What would change your mind?

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:12:26 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 28, 2020, 02:25:49 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 28, 2020, 01:31:10 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 28, 2020, 01:06:48 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 28, 2020, 01:00:57 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 27, 2020, 03:18:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 11:53:21 PM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 26, 2020, 01:15:43 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 26, 2020, 12:08:19 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley

Find someone else to answer that question. I have a method to show you, if you want to hear about it fine, drop all the other conditions and let's just stick to this method. You say you want simple and then you insist on trying to complicate everything.

Come on, get on with it will you!

Ok then let's get on with it. Bit by bit. one small piece at a time with explanations of how and why, before we even try to move on.
Off you go then.

OK, so I think (difficult to be sure) that you are fine with step 1 - two people taking simultaneous photos of the moon. You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Step 2.

First part is to figure out the linear size of a pixel on the camera's sensor. The specs for some cameras quote that figure directly, but if not, take the physical width of the sensor (usually given in mm) and divide by the number of horizontal pixels. Since this number is a fraction of a mm, you can convert to µm if you want as the numbers are more convenient.

Second part of this is to work out the angle represented by one pixel. This depends on how much you are zoomed in. The more you are zoomed in, the smaller this is.

The calculation is pixel size / focal length of lens. The result is in radians, so either keep it in radians or convert to degrees, or since the numbers are very small, convert to arcminutes or arcseconds for convenience. The units for pixel size and focal length have to match so either use mm for both or µm for both.

That's step 2. OK with this or do you have questions? Please let's keep this on track so questions should be about the method and not diving off into some other topic entirely.

Ok, so just to be clear about this camera and pixel stuff, before we go any further....how much...in size... do the pixels change from your standpoint to, say.....10 miles away full zoom?


Once you answer that can you then equate that to 240,000 miles away zoom, as your moon apparently is....or am I not getting this?

Not sure I entirely understand the question, but I'll have a go at explaining this a bit more, see if it helps.

This example image shows the moon taken with a zoom lens at 400mm, 500mm and 1000mm settings.



The image is 440px wide and let's assume that's not been cropped, so is the whole width of the sensor. It's a real low res camera in this example. Let's assume the sensor is a DX format, so say 24mm wide.

Each pixel is therefore 24/440 mm wide (approx 0.066mm). That pixel size is fixed. It can't change no matter what zoom setting you use. It's a physical pixel on the sensor.

What does change as you zoom is the angular size of each pixel. That is to say the amount of sky each pixel captures. Zoom in and you are capturing a smaller part of the sky, i.e. more detail, with each pixel. To calculate that value, divide pixel size by focal length. So for example for the 400mm zoom, that's 0.066/400 = 0.000136364 radians or 0.007813061 degrees. Do the same calculation for the others and you get 0.006250449 (500mm zoom) and 0.003125224 (1000mm zoom).

Notice how the angular pixel size has gone down from roughly 0.007, to 0.006 to 0.003 as the focal length has increased.

Now we can use these to work out the angular width of the moon. Just multiply the angular size of a pixel by the number of pixels.

At 400mm, that's 0.007813061 x 65 = 0.508 degrees.
At 500mm, that's 0.006250449 x 81 = 0.506 degrees.
At 1000mm, that's 0.003125224 x 160 = 0.500 degrees.

There's a little bit of variation because the image is very low res so the pixel widths aren't that accurate, but the point is, it's saying the moon is 1/2 degree wide no matter whether it's zoomed in or zoomed out. Which is correct.

Once we've done this pixel size calculation, if we know the focal length we're using we can convert pixel distances on the image to angular distances. That's the point of this step.

Ok, so what is the width of the moon?

Ok as in ok with this step, no more questions on the method?

Honestly, why not try giving clear and simple unambiguous answers. All I need to know at each stage is, are you clear about the method so far or do I need to explain further.

The moon is approximately 1/2 degree wide.

Ok, carry on.

Step 3:

Take the two photos. Use some photo editing software, such as PhotoShop. Overlay the images. Slide and rotate the two moon images until they sit on top of each other with all the features (craters etc.) lining up.

Remember that both images also include at least one nearby bright star (let's call this our reference star).

The reference star will appear to have shifted position, so the merged image will contain two images of the reference star. In fact all the stars in the image will all appear to have shifted by the same amount in the same direction.

Since we know the stars haven't moved, we conclude the moon must have (or at least appeared to).

How much did the moon appear to shift between the two images? Well if we measure the distance (in pixels) between the two different positions of the reference star, then that must be how much the moon has shifted.

Think of it this way. Put a chair next to a table in an otherwise featureless room. Take a photo, centred on the chair. Move the chair away from the table. Take another photo, again centred on the chair. The two photos suggest the table has been moved, but we know it's the other way around. By measuring the amount the table appeared to move, we then know how much the chair actually moved.

We now know by how many pixels the moon apparently shifted. Since we also have a method to convert pixel distance to angular distance, we can now calculate the angle the moon has shifted by.

That's step 3. OK with this step?

NB: to avoid me having to ask you to clarify your answer to this, if/when you are OK with this step, how about you just say "Yes, I'm OK with this step" or something very similar. Obviously if you have questions, go ahead and ask.

Not really ok, no.
What would happen if the point of light ( your star) in your picture, near your moon is very close to your moon and looking like it does to you, rather than what you're told in terms of light years away?

How does this marry up with pixels?

It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.

Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.

We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.

If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.

If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.

A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.

Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.

Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?

Quote

What would happen if the point of light ( your star) in your picture, near your moon is very close to your moon and looking like it does to you, rather than what you're told in terms of light years away?

Based on what we know about how the size of an object varies (gets smaller) with increasing distance from the observer, Scepti how would you evidence that a star is not 'as we are told' lightyears away but actually quite close by?  A point source of light could be very small and near.  Equally it could be massive and very distant. So distant that we cannot see any physical shape. After all as long as its path is not obstructed, light can travel an infinite distance. How can you tell which is right?  Just by using your eyes of course.

I can't. I have absolutely no clue about the distance or size of those reflections/points of light. I can only guess they are close and reflecting off the dome from the central part of Earth.
I can't prove this but then again I'm not stating anything as fact. You people are...so prove it.
I'd really love to know what Earth is in its entirety but all I have is best guessing based on what I observe and small experiments.
You people have very little in terms of Earth and your so called universe. It's all pseudo science,

What Robin says about RA and Dec is completely correct.  I could describe the altitude and azimuth of a nova that has just been discovered as seen from my location but that would be time and location specific. The altitude and azimuth will continuously change as it moves across the sky. However by referencing the RA and Dec of the nova, any other astronomer who can see that part of the sky would know immediately where to aim their telescope. The RA and Dec of the nova will not change over time.  I can image a region of sky using my CCD camera and then overlay the RA and Dec lines on the image (Using a combo of plate solving and PixInsight).  I can also label the known stars within the FOV so it is easy to locate the nova as the unlabelled star.  I can post an example image if anyone is interested.

What we need to confirm the distance of a star is two independent ways of measuring its distance. Two common ways are variations in its position relative to other stars (parallax) and variations in brightness. Cepheid variables for example. Once we have identified the distance of a particular cepheid we can use that as a control or calibration star and from that we can work out the distance to any other cepheid.

It is only relatively recently (mid-19th century) that we have been able to measure the very small stellar parallax angles involved and then by using the Earths orbit as a baseline we can work out the distance of the star using simple math.

In Robins experiment he had two observers located at the same latitude. Consider a situation where you had two observers at different latitudes but on the same longitude line.  One is at 30N while the other is at 30S.  Both would see the Moon high up in the sky.  The one at 30N would see the Moon slightly to the south of overhead while the one at 30S would see the Moon slightly to the north of overhead.  Both are in direct communication and both are observing the Moon.  They see the same star close to the Moon but both measure a different separation between the edge of the Moon and the star.

By using reticle eyepieces both are able to measure the difference in the angular separation and hence they are also able to measure the distance of the Moon.

The distances are made up. Unless someone proves it's not then it's nonsense.
And no, you have not proved a thing and you know it.

You didn't really address anything which is not surprising. Do you really mean this when you say, "So no matter what the outcome, if it doesn't match what you think is right, you would never accept it anyway."?

I've told you my position. If you can show me facts I'll accept them. If you tell me facts based on your belief of them being facts, without any proof, then you are not showing me facts, you are showing me what you believe are the facts.
See what I mean?

Instead of looking down a tube at height, here's to looking down a box at height - High above Santa Barbara, CA. Same outcome, horizon does not rise to eye level. Sorry, that's just the cold hard truth. Even though we know you've already stated you would not accept the truth if it doesn't conform to your beliefs.



This is actually more exacting than your experiment because of the real time leveling shown on the tubes of liquid fore and aft of the box and perspective lines. Pretty much combines all experimental elements into one result.

No it does not. This is a clear con job and you know it. It baffles me as to why you want to go along with this.
It's so easy to raise or lower that camera and you know this.
The horizon is there in front of you and it is at eye level.

Put a level on the actual camera and a crosshair and you will see a different result.
This picture reeks of a con job....reeks of it.
 

Too bad you have no interest in the truth.

I have massive interest in the truth. I just have no interest in being told something as a truth, which cannot be shown/proven, or is hidden by a cloak/security.
I could question you with this stuff you're showing.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:22:17 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 28, 2020, 11:38:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 28, 2020, 01:29:25 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 27, 2020, 10:42:31 PM

Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)

Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice.   

Give me what I need to change my global mind.

We will both sit  next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.

Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.

It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.

When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.

Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?

Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! 

Horizon is a good starting point. HORIZON.
Thanks.

Only too happy to oblige, sceptimatic. Show me how the horizon proves earth is flat, after I've just demonstrated how easily it can also be proof it is a small segment of a giant sphere.

Take your time. No need to rush.....

I've already given you plenty to go on. It's all there for you and costs next to nothing to check it out.
You are showing me nothing.

I can't. I have absolutely no clue about the distance or size of those reflections/points of light. I can only guess they are close and reflecting off the dome from the central part of Earth.

So what you are basically saying then is that you refuse to accept the tried and re-tested methods that modern astronomy uses to measure the distances of the stars but you can't prove they are wrong. You refuse to read any books that might help you to understand more about what you refuse to accept because you are convinced they are all full of lies. So ultimately you live your life in a state of total denial and accept only what you believe in  as true yet you cannot prove any of it to anyone other than yourself.

Whatever makes you happy.

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2020, 03:17:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:02:26 AM

Go and do it for yourself.

Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.

It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

Can you share the picture?

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 29, 2020, 03:45:45 AM

It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.

Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.

We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.

If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.

If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.

A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.

Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.

Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?

The great thing about this method is that it doesn't matter what the stars are, what they are made of, how they work. All that matters is how they behave to the observer, i.e. they stay in fixed positions no matter where the observers are or how far apart they are. One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star. The stars make up a fixed background which can be used as a reference to investigate anything in the night sky which isn't fixed.

However if the first observer were to point instead to a specific crater on the moon, read off the RA/Dec coordinates and pass them to the second observer, they would then find that the crater was not in that position. It apparently shifts. You can buy accessories for telescopes which allow you to measure angular distances, so you could measure the shift this way, but all this requires expensive specialist equipment. I'm instead showing you how you can achieve the same result using ordinary consumer grade digital cameras instead.

So are we OK with step 3 now?

One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star.

This applies equally to anything in the sky. I recently received a gift where I could 'name a star'. Now I know it is only a novelty but I chose to name a star after my mother and soon afterwards I received a certificate with the brightness RA and Dec.  I used this information to point my telescope to where the star was and took a 5 minute image of the area.  I was then able to identify the 10.3 magnitude star (in among all the others) which was now 'named' after my mother.

With a correctly aligned telescope you can find anything in the sky you choose simply from the RA and Dec.  Some objects like planets, asteroids, comets and even NEOs move relative to the stars but as long as you know the RA and Dec for the time you are observing, you can find them.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 12:56:01 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2020, 03:17:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:02:26 AM

Go and do it for yourself.

Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.

It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

Can you share the picture?

Presumably something like this?

It certainly does not prove me wrong.

Yes it does, as all the photos provided clearly show.
Those photos which you just dismiss as cheating.

I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height.

You have shown you are willing to repeatedly lie. Why should I accept this baseless assertion of yours, when you have nothing to back it up, not even a simple photo of it?
But how about some details, like I had repeatedly asked you for other things.
What was your margin of error/uncertainty?
How high were you?
What did you use to determine level?
Did you even bother checking if this uncertainty meant that the RE with the horizon below eye level was consistent with your observation?

If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

You mean what you repeatedly lie about?
Again, all the available evidence shows you are wrong. It shows the horizon is below eye level. No amount of lies or dismissal will change that fact.

You will need some solid evidence to show otherwise.

This is a clear con job and you know it.

No, its not. There is not a single hint of any deception in that photo, just in your pathetic dismissal.

It's so easy to raise or lower that camera and you know this.

Which in no way affects the result.

Remember you claim it is about the convergence point.

If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?

The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.

No need for any level on the camera or cross hair.
That would just introduce more error, with the error in alignment of the cross hair, and just where you place the level on the camera to ensure the image taken is actually taken level.

So no, you reek of being a con job, not the picture.

I have massive interest in the truth.

Then why do you continue to repeat the same lies?
Why don't you admit you are wrong?
Why do you say that you will refuse to ever accept anything about the horizon that you don't already "know".
Why don't you address the multitude of issues.

Remember, some are based upon pure logical reasoning without any need for evidence to come into it.
It isn't a case of the evidence supporting you or not, but instead of spouting pure nonsesne which makes no sense at all and is trivial to show is pure BS.
For example, your claim that a round Earth would magically be invisible with you only ever seeing sky, until that was shown to be pure garbage with you finally admitting that you would see Earth if you look straight down at it, but you continually refusing to explain just what it would look like as you raise your head to go from looking straight down seeing nothing but Earth to looking straight up seeing nothing but sky.
All because you likely know that the only honest, rational thing to say is that there will be a transition, a line below which there is ground/sea and above which there is sky, i.e. the horizon, the very thing you claim can't exist for a RE.

That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 29, 2020, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:22:17 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 28, 2020, 11:38:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 28, 2020, 01:29:25 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 27, 2020, 10:42:31 PM

Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)

Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice.   

Give me what I need to change my global mind.

We will both sit  next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.

Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.

It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.

When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.

Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?

Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! 

Horizon is a good starting point. HORIZON.
Thanks.

Only too happy to oblige, sceptimatic. Show me how the horizon proves earth is flat, after I've just demonstrated how easily it can also be proof it is a small segment of a giant sphere.

Take your time. No need to rush.....

I've already given you plenty to go on. It's all there for you and costs next to nothing to check it out.
You are showing me nothing.

I have shown you something which you choose to ignore. It is you who have shown me nothing but a bathtub of water with your little rubber duckies floating around.

Nothing to change my mind, here. You failed.

Poor sceptitank.

I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.

Think 500ft above the water level will be enough?  Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.

Quote from: Stash on October 29, 2020, 01:06:09 PM

I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.

Think 500ft above the water level will be enough?  Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.

500 would do it. The box in the photo was 700+.

The distances are made up. Unless someone proves it's not then it's nonsense.

The distances are not made up.  They are measured and so that in itself is proof. Maybe not to you but then the rules of what represents proof are different for you compared to everybody else.  Proof to you is defined by whether you believe it or not.  It happens every single time someone presents any real evidence that suggests what you believe is wrong.  You just dismiss it outright.  Not exactly the attitude of a 'scientist' is it.. flat Earth or not. Real 'proof' is independent of belief.  Kepler didn't like to think of the planetary orbits as being anything else but perfectly circular because he preferred to believe they were. But Tychos observations (the most accurate available at the time) showed him that they weren't. So he accepted that.

In order for anyone to prove anything to you there must first be at least one element which both parties (you v everyone else) agrees on.  Since we cannot establish that common ground because you are dictating your own rules about what is proof then it follows that no one can prove anything to you. That is the real 'nonsense'. It is also a clear sign that you realise (really) that you are wrong. Why else would you feel the need to set up conditions for what we are allowed or not allowed to set out as proof or evidence? You don't 'tailor fit' evidence or proof to suit your beliefs.  Proof is proof whether you like it or not. 

In a nutshell I am not going to continue in a debate where one person thinks they can dictate or lay down the rules about what represents proof or evidence or not. Especially when those rules are clearly designed to suit their beliefs as in your case.

The fact is I don't really care what you believe or don't believe.  I will carry on telling you what I know is real and true whether you accept that or not.  This is just a bit of fun as far as I'm concerned so say what you like in response to this.

Quote from: Stash on October 29, 2020, 01:06:09 PM

I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.

Think 500ft above the water level will be enough?  Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.

500 ft should give you an angle of roughly 0.4 degrees, similar in size to the sun or moon. So that should be good enough, at least if you don't use a wide angle lens or the like.

Quote from: Stash on October 29, 2020, 01:06:09 PM

I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.

Think 500ft above the water level will be enough?  Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.

Do the experiment, if you like, for yourself. Don't do it for sceptimatic. He'll find a way to shit all over your experiment, and you know it.

Quote from: JJA on October 30, 2020, 01:55:08 PM

Quote from: Stash on October 29, 2020, 01:06:09 PM

I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.

Think 500ft above the water level will be enough?  Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.

Do the experiment, if you like, for yourself. Don't do it for sceptimatic. He'll find a way to shit all over your experiment, and you know it.

Of course it will be for myself.  I don't expect any true believers or people who don't have the ability to understand or fell too far down the rabbit hole to ever see reason again, if they ever did.

It will be for others too, those that are curious or confused. 

But mostly because it's fun.

For science!

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

He will likely claim the tube is pointing up.

Quote from: Stash on October 31, 2020, 02:13:01 PM

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

He will likely claim the tube is pointing up.

Yeah, I can see that. But at the end of the day, the tube was mounted on a spirit level and leveled. So he can say that it wasn't and I will assure him that it was level. And it doesn't really matter whether he believes it or not. He never will no matter what is presented anyway. The point is anyone can do it and everyone here can clearly see he is flat out wrong.

Quote from: Stash on October 31, 2020, 02:13:01 PM

Here's another experiment a friend of mine did. And it just so happens to be exactly the set up I think Scepti was describing; a leveled tube. And no, it was not "faked" or whatever. It really just is what it is. No trickery involved.
As one can plainly see, the horizon is clearly below eye-level and even the setting sun is shining from below toward the upper part of the tube. I'm not even sure how one could "fake" that bit. I don't think it gets any more crystal clear than this - The horizon does NOT always rise to meet eye-level:

He will likely claim the tube is pointing up.

Nah. He will just say the anti-hyperbolic-spheroidal-quantized-megaprotonic-waveforms in the spirit bubble were not properly embiggened first.

I do like the water-level tubes (Communicating vessels) better, they self level and are easier to use, but harder to construct.  But this is a good test too, and easy to perform.

When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Hence, sceptimatic has decked out.

You can't play ball with a frisbee, can you sceptimatic? Better luck on your other flat earth forums. 

Quote

I can't. I have absolutely no clue about the distance or size of those reflections/points of light. I can only guess they are close and reflecting off the dome from the central part of Earth.

So what you are basically saying then is that you refuse to accept the tried and re-tested methods that modern astronomy uses to measure the distances of the stars but you can't prove they are wrong.

No. I'm saying I refuse to believe something that is supposedly tried and tested but is not shown as any proof. You absolutely know this so why are you using it as an argument?

 You refuse to read any books that might help you to understand more about what you refuse to accept because you are convinced they are all full of lies.

I've read many books and the reason I question stuff is because of those books, along with severe indoctrination from, almost cradle to present day.
It's about trying to sort the wheat from the chaff. Not an easy task.

 So ultimately you live your life in a state of total denial and accept only what you believe in  as true yet you cannot prove any of it to anyone other than yourself.

No. I live my life in a way that most people do and in between I question a lot of stuff in life just as much as I accept a lot of stuff, in life.
As simple as that.
You are trying to build a picture of me with scattered pieces from your mind and hammering those pieces into what you think is a good pattern.
Carry on but don't expend too much energy trying to psychologically profile me.

Whatever makes you happy.

Lot's of stuff make me happy and plenty does not. That's most likely the same for all, just in different contexts.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 01:03:07 AM

Quote from: robinofloxley on October 29, 2020, 03:45:45 AM

It's a fair question. If the star was close then it too would apparently move position. If the star was the same distance as the moon, then it would move with it and the relative distance between the two would not change. Since stars are sometimes occulted by the moon (i.e. the moon passes in front of a star) rather than the other way around, we at least know that the stars are further away than the moon.

Now consider two observers at the same latitude. We know that Polaris is less than a degree from due north and that doesn't vary no matter where you observe it from. Similarly for our two observers at the same latitude, Polaris is always the same altitude. What this means is that for these two observers, Polaris is completely fixed in place, no matter how far apart the observers are.

We can then determine the positions of all the other stars relative to Polaris and we find these relative positions are also fixed. The positions of all these fixed objects in the sky are given coordinates analogous to latitude and longitude. These are right ascension (RA) and declination (DEC). You can look these coordinates up in an atlas.

If you want to find some fixed object in the night sky, find an identifiable bright star nearby, point your telescope at it and then alter the telescope settings to match the known RA/DEC coordinates of your bright star. Then point the telescope to the RA/DEC coordinates of the object you are trying to find and if your telescope is properly set up, it should be right there in the viewfinder. This is how we find things in the night sky and demonstrates that the fixed objects are indeed fixed and don't change position no matter where the observer is.

If stars shifted their positions for different observers, then RA/DEC coordinates would vary for each observer and everyone would need their own personalised atlas.

A good way to imagine this is to pretend (note - this is pretend) that there is an invisible, absolutely huge sphere with the earth at the centre. All the stars are nailed to the inside of this sphere and it rotates around an axis once a day. The moon and planets move relative to this sphere, the stars do not.

Since we know the stars' positions are fixed for all observers, the stars provide a fixed background and therefore it has to be the moon whose apparent position has changed and not the star.

Ok....but.... aside from all what you've said, how can you be sure that your star is not a pointed light against your moon say....being only....something like....a few miles in diameter but magnified ?

The great thing about this method is that it doesn't matter what the stars are, what they are made of, how they work. All that matters is how they behave to the observer, i.e. they stay in fixed positions no matter where the observers are or how far apart they are. One observer can set up their telescope, point at the reference star, read off the RA/Dec settings, send them to the other observer and they can use these coordinates to point straight at the same star. The stars make up a fixed background which can be used as a reference to investigate anything in the night sky which isn't fixed.

However if the first observer were to point instead to a specific crater on the moon, read off the RA/Dec coordinates and pass them to the second observer, they would then find that the crater was not in that position. It apparently shifts. You can buy accessories for telescopes which allow you to measure angular distances, so you could measure the shift this way, but all this requires expensive specialist equipment. I'm instead showing you how you can achieve the same result using ordinary consumer grade digital cameras instead.

So are we OK with step 3 now?

How can your star be fixed if you're spinning on your globe at near to or over 1000mph, depending on your position...as we're told?

Quote from: rvlvr on October 30, 2020, 02:14:44 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 12:56:01 AM

Quote from: JackBlack on October 29, 2020, 03:17:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:02:26 AM

Go and do it for yourself.

Plenty of us have, or have done something similar, and it proves you are wrong.

It certainly does not prove me wrong. I've done it and it shows exactly what I expected it to show. A level horizon to the eye at any height. It cannot do anything else and this is the ultimate point.
If you do not want to admit to that then feel free. It has no bearing on what I know and you're only setting yourself back.

Can you share the picture?

Presumably something like this?

At first I started to trust you. How silly of me.

If you move up or down, all parallel lines still converge to that same point. Even if you change the angle, all the parallel lines still converge.
But what happens here?

The horizon is clearly not the convergence point.
Just like in plenty of others.
So no, the horizon is not at eye level.
That is all indicative of someone that doesn't give a damn about the truth at all.

Why have you put the convergence point to the left?
Do you actually know what I'm trying to tell you?

Most likely you do but choose to play this game, which is fair enough.

In red bold: I wonder who is not giving a damn about finding the truth. It certainly isn't me.

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 30, 2020, 01:24:23 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 29, 2020, 10:01:05 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 29, 2020, 01:22:17 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 28, 2020, 11:38:22 PM

Quote from: sceptimatic on October 28, 2020, 01:29:25 AM

Quote from: Smoke Machine on October 27, 2020, 10:42:31 PM

Sceptimatic, I'd like you to explain to me in dumbed down fashion, your method proving the earth is flat. Keep it really simple for me, like I know nothing. Imagine I'm a total idiot (which shouldn't be a problem for you)

Imagine you are standing beside me, at whatever destination you like, and I'll give you whatever tools you like. Now, you have to show me, step by step, how what you do, proves earth is flat. You can use the most recent technology available, or you can use the most basic tools, or no tools. Your choice.   

Give me what I need to change my global mind.

We will both sit  next to a bath full of water. We will put a floating board on that water along with a spirit level.
You can observe the level bubble being in the centre.

Also you can get yourself a football, place it in the bath water and pour some water on it and see if that water does not run off it into the bath.
What do you think?
Easy enough, even for you.

It is easy. But let's make it easier. How about we place the bathtub of water in an industrial freezer and freeze it. Then we won't have to worry about the floating board. We can just place the spirit level on straight on top. It will prove the water in the bathtub is level. I only wish you were on the level, Sceptimatic.

When you say football, I assume you mean "soccer ball", which is a spherical ball shape? Yes. Pour some water on the soccer ball or urinate on it, and watch the water go into the bathtub, proving the law of gravity continues to work just fine.

Nothing to prove the earth is flat from your experiments, though, scepti! I hope that isn't the best you can do?

Just for a bit of fun, we'll take the soccer ball and move the top edge in close to one of our eyes at eye level until it can't go any closer, and watch the curved edge flatten out. Another little experiment for you to remember the next time you look at the horizon, ey, Sceptimatic? Lol! 

Horizon is a good starting point. HORIZON.
Thanks.

Only too happy to oblige, sceptimatic. Show me how the horizon proves earth is flat, after I've just demonstrated how easily it can also be proof it is a small segment of a giant sphere.

Take your time. No need to rush.....

I've already given you plenty to go on. It's all there for you and costs next to nothing to check it out.
You are showing me nothing.

I have shown you something which you choose to ignore. It is you who have shown me nothing but a bathtub of water with your little rubber duckies floating around.

Nothing to change my mind, here. You failed.

Nahhhh, I haven't failed.
You are out of argument because this one thing. This one simple thing kills off your globe with absolutely no need to go farther.
However, the extras are just par for the course of battle between you people and those who have alternative thoughts against the indoctrinated global model.

Quote from: Stash on October 29, 2020, 01:06:09 PM

I'll have some time in a few weeks and will try this experiment.

Think 500ft above the water level will be enough?  Won't be as dramatic as this but should still show a clear elevation over the horizon.

Don't forget a few things.
A spirit level and a scope with a crosshair and bring your 100% honesty and let's see the outcome.
Oh...one more thing: You can use any elevation you want to.

Quote

The distances are made up. Unless someone proves it's not then it's nonsense.

The distances are not made up.  They are measured and so that in itself is proof. Maybe not to you but then the rules of what represents proof are different for you compared to everybody else.  Proof to you is defined by whether you believe it or not.  It happens every single time someone presents any real evidence that suggests what you believe is wrong.  You just dismiss it outright.  Not exactly the attitude of a 'scientist' is it.. flat Earth or not. Real 'proof' is independent of belief.  Kepler didn't like to think of the planetary orbits as being anything else but perfectly circular because he preferred to believe they were. But Tychos observations (the most accurate available at the time) showed him that they weren't. So he accepted that.

In order for anyone to prove anything to you there must first be at least one element which both parties (you v everyone else) agrees on.  Since we cannot establish that common ground because you are dictating your own rules about what is proof then it follows that no one can prove anything to you. That is the real 'nonsense'. It is also a clear sign that you realise (really) that you are wrong. Why else would you feel the need to set up conditions for what we are allowed or not allowed to set out as proof or evidence? You don't 'tailor fit' evidence or proof to suit your beliefs.  Proof is proof whether you like it or not. 

In a nutshell I am not going to continue in a debate where one person thinks they can dictate or lay down the rules about what represents proof or evidence or not. Especially when those rules are clearly designed to suit their beliefs as in your case.

The fact is I don't really care what you believe or don't believe.  I will carry on telling you what I know is real and true whether you accept that or not.  This is just a bit of fun as far as I'm concerned so say what you like in response to this.

If you tell me a tennis ball in the distance is actually 100 feet tall but only looks so small due to distance, I will want some proof.
So forgive me if I don't buy into light year stars and big rocky moons floating about in space vacuums at the sizes I'm told.

Unless of course you can leave me in no doubt as to the reality of what is said.
I've yet to be convinced.........and...........I know....I know...... I'm just too dumb to understand how it all works.