away you stupid fuckwit.
No, I decided I would sleep for a few hours. See, with Earth being round there are these things called TIME ZONES.
While it is only roughly 4 pm yesterday for you, it is closer to 9 am today for me.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 17754
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #196 on: July 31, 2020, 04:14:35 PM »
Tim will be back in a few days to continue this conversation.

*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Administrator
  • 49695
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #197 on: July 31, 2020, 06:56:38 PM »
I wonder if MouseWalker will be along to tell anyone besides boydster to put a cork in it. lol
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #198 on: August 01, 2020, 09:53:41 AM »
And see, me being rational and actually caring about the truth means I am not going to accept BS just because the conclusion is true. I actually care about the justification, as the sole distinction between knowledge and belief is justification.

Now, JackBlack is going to demonstrate to us (for umpteenth time in a row) how he is unbelievably rational and how he is incredibly caring about the truth :

How about this video :

This guy thinks that my old video (which he reuploaded on his channel) proves that the earth is flat. It doesn't, but i had depicted in this video the simplest method of falsification of the rotating earth myth.

Even refined version of my old ZIGZAG argument is valid and can be used as the method of verification of earth's motionlessness, however there is no need for anything more complicated than the method above...
« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 02:38:53 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #199 on: August 01, 2020, 11:16:13 AM »
i won't bother looking at zigzag argument again. It is debunked

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeoZtOQvYdhjg2FNH7fUP8nMBXt481M7x

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #200 on: August 01, 2020, 02:26:39 PM »
Even refined version of my old ZIGZAG argument is valid
We have been over your zigzag nonsense countless times.
It is an argument against a near sun, nothing more.
The angles will be the same regardless of if Earth is moving with the sun stationary, the sun moving with Earth stationary, or both moving at different rates.
A simple visual observation like that cannot be used to determine which is in motion.
If you want to discuss your already refuted zigzag nonsense, feel free to revive one of the threads you have already been defeated in and deal with the math that was provided that shows the visual observations are identical.

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #201 on: August 02, 2020, 02:28:37 AM »
Even refined version of my old ZIGZAG argument is valid
We have been over your zigzag nonsense countless times.
It is an argument against a near sun, nothing more.
The angles will be the same regardless of if Earth is moving with the sun stationary, the sun moving with Earth stationary, or both moving at different rates.

cos 66,6 * 6400 = 2541*2*3,14= 15962/24 = 665 km/h (the speed of the observer at the Arctic circle)
382500*2*3,14 = 2 402 100 circumference of Moon's orbit
2 402 100/24 = 100 075 (Geocentric speed of the Moon (roughly-if we subtracted few thousand km/h due to Moons real motion in CCW direction, there would be even greater difference))
2 402 100/27,5/24 = 3639 km/h (Heliocentric speed of the Moon)

Now, the math for the geocentric scenario :

Farther observer (on the opposite side of the Arctic circle) : 3639+665 = 4304 km/h
Closer observer moves wrt the Moon : 3639-665 = 2974 km/h

4304/385000 = 0,01117922 --- (ctg)0,01117922 = 0,6404
2974/380000 = 0,00782631 ----(ctg)0,00782631 = 0,4484

0,6404-0,4484 = 0,192

The heliocentric scenario :

100 000/385 000 = 0,259740259 --- (ctg)0,259740259 = 14,5602
100 000/380 000 = 0,263157894 --- (ctg)0,263157894 = 14,7435

14,7435-14,5602 = 0,183

96 500/385 000 = after the same procedure as above we get 14,0712 degrees
96 500/380 000 = after same procedure as above we get 14,2489 degrees

14,2489-14,0712 = 0,177 which makes even greater difference between geocentric (0,192 ) scenario and heliocentric scenario...

So, there is the difference, though not as big as i expected to be due to one erroneous geometrical presumption...

However, there is no need for conducting such experiments because all we need is one fixed platform (represented with white sheet of paper in my video above (reuploaded on that guy's channel)) on the earth. But, as soon as we provided one fixed (in absolute terms) platform your wet dreams are going to vanish into thin air, and that happens every day countless times on every airport in the world, since no plane could fly without usage of functioning directional gyro!!! Throw your stupid hopes in the garbage right away, since you should have done this long ago...

And please don't ever say something ridiculous like this, again :

And see, me being rational and actually caring about the truth means I am not going to accept BS just because the conclusion is true. I actually care about the justification, as the sole distinction between knowledge and belief is justification.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2020, 02:35:00 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JJA

  • 6869
  • Math is math!
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #202 on: August 02, 2020, 04:47:24 AM »
Even refined version of my old ZIGZAG argument is valid
We have been over your zigzag nonsense countless times.
It is an argument against a near sun, nothing more.
The angles will be the same regardless of if Earth is moving with the sun stationary, the sun moving with Earth stationary, or both moving at different rates.

cos 66,6 * 6400 = 2541*2*3,14= 15962/24 = 665 km/h (the speed of the observer at the Arctic circle)

You need to define your numbers.

3.14 is pi.

What is 6400?

What is 6.66?

What is 2541?

Please post again but define all the numbers you use.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #203 on: August 02, 2020, 12:54:14 PM »
Mass of the Sun is 1.989 × 1030 kg
Mass of the Earth is 5.972 × 1024 kg
If the distance between Earth and Sun is 1 AU = 149,597,870.7 km, then

How far would be Sun-Earth barycenter from the center of the Sun?
(Where exactly is it?)


HINT:

(from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barycenter)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #204 on: August 02, 2020, 01:24:21 PM »
R(1) is less than the solar radius. In other words it actually lies well within the solar interior.

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #205 on: August 02, 2020, 02:56:06 PM »
Now, the math for the geocentric scenario :
Again, we have been over this all before.
The math ends up the same.
The difference in the ANGULAR velocity is the same.
And that angular velocity is what is observed.
Remember, the observer on Earth is not simply moving sideways, they are rotating.


And I didn't tell you to spam your same refuted nonsense.
I told you to show the problem with the math I provided, which clearly shows the angles are the same.
Remember this:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=70921.msg1917997#msg1917997
Where I clearly went through the math showing how the angular velocities work out to be identical regardless of which is in motion? Where I demonstrated beyond any doubt that you cannot use a simple visual observation like this to determine which is moving?
The math you have repeatedly refused to address because you know there is no fault with it and it shows beyond any doubt that you are wrong?

Can you show any actual problem with that math?
If not, you argument is still pure nonsense.

Now, the math for the geocentric scenario :
Farther observer (on the opposite side of the Arctic circle) : 3639+665 = 4304 km/h
Closer observer moves wrt the Moon : 3639-665 = 2974 km/h
Why are you adding and subtracting speeds here?
For the GC model you are having Earth stationary.
For the GC model there is just one speed of the moon.

For some actual numbers with justification/explanation:
Taking Earth (in reality, it would be the sky in your GC fantasy) to rotate once every 24 hours (1 day) and the Moon to orbit at a distance of 400 000 km once every 28 days (or in your fantasy, still at 400 000 km but now it will do it 27 times in 28 days.
Also note that the moon orbits Earth in the same direction that Earth rotates. This means the angular motion due to the orbit of the moon is in the opposite direction to the angular motion due to the rotation of Earth.
Taking the Arctic circle to be at a radial distance of 2534 km.
This means the linear speed of Earth at this point is ~184 m/s or 663 km/hr.

The linear speed of the Moon in the model with Earth rotating is ~1039 m/s or 3740 km/hr
For the model in which Earth is magically held stationary and instead the moon circles Earth 27 times in 28 days we have an orbital period of 28*86400/27=89600, giving us linear velocity of ~28050m/s or 100 980 km/hr.

Now what angles would we expect.

For the simple GC model, where all the apparent motion is due to the moon, and notice there is no magical subtraction of velocities here, as Earth is stationary in this fantasy.

The 2 distances that we care about are the point when the Moon is closest to the observer at 400 000 - 2534 km =  397,466 km; and the one where it is the furthest at 400 000 + 2534 =  402,534 km.
Approximating the Moon's motion as a straight line, that means after 1 second the moon has moved 28050 m or 28.050 km.
For the near observer that amounts to an angle of  14.56 arc seconds.
For the far observer it amounts to  14.37 arc seconds.
This gives us a difference of 0.18 arc seconds.

Now the more complex and closer to reality model with a rotating Earth:
Now, we need to remember that we aren't just dealing with linear motion. Instead we are dealing with rotation.
Both observers are initially looking towards the moon (or are zero point is anyway).
But after the 1 second of rotation of Earth, this puts them looking 15 arc seconds rotated, which when projected to the moon places it (again, assuming a simple straight line) places it 29.089 km away from where the moon was.
Now adding in the real motion of the moon of 1.039 km, we end up with a change in position from our new rotated reference of 28.050 km.
This should seem familiar, it is the exact same as the GC fantasy.
This means the angular change in exactly the same.
For the near observer that amounts to an angle of  14.56 arc seconds.
For the far observer it amounts to  14.37 arc seconds.
This gives us a difference of 0.18 arc seconds.

So just like already shown countless times, the difference in angular velocity for the 2 positions is the same, regardless of if Earth rotates with the moon orbiting or if Earth is stationary with the moon circling much faster.

You cannot tell which is moving by such a simple visual observation.

However, there is no need for conducting such experiments because all we need is one fixed platform
You are right that there is no need for conducting such experiments, as no simple visual experiment can tell which is moving.

Instead now you are appealing to a "fixed platform",

But, as soon as we provided one fixed (in absolute terms) platform
Fat chance getting one of them. Regardless, that is an entirely separate argument.
Does this mean you accept your ZigZag argument is garabge?

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #206 on: August 03, 2020, 03:15:46 AM »
Now, the math for the geocentric scenario :
Farther observer (on the opposite side of the Arctic circle) : 3639+665 = 4304 km/h
Closer observer moves wrt the Moon : 3639-665 = 2974 km/h
Why are you adding and subtracting speeds here?
For the GC model you are having Earth stationary.
For the GC model there is just one speed of the moon.

It is actually heliocentric scenario, i designated it as "geocentric" scenario by mistake...

Now, the math for the geocentric scenario :
Again, we have been over this all before.
The math ends up the same.

My math is correct, and you can't point to any mathematical or geometrical mistake that i did in the procedure above...

But, as soon as we provided one fixed (in absolute terms) platform
Fat chance getting one of them. Regardless, that is an entirely separate argument.

Fat chance, indeed, however, since you meant it ironically it only proves how despicable liar you really are.
Nevertheless, it would be very funny to see how you use einsteinian idiotic theory to prove that scientists in 21st century are not able to provide one fixed (in absolute terms) platform on the "rotating" earth...
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #207 on: August 03, 2020, 04:07:14 AM »
It is actually heliocentric scenario, i designated it as "geocentric" scenario by mistake...
Right, so where you just completely ignore the effects of ROTATION and instead pretend that the only thing that happens in the rotating Earth scenario is that the people move sideways.

My math is correct, and you can't point to any mathematical or geometrical mistake that i did in the procedure above...
Except that I already have. You are pretending that rotation is just translation.
Meanwhile, you have been completely unable to show a single fault with my math, both the general case showing clearly that the angles will be the same, nor the specific example above.
In fact it is so devastating to your position that you are forced to outright ignore it as you can't find any excuse to attack it.

But if you would like some more, you have the radius of the Arctic circle as 2541 km.
So the diameter is 5082.
But then the difference in distance is only 5000 km. What happened to the other 82?
You have the GC speed of the moon completely ignore the speed due to the orbit of the moon around Earth.

You have rounding errors which continue throughout your calculation, making your final values useless for anything more than a very superficial comparison where your 0.19 is basically the same as 0.18.

You also ignore units and just give your answer as 0.192. 0.192 what? degrees, radians, arc seconds?

You use (ctg), which most people would assume means cotangent, yet you use the arc-tangent function, aka inverse tan.

You then use a completely ridiculous "linear" approximation, where you have the moon move 100 000 km or roughly 15 degrees.
And during this time the people are also moving 15 degrees.

An arc length at your distance to the moon that spans 15 degrees is ~100,138 km.
A tangent that spans those same 15 degrees is ~102,490.57 km.
If you want to go for 1 hour, and cover such a large distance, you can't just treat it as linear motion.

If you instead just focus on 1 second, the difference you end up with (using your initial numbers) is 19.206 arc seconds for both.

Now, going to stop treating rotation and orbits a linear motion and instead accept it as angular motion?
Going to actually try addressing the math I have provided, either here or in the other thread?

If not, your zigzag garbage remains refuted, just like all your other nonsense.

it only proves how despicable liar you really are.
Wrong again, you trying to change topic and avoiding the math I provided shows how despicable a liar you are.

Edit: This is also a big give away. You treat the moon as having an angular velocity of 15 degrees per hour at the centre of the Arctic circle.
But that would mean that the people closer to it at the edge of the Arctic circle would need it to be going FASTER than 15 degrees per hour.
Instead you only have it at 14.75 degrees.
So your numbers are quite clearly pure nonsense.
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 04:30:43 AM by JackBlack »

*

cikljamas

  • 2432
  • Ex nihilo nihil fit
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #208 on: August 03, 2020, 05:42:18 AM »
Jack, your whole career as NASA shill is one big bullshit :

The Average Motion of the Moon
      The Moon moves around the Earth in an approximately circular orbit, going once around us in approximately 27.3 days, or one sidereal period of revolution. As it does this its position changes, relative to the stars.
      Since there are 360 degrees in a circle, the Moon moves (on the average) 360 / 27.3 or 13.2 degrees per day relative to the stars, which is just over half a degree per hour, and approximately equal to its apparent size.

CASE 1 (HC scenario) :

Quote
cos 66,6 * 6400 = 2541*2*3,14= 15962/24 = 665 km/h (the speed of the observer at the Arctic circle)
382500*2*3,14 = 2 402 100 circumference of Moon's orbit
2 402 100/24 = 100 075 (Geocentric speed of the Moon (roughly-if we subtracted few thousand km/h due to Moons real motion in CCW direction, there would be even greater difference))
2 402 100/27,5/24 = 3639 km/h (Heliocentric speed of the Moon)

Now, the math for the HELIOCENTRIC scenario :

Farther observer (on the opposite side of the Arctic circle) : 3639+665 = 4304 km/h
Closer observer moves wrt the Moon : 3639-665 = 2974 km/h

4304/385000 = 0,01117922 --- (ctg)0,01117922 = 0,6404
2974/380000 = 0,00782631 ----(ctg)0,00782631 = 0,4484

0,6404-0,4484 = 0,192

0,192 / 2 = 0,096

0,6404 -  0,096 = 0,5444
0,4484 + 0,096 = 0,5444

15 degrees - 0,544 = 14,456
14,456*24 = 346,944 which is very, very close to 13,2 degrees less than 360 degrees (Moon's average motion relative to the stars).

CONCLUSION : Calculated HC difference 0,6404-0,4484 = 0,192 [/b][/size][/quote] is quite correct!!!

CASE 2 (GC scenario) :

Quote
The GEOCENTRIC scenario :

100 000/385 000 = 0,259740259 --- (ctg)0,259740259 = 14,5602
100 000/380 000 = 0,263157894 --- (ctg)0,263157894 = 14,7435

14,7435-14,5602 = 0,183

96 500/385 000 = after the same procedure as above we get 14,0712 degrees
96 500/380 000 = after same procedure as above we get 14,2489 degrees

14,2489-14,0712 = 0,177 which makes even greater difference between geocentric (0,192 ) scenario and heliocentric scenario...

We are looking for the difference which is somewhere in between 0,183 and 0,177 :

98600/385000 = 0,256103896 --- (ctg) 0,256103896 = 14,36
98600/380000 = 0,259473684 --- (ctg) 0,259473684 = 14,54

14,54-14,36 = 0,18
0,18/2= 0,09

14,36 + 0,09 = 14,45
14,54 - 0,09 = 14,45

14,45 * 24 = 346,8 (exact match : 13,2 degrees less than 360 degrees (Moon's average motion relative to the stars)

So, you say there is no way to provide a fixed platform on a rotating earth? LOL
How about providing one very big fixed platform 12800 km in diameter?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2020, 05:44:41 AM by cikljamas »
"I can't breathe" George Floyd RIP

*

JackBlack

  • 21558
Re: Where exactly is it?
« Reply #209 on: August 03, 2020, 03:16:57 PM »
The Average Motion of the Moon
Repeating the same refuted garbage will not help your case.

Your math is wrong.
You are completely ignoring how it turns by 15 degrees, making it so you cannot just pretend it is linear motion.
Treating it as linear motion results in a very significant error.

This is what you should be comparing (Just one image as you just need to rotate the image to get the second one, further proving that they produce identical results, and obviously not to scale):


But this is what you are actually comparing (2 images now as they are fundamentally different):
vs


These are fundamentally different situations, so it isn't surprising that they produce different results.
Again, angular motion and linear motion are different. Do you understand that?

Ignoring the math I provided which clearly refute your garbage, and continually trying to change topic just shows how dishonest you are and how pathetic your position is.

Why not calculate the difference in angle expected for 1 second?
See if you can.
If it actually was a difference due to the different motion, it would still be present, even after just 1 second, with the same ratio.
But if it was just due to you irrationally treating rotational motion as linear motion, the ratio would change.