Theory : if earth is flat, the optics of the sun are not common sense geometry

Quote from: Stash on September 21, 2022, 04:37:08 PM

Where's Brazil?

This was a list of 32 countries that are under the equator. It didn't count those that kinda crossed the equator by a few miles.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 21, 2022, 03:36:58 PM

But somehow you equated the Amish with population percent? No, I was referring to the ability to contact the rest of the world! I chose the Amish for a reason. They are voluntarily non-technological.

So the 500,000,000 million people in the Southern Hemisphere with internet access are unable to contact the rest of the world and are voluntarily non-technological?

God, you're dense. The Amish are voluntarily non-technological. The southern hemisphere is cut off from the northern hemisphere by thousands of miles, and often have infrastructure problems. It's an analogy not a 1:1 comparison.

500 million people are sending cat pictures. Not looking at stars. Remember, the more urban you get, the less the stars are visible.
https://www.sciencebuddies.org/stem-activities/constellations-light-pollution
Africa, from what I'd seen, was grossly inequitable. You had fast food joints and big city. You also had wreckage and people drinking Coke in the street. And I imagine some of this 500 million is "you live in a city, so you can go to a library (assuming you have a permanent address)" not actual home ownership and further wealth involved to personally have a net hookup. We legit as people visiting South Africa got to watch little kids begging for sandwiches.

All of this is South Africa, where I visited. Quite a bit different from area to area. Unlike the Amish, they are involuntarily non-technological in much of the country. And much of the southern hemisphere. My point. Built up cities? Yeah they have some. But their countryside is a real wreck. In the US, even in rural areas, people can get internet. Not necessarily here.)

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 21, 2022, 03:36:58 PM

Quote

As of 2021, total number of Southern Hemisphere web access users: Approx. 515,943,342

You don't understand statistics. 284,056,658/800,000,000

Where did you get: 284,056,658?

Someone doesn't know how to subtract. On top of not understanding directions, you can't do basic math?
If 515,943,342 have internet, what about the ones that don't?


800,000,000 is "very few people"?

The US has 300 million people. The US cares about the US, but from my experience, everyone else looks down on the US. For an entire hemisphere to have the population of roughly three versions of the US is pathetic. Remember, Africa is one of the most populated areas on Earth, yet they cannot seem to scrape together even a billion between the southern hemisphere including three continents. Yes, it damned well is insignificant.  Btw, nearly the population of the US in the southern hemisphere is without any internet (and probably without electricity in some cases). Now, I like the Amish okay, we live near them. They're good folk. But they're not gonna be telling India about what Joe Biden is like for their community.

800,000,000 isn't statistically relevant? And what are you basing statistical relevance on?


I'm basing it on the fact that despite covering this landmass, they have neither population nor technology. Oh sure, you focus on the 5/8 that have power, running water, and internet. All of these people live in big cities. But the cities aren't that big geographically, and outside the cities, the slums I showed are outright civilized. Much of Africa is forest or plains.



Here's the takeaway:
1. People in the position to see stars are mostly not able (without a satellite hookup, and alot of patching through) to broadcast about it.
2. And those who can broadcast often can't even see the stars.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 21, 2022, 03:36:58 PM

But beyond that, none of you actually watched the video.

Because it's from the known crackpot and anti-semite, Eric Dubay. And I have seen the video before.

Right off the bat, he can't even address what was recently brought up to you that you can't address: How can someone looking at the Crux from the tip of South America be looking in a completely different direction from a person in S.Africa looking at the Crux and a person in New Zealand looking at the Crux?

You realize seafarers have been using the Crux forever to navigate just as we in the Northern Hemisphere rely on Polaris.

Having never seen Crux before, I cannot answer that. As I told you already. Here's what I can answer. There is no way in hell that the Earth moves, the sun moves, and all of these spiral around the galaxy, yet we are able to see all these constellations to be seen year after year after year, and for all this time, we have perfect star maps. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 21, 2022, 03:36:58 PM

So let's move on. Nvm all that, answer this question instead.

Parallax, distance, & 100's of millions of years.

Pure BS. So in order for us not to move on past groups of stars, they would have to trail along with us. 450,000 mph (btw, light speed is 6,70,200,000 mph). All these stars are trailing around Earth and the solar system, just so we can continue to see them and make handy little spherical maps of the stars too. At what point will you employ Occam's Razor full stop and say "Sidereal days, orbiting, rotating, precession, tilt, also circling the galaxy, with a large posse of stars moving nearby at all times, which along with Polaris, are somehow perfectly in position to be seen at all times. Then you have gravity magically suspend all of the southern hemisphere's land and water upside-down since there is no way the round Earth model gives up water facing sunny-side-up in the south. Bullshit. BULL SHIT! Do you wanna add some elephants dancing underneath? Hey, I have a unicorn horn to sell you too." Now, I don't necessarily have the way Earth looks 100% figured out, but I can for damned sure smell horseshit, having lived next to this sort of farm.

Oh and speaking of BS? How exactly do we have Mars rovers?

Quote

How long would it take a spacecraft to travel one light-year?

Well, this is an impossible question without knowing how fast your craft goes, so I will provide answers for various selected speeds:

    At lightspeed: one year
    At half of lightspeed: two years
    At the speed of lightning (return stroke): ~3 years
    At the speed Breakthrough Starshot ships claim they will travel: ~5 years
    At the speed of the fastest recorded manmade object ever (Helios 2, swinging by the sun): ~4269 years

4269 years to travel one light year. Mars is roughly 4 light years away. So ummm, yeah what exactly are we looking at pictures of, when we say we have pictures of rovers on Mars? And what about these people sent to visit Mars in 2020? The four SpaceX passengers? Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

We see clips of space travel, and so we think what we see is real. But even if I were to decide this number was wrong and divide it by 365, it would still require 44 years for a one way trip to Mars. That's not feasible for passengers. They would never make the trip back, and probably never make it there if they were adults.

What the fuck?
Brazil can't make your list why again?
Mars is not 4 light years away.
Almost 600,000,000 people, who have internet, are intentionally non technological?
Space is really really big.  Things are far away, study parallax. 
Are you ok?

This was a list of 32 countries that are under the equator. It didn't count those that kinda crossed the equator by a few miles.

So an intentionally dishonest list to leave out a large number of people?

If 515,943,342 have internet, what about the ones that don't?

What about them?
They don't magically make the ones who do non-existent.

The simple fact is there are plenty of people in the southern hemisphere, including plenty on each continent with the ability to take pictures of the stars and upload them to the internet.

Stop being wilfully ignorant to this massive problem for the FE, unless you are willing to admit you have no idea at all what the shape of Earth is an no reason at all to think it isn't round.

The US has 300 million people.

And China, with a similar area to the US, has a population of roughly 1.5 billion, 5 times that of the US.
So should we just say the people in the US aren't significant and we shouldn't trust any photos or the like that come from there?
Because that is the level of dishonest BS you are trying.

I'm basing it on the fact that despite covering this landmass, they have neither population nor technology.

They do have population, and they do have technology.
They may not have as much technology or as many people as elsewhere, but they still exist and there are enough of them to show the FE is wrong.
So why not be honest for once and admit you are basing it on the fact that the southern hemisphere destroys your FE fantasy so you need an excuse to dismiss them to pretend your fantasy works?

Here's the takeaway:

Here is the real takeaway, there are plenty of people that exist in the southern hemisphere, who either live there or have visited there, to observe the south celestial pole always due south, in Africa, South America, and Australia.
This is a massive problem for the FE that you are yet to address.

Having never seen Crux before, I cannot answer that.

Then why not be honest and admit that you have no explanation for how this works on a FE, and thus it is strong evidence that Earth isn't flat?

There is no way in hell that the Earth moves, the sun moves, and all of these spiral around the galaxy, yet we are able to see all these constellations to be seen year after year after year, and for all this time, we have perfect star maps.

That BS of yours was refuted in the last post. Why repeat the same refuted BS here?
Again, you are ignoring the distances involved.
If you wish to claim it should change, then do the math to show just how much it should change by.

At what point will you employ Occam's Razor full stop

At what point will you employ it and admit that the FE requires so much magical BS that it is insanity to think it is an accurate model of reality?
You intentionally misrepresenting a model to pretend it is more complicated than it is doesn't make it more complex.

there is no way the round Earth model gives up water facing sunny-side-up in the south. Bullshit.

You not liking gravity doesn't make it BS. It makes you wilfully ignorant.

Mars is roughly 4 light years away.

Where did you pull that BS from?
Proxima Centuri is roughly 4 light years away.
Mars varies in distance as it goes around the sun.
At its closest approach it is roughly 80 million km from Earth. At its furthest it is roughly 380 million km.
That is 21 light minutes at most. Not 4 light years.

even if I were to decide this number was wrong and divide it by 365, it would still require 44 years for a one way trip to Mars.

No need for you to decide. It is wrong, it is pure BS.
And dividing by 365 isn't enough.
365 would cut it down to a 4 light day journey roughly.
Divide that by 4 again, to cut it down to 11 years for a 1 light day journey, then by 24 bringing it to half a year for a 1 light hour journey, then you will be closer.


Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink (while other objects do)?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?

What the fuck?
Brazil can't make your list why again?
Mars is not 4 light years away.
Almost 600,000,000 people, who have internet, are intentionally non technological?
Space is really really big.  Things are far away, study parallax. 
Are you ok?

Brazil sucks, that's why.
https://byjus.com/question-answer/how-many-light-years-away-is-mars-from-earth/
You're right, it's not 4 light years away. It's 5 light years away. So uhhhhh, even being really charitable and divide the huge number by 365 banking on a math mistake, we get 11 years per light year. SpaceX explorers should expect to have to travel 55 years, and never see their loved ones again. Theoretically, you could almost put rovers on Mars in that amount of time, but it would be totally absurd to expect people to use that speed for travel without some sort of suspended animation. And it's also absurd to expect modern day electronics to run without failure for 55 years. My fan just burnt out today, after running 24/7 for a few months. A big expensive piece of equipment managing to get a rover to point B (Mars) for 55 years? Nah, something will fail. 

"Space is really really big"? That's your answer? Booooooo!!! And yes, parallax exists in flat Earth too. In fact, since the flat Earth can have two domes, we can literally see two night skies.
 

800,000,000 is "very few people"?

Only 500 million of which have a modern lifestyle where they can take a shot of stars (we are down by about 1/3, so that's 8% from 12%) and share it with me online, instead of sending it through the mail or something.
Then we have to have ideal light to take a shot of said stars. Not too dim or too bright, or we can't prove that southern hemisphere has stars at all. I would say 1 in 10 of the remaining population lives in just the right mix of urban and rural that they have access to good cameras/smartphones yet also have the right sky to take a good shot. So we're down to 50 million (0.8%) living in suburbs or at the edges of cities. And then of the remainder, how many of these are interested in proving this point?



Suddenly, I seem to have no accusers. Just you guys.

Then why not be honest and admit that you have no explanation for how this works on a FE, and thus it is strong evidence that Earth isn't flat?

But is it strong evidence?

Suppose I were to say, "In the deserts of Saudi Arabia, I have seen the sun set into a pool. Therefore this is proof that the sun is orbiting the Earth. And I won't accept any disproofs that do not personally go to Saudi Arabia to verify this."
Would that justify a trip to Saudi Arabia?

Or maybe, "I have seen the other side of the moon, but it can only be seen in the eastern hemisphere, and only around the 180 degree line."
Would I risk thousands of dollars in travel expenses when there is a very real risk that whoever is saying this just wants to be a troll? So back to this, we have about a 1/10 of the world who sees the southern sky. Do I care enough to dispute when 90% does not? No, I don't. You cannot force me to become interested in this "disproof."
You are asking me to make a 3,600 mile trip because I cannot be sure that such pictures are real without verifying them with my own eyes. Any more than I could be sure that traveling to the 180 degree line would get expected results. You could show me all the pictures you want, but for something like that, I would need to verify it. Most of the southern hemisphere is either completely uninterested in this debate, or they are not in the position to really show me pictures.

So yeah, "Well what do you think about that?" I think I'd better leave it to people who have actually seen the Southern Cross, and who aren't handing me a weighted debate that I have no means of winning. The only cross I'm concerned about is the Cross of Jesus, where people don't just gang up like 4:1 shouting someone down but have the same consideration that they'd expect in return. Like, would you want me to get 5 friends from Discord to mock you?

I also think it is irrelevant that the video poster is anti-Semitic. If someone is right, his political or social leanings have absolutely no bearing on the discussion.
So is he right? Well, the heliocentric theory involves an increasing degree of complexity. Orbiting speeds, rotation speeds, tilt, precession, spiraling around the galaxy. All to kinda rule-patch flaws in the system which they pretend do not exist. Why are there sidereal days? Precisely because someone brought up the idea that maybe around 180 degrees, we should have a day/night flip. No such rule patch is needed for a flat geocentric Earth, perspective and an orbiting group of stars is enough to explain most of this stuff. If we can't see Polaris, it's because we are too far from the center, not because we are hanging upside-down on a rotating Earth that is hurtling at top speed through the universe, and the constellations are all required to keep pace with this Earth, while staying perfectly in position so that we can see Orion's Belt or the Little Dipper and it doesn't  shift or get pulled apart. You actually buy this stupid theory?



Barnum knows his stuff.

we can't see Polaris, it's because we are too far from the center,

Been to Australia and seen the southern cross.


Polaris doesn’t diminish in brightness as you travel south.  It maintains its same magnitude of brightness as it’s gets lower on the horizon as you travel south until the curvature of the earth physically blocks the star from view.  Where a pair of binoculars or a telescope cannot bring it back into view. 

Quote from: Stash on September 21, 2022, 04:37:08 PM

Where's Brazil?

This was a list of 32 countries that are under the equator. It didn't count those that kinda crossed the equator by a few miles.

Well then, that's wildly flawed from the get go. You discount the entirety of a nation because of this very low population, very small area of the Amazon that is just above the equator:



You take out 200+ million people because of that???

Are you high or dishonest or both?

So the 500,000,000 million people in the Southern Hemisphere with internet access are unable to contact the rest of the world and are voluntarily non-technological?

God, you're dense. The Amish are voluntarily non-technological. The southern hemisphere is cut off from the northern hemisphere by thousands of miles, and often have infrastructure problems. It's an analogy not a 1:1 comparison.

How is S.America "cut off"? And why does it matter? So the entirety of the southern hemisphere is a backwater shithole with no infrastructure?

500 million people are sending cat pictures.

And you would know this because...

You're just making up shit like you always do.

As of 2021, total number of Southern Hemisphere web access users: Approx. 515,943,342

Where did you get: 284,056,658?

Someone doesn't know how to subtract. On top of not understanding directions, you can't do basic math?
If 515,943,342 have internet, what about the ones that don't?

What about them?

Non-internet users:

China:   393,000,000
India:    600,000,000
US:       29,000,000
Mexico: 36,000,000
Spain:   5,000,000   
Japan:   8,000,000

Because it's from the known crackpot and anti-semite, Eric Dubay. And I have seen the video before.

Right off the bat, he can't even address what was recently brought up to you that you can't address: How can someone looking at the Crux from the tip of South America be looking in a completely different direction from a person in S.Africa looking at the Crux and a person in New Zealand looking at the Crux?

You realize seafarers have been using the Crux forever to navigate just as we in the Northern Hemisphere rely on Polaris.

Having never seen Crux before, I cannot answer that.

Since you can't answer this, almost the most basic question there is, you can stop making up all of your shit now.

I mean you can't even answer this:



You're being dishonest and literally just making shit up as you go along, and can't even address the most basic things that show you are just making shit up.

And for the love of god, use the quote function and resize your images. You're making a mess of everything.

And yet again you flee from the simple issues that show a FE doesn't work.
You don't even try to mention it. Is it because you know your excuses of not being able to personally verify it wont work for that, so you actually need a justification for why you shouldn't have to explain it?

Why does the sun appear to set? Why does it appear in a particular direction, rather than where it is?
Why doesn't it appear to shrink (while other objects do)?
And if you want to keep to your projector dome BS, then why can we see it when it is above a point further away than the horizon?

Brazil sucks, that's why.

You mean it helps show you are wrong, so you hate it.

https://byjus.com/question-answer/how-many-light-years-away-is-mars-from-earth/
You're right, it's not 4 light years away. It's 5 light years away.

So you replace one pure BS claim with another pure BS claim.
But this time you are nice, and link to a source so everyone can see you are spouting BS, intentionally lying about reality to try and pretend there are problems.
Your dishonest knows no bounds.

If you bothered reading that site, you would see it clearly says 2.63*10^(-5) light years. That is 0.0000263 light years.
So only off by a factor of roughly 200000. Great job.

"Space is really really big"? That's your answer?

Yes. If you want to show there should be more of a change, then demonstrate it by doing the math.

And yes, parallax exists in flat Earth too.

Except it doesn't.
Everyone sees the same face of the moon, regardless of where they observe it from.
If parallax exited, you should see different parts.
Everyone sees the constellations exactly the same, regardless of where they are.
If parallax existed, you should see the constellations distort depending upon viewing angle.

The FE doesn't have parallax, it has pure magic.

Suddenly, I seem to have no accusers. Just you guys.

How about you stop with the pathetic deflections and try to defend your BS.

Quote from: JackBlack

Then why not be honest and admit that you have no explanation for how this works on a FE, and thus it is strong evidence that Earth isn't flat?

But is it strong evidence?

Yes, it is.
As the only way out of it is to claim a massive global conspiracy to fabricate this evidence, at which point you may as well just claim that the countries in the southern hemisphere don't exist. It is that level of delusional and paranoid you have to be for it to not be strong evidence.

If you want to go down the path of dismissing all this abundant evidence, and only accepting that which you have personally verified it means rejecting the vast majority of the evidence for pretty much everything.
It means you would have knowledge comparable to that of cavemen.

Suppose I were to say

You are one person.
1 crazy person saying something means very little.
But if you have countless people saying it, with plenty of photo evidence of it, and nothing to show otherwise, it is strong evidence.

So back to this, we have about a 1/10 of the world who sees the southern sky.

Much more than your single individual.

So yeah, "Well what do you think about that?" I think I'd better leave it to people who have actually seen the Southern Cross, and who aren't handing me a weighted debate that I have no means of winning.

Then maybe you shouldn't have been spouting pure BS.
If you don't want to debate things that show the FE is impossible, then you shouldn't be debating the FE.

If someone is right, his political or social leanings have absolutely no bearing on the discussion.
So is he right?

He is a known conman. If you think he is right, tell us where in the video he explains how multiple locations can see a single point due south of them.

As for the other BS he posted, that "question" you asked, no, he is wrong, as already explained.

Well, the heliocentric theory involves an increasing degree of complexity. Orbiting speeds, rotation speeds, tilt, precession, spiraling around the galaxy.

No, it doesn't.
You wanted to pretend it is all complex doesn't actually make it complex.

Orbits are explained via gravity, so there is a single force there. Quite simple.
Naturally with orbits, there will be speeds.
That isn't complexity.

Why are there sidereal days?

As a direct consequence of the combination of rotation and orbit.
This has been explained to you multiple times.
If you have an object rotating about its axis while it also orbits another object, then there will necessarily be a difference in time it takes for it to complete one rotation relative to the surrounding space, and relative to the object it is orbiting.

It isn't an excuse that has been invented, it is a direct consequence.

It also matches what is observed in reality, with the stars appearing to circle Earth's axis once every sidereal day while the sun does so on average once ever solar day.

So no, this isn't an excuse, and regardless of what model you wish to you, you need to have these 2 different periods.

The combination of the orbit and rotation (and axial tilt), simply and directly explain why the stars appear to circle Earth's axis, without any significant change in their position on the celestial sphere throughout the year, and why the sun does appear to change position, including going between the tropics. And the eccentricity of the orbit explains why there is more days in one half of the year (as divided by the equinoxes).

The FE has no explanation for this.
They have the stars magically rotate as a disc with one period for no reason at all, and then have the sun trace out a different path, with a different period for no reason at all, and have the path of the sun extremely chaotic where instead of simply circling the axis at a fixed point, it changes its position throughout the year first getting a larger and faster orbit to reach the southern tropic before stopping and getting a smaller and slower orbit, all for no reason at all, and no reason for why it takes a different amount of time.

If we can't see Polaris, it's because we are too far from the center

It isn't just that we can't see it.
It is how it goes from being visible directly overhead to not being visible.
The angle of elevation matches the latitude of the observer.
At the equator it is still very bright and easy to see, but quite close to the horizon.
If you continue going south of the equator, and continue that trend it goes below the horizon.

If you are close enough to the equator, but still south of it (and this can be quite far, depending on the camera used), you can still set up a camera pointed at the north celestial pole (noting that will be towards the ground), and record a time-lapse of the night sky and observe the stars appearing to circle the north celestial pole, below the ground.

This shows it isn't simply distance.
If it was simply distance, we would expect it to grow dimmer as we moved further away, eventually vanishing while still fairly high in the sky as it blurred in with the rest of the sky.

Again, the RE explains it wonderfully.
Objects in the sky appear where you would expect them to for a RE, with these objects very far away and visible to half of Earth at a time.
For a FE, there is no explanation.
They appeal to all sorts of vague nonsense without coming up with a coherent idea which can match multiple observations at once.
The only thing even remotely viable is magical bendy light which bends in such a manner to make a FE appear round. In effect, the FEers need to appeal to nature itself conspiring to make Earth appear round.

So from that it is quite clear which is the simpler model. And it isn't the FE.

If you want the FE to be the simpler model, you need to explain how this works and how the FE is simpler.

not because we are hanging upside-down on a rotating Earth

We aren't hanging upside down.
We are attracted to Earth due to gravity.

This is the same fundamental force discussed before and adds no complexity to the RE model.

But for the FE model, you need to explain why things fall, and more specifically why only things a short distance above Earth's surface falls to Earth.
You need to explain why this doesn't depend on the mass of the object, and only depends on the density to the effect that the buoyant force pushes the object upwards.
You need to explain why this varies across Earth, such that the equator has a lower rate of acceleration than the poles.
You need to explain why Earth itself isn't falling.
You also need to explain why the sun, the moon, the other planets, the other stars and so on aren't falling.

And then you either need to explain how satellites stay up, or also appeal to more conspiracy.

the constellations are all required to keep pace with this Earth, while staying perfectly in position so that we can see Orion's Belt or the Little Dipper and it doesn't  shift or get pulled apart.

Again, we have distance.
That is all we really need.
The fact that these objects are so far away, there would not be any significant change due to Earth's yearly orbit around the sun, not without incredibly accurate and precise tools, which can and do measure a change.
The orbit of the sun around the galactic centre takes far too long for a single person to notice significant changes, again without highly accurate and precise tools to measure it.
But there are changes, they don't stay perfectly in position.

And again, compare this to the FE.
For the FE, you have the stars much much closer, and move a great distance compared to that.
Yet the constellations, as long as they are still visible (and you can't explain why they aren't) look almost exactly the same.
If Earth was flat there should be significant difference.
Even over the course of a night you should see drastic changes in how the stars appear.

So yet again, the FE needs to resort to pure magic to try and have the sky of a FE appear exactly as you would expect the sky of a RE to appear.

Why not take the simpler option and accept Earth is round?

Also notice that you are conflating multiple issues.
One is that of RE vs FE.
The other is HC vs GC (and even then, it isn't really HC, but that can still be used to identify it to contrast it to the GC model).

You actually buy this stupid theory?

No, I don't buy this stupid nonsense spouted by FEers.
I accept what the evidence shows and accept a simpler model that doesn't require nature itself conspiring to hide the truth.
That means I accept the RE model.

Quote from: Mikey T. on September 22, 2022, 03:57:37 AM

What the fuck?
Brazil can't make your list why again?
Mars is not 4 light years away.
Almost 600,000,000 people, who have internet, are intentionally non technological?
Space is really really big.  Things are far away, study parallax. 
Are you ok?

Brazil sucks, that's why.
https://byjus.com/question-answer/how-many-light-years-away-is-mars-from-earth/
You're right, it's not 4 light years away. It's 5 light years away. So uhhhhh, even being really charitable and divide the huge number by 365 banking on a math mistake, we get 11 years per light year. SpaceX explorers should expect to have to travel 55 years, and never see their loved ones again. Theoretically, you could almost put rovers on Mars in that amount of time, but it would be totally absurd to expect people to use that speed for travel without some sort of suspended animation. And it's also absurd to expect modern day electronics to run without failure for 55 years. My fan just burnt out today, after running 24/7 for a few months. A big expensive piece of equipment managing to get a rover to point B (Mars) for 55 years? Nah, something will fail. 

"Space is really really big"? That's your answer? Booooooo!!! And yes, parallax exists in flat Earth too. In fact, since the flat Earth can have two domes, we can literally see two night skies.
 

Are you high, stupid, or just a troll?
I honestly can't tell at this point. 
Brazil, has the vast majority of its population and land South of the equator.  Not just a few miles, so I ask again, why omit Brazil.  Could it be because you have a compulsion to lie when pressed?  Do you ever intend on having an honest discussion?
Mars is NOT 4 or 5 light years away.  This is such a ridiculous lie.  Therefore your entire failed, yes very failed, math example and rant  shows how truly stupid you want people to think you are.
And yes, parallax exists.  Hence something closer to you will appear to move more in relation to your movement than something far away.  So those other stars will almost appear to stay stationary, unless you are turning away from them, like the Earth does due to its rotation.
I guess this is someone's attempt at mockery of the FE notions with this alt.  Or you really are this stupid and you may need some professional help. 

I mean you can't even answer this:

No, what I can't answer was how the southern stars look different. Mainly because I have never seen any of them, so I can't visualize the night sky over there.

That part is actually very simple.

The entire solar system doesn't have to move. The idea of the sun orbiting the galaxy, while the Earth spirals around all creation is absurd. The video, which you guys neglected to watch because of anti-Semitism (oh right, like globalists are so pro-Jewish) explained that part pretty simply.

It's like this...
(Yay, return of the stick figures!)



Now most of these stars (which I have never seen and thus cannot verify as real) orbit around a fixed vaulted Earth.As I've explained previously, and as the video maker agrees, there is a sort of dome around us rather than just around Earth. This, not curvature, is responsible for our limited vision. Our parabola. At the top of the inner dome (the video poster puts it with two start sets, but I disagree), we see only a single North Star projected from outside the Earth. At the outer dome, we see four stars at the southern part. How do we account for this? How does four stars turn into one, how does a group of northern facing stars face the southern edges? Well, since we're guessing here, the inner dome is like a telescopic lens, while the outer dome disperses like a prism. So, instead of pointing towards the center, it points towards the edge (South). Moreover, we are seeing four stars spaced out.  Meanwhile, a telescopic lens brings objects into zoom, but narrows field of vision. If we were to look at a bookshelf with a spyglass, we'd maybe focus on a single letter. We wouldn't be able to see the surrounding books. This and/or merging/dividing stars means that while one hemisphere sees Polaris, the other sees Crux (this deviates from the explanation given in the video, which listed them as two separate star sets; I don't care). The rest of the video talks about how the stars other than Polaris shift in location, needing no orbit, spin, or otherwise from the Earth itself.

Now about theory that Crux and Polaris are actually one in the same (Clark Kent is Superman). It's crazy, right? Well...



Not only does Polaris A have a vaguely cross-shaped shine, but check it out.



Almost like you can see the Southern Cross from the northern hemisphere but it's out of focus. 

Welp, I had fun. But no, asking people "Well how do you explain this thing (you have never seen before in your life)" is more than a bit asinine.

What about them?

Non-internet users:

China:   393,000,000
India:    600,000,000
US:       29,000,000
Mexico: 36,000,000
Spain:   5,000,000   
Japan:   8,000,000

What about them?

531 million of roughly 7 billion.
7.585714285714286%

If that's all you got, that's nowhere near 37%. The northern hemisphere has alot more infrastructure on average. Even if we bump it to around 1 billion by maybe including all the other countries, 1/7 < 3/8.

Quote

I mean you can't even answer this:

No, what I can't answer was how the southern stars look different. Mainly because I have never seen any of them, so I can't visualize the night sky over there.

If you've never seen them and can't visualize the night sky then why are you making up an explanation regarding something you say you can't answer because you've never seen them and can't visualize the night sky?

- What's your evidence for a dome, let alone multiple domes?
- How many domes?
- How high are these domes?
- Where exactly does one dome end and another begin?

There is zero evidence that we live inside of a spyglass. Try and take a baby step back toward reality and stop just making shit up. I mean you don't even know where south is on your map when the rest of the world follows globe coordinates and navigates just fine - We all know where south is regardless of our hemispheric location - You're the only one who doesn't. No one uses your fantasy to navigate as no one could navigate using your fantasy.

If this is all just your own fantastical fantasy opinion, that's all fine and good. But don't try and pass it off as real with zero evidence.

- What's your evidence for a dome, let alone multiple domes?
- How many domes?
- How high are these domes?
- Where exactly does one dome end and another begin?

What is the evidence for the dome? Well, you can see see it with your own eyes. For this, we will be standing on a beach facing the water during a sunset. I've numbered each step.

From your own perception, you can trace a line to the ground on your right. Then you can do the same to your left. Bridging the two points, we have a straight line. We can then measure a straight line to the horizon. Speaking of the horizon, we can draw a line from one end of the visible horizon to another. Lastly (for part one), we look up the horizon toward the sky. You'll note the dotted line on 6, because using our head or hands, the angle continues to curve upward into an arc. Like so. 

Lying on our back, we then discover that the arc not only continues behind our head but actually starts at the ground, and the horizon is just due to our head being on a stalk, so to speak. We connect the lines from the ground to as high as we can see above us, and continue tracing and the understand not only is the sky a dome, but we have a personal dome surrounding us.

Next, we walk around, conscious that the sky seems to dome above us wherever we go. But whether walking or driving, at ground level we can touch absolutely zero amount of sky. We gradually understand that what we are seeing is probably not the dome of the the sky as we originally thought (which is probably invisible except maybe as we move through hemispheres observing the night sky), but a parabola surrounding us. It moves with us, and objects appear in view. Meanwhile, celestial objects see to go through this perspective rather than us constantly moving. Moreover, as you climb to a higher altitude, you can generally see objects below you for a greater distance.

Sit down. Now, you ready? I will tell you that you are spinning around superfast and some nearby kids are motionless, while I secretly order them to circle around you. This is how we can know the Earth is flat and the sun goes around it, rather than the other thing. It's that simple. You're being gaslighted, and the thing you're actually seeing, the sun rising and setting around Earth, you are told is the opposite. Don't you think most people understand the difference between themselves spinning around and something else spinning around them? Yes. Unless they have been brainwashed to see otherwise. Now, you can tell me otherwise all you want, but you need to understand that you're wrong.

Do I automatically know anything about the southern stars? No, cuz I didn't learn this stuff in school, I was self-taught after having been told for years that Columbus sailed around the world, so this automatically makes it a globe (hint: no it doesn't). But I do have a basic sense of logic, and I know what isn't so. You may disagree. But I can figure out otherwise without any tools at all.
I first encountered flat Earth for real in a Facebook-style forum a few years ago, after being told for years that the Earth is round. Unlike those times, I decided to test whether that was true or not. I started in fact by watching the sky, and then by examining each of the claims made by real flat Earthers. I also discovered there are a number of things round Earths are told flat Earthers supposedly believe that I have yet to find one actually say (you can't fall off the Earth). But then, since most flat Earthers are self-taught, this means they can come up with crazy models.

So. How many domes? Two upright hemispheres like the previous model shows in black, and probably as many personal domes as there are living creatures. As I explained above, the height of these perception domes adjusts based on where we are standing. We really cannot accurately detect the actual length or height of these dome without having a custom tape-measure, and a partner with a cellphone or something constantly going "Can you see me now? Good."  I think it's several miles, but it can clearly project some objects in the heavens light years away, so it is completely pointless to ask how far. During the day, a matter of a few miles, while at night millions of miles can be seen if we can trust astronomers. The very fact that pespective makes no sense should already lead you to doubt what you've been told about a fixed curvature (but you won't).  Making up fantastically large numbers is something round Earthers do. Even basic methodology should tell us,"How do we know what we know?" so when these large numbers show up,and they seem to lead in circles, it's pretty clear something else is going on. So I explain why I came up with things, and ignore the numbers.

Ok, just a troll confirmed then.

Do I automatically know anything about the southern stars? No, cuz I didn't learn this stuff in school, I was self-taught...I can figure out otherwise without any tools at all.

I first encountered flat Earth for real in a Facebook-style forum a few years ago...since most flat Earthers are self-taught, this means they can come up with crazy models...So I explain why I came up with things, and ignore the numbers.

I think this pretty much explains the fantasy that you fabricate.

Well, you can see see it with your own eyes

No.  I have had access to ground graded to be “flat”. Tried to give every advantage to “perspective” or “dome”.  I couldn’t get ground graded flat make anything disappear. 

Sorry to repeat this.  But since you won’t post in the debate forum.

************
Trying to push the limits of perspective and small object photography to try to get a flat surface to make an object to become physically blocked from view where zooming cannot bring it back into view.

Yesterday I tried to use a small object on the railroad tracks at 350 steps.  Which is about 750 feet.  Unfortunately, the heat coming off the track made it impossible to focus on the target.

So. Changed gears. Did an experiment at night.  Placed a relatively small flashlight right on the track.  Took pictures of the flashlight at various distances.

Using the track because it is relatively on a grade made flat for the old railroad car yard. 

My camera was placed so it could be close to the tracks as possible on its highest zoom setting.


Used this flashlight.




Place the flashlight on the track


View from 100 steps no flash


View from 100 steps with flash


200 steps no flash


200 steps flash


300 steps no flash


300 steps flash


360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


360 steps flash


360 steps camera at a greater hight above ground.  About three feet.


In conclusion. Pushing the limits of photography using the smallest practical objects on the flattest and longest surfaces I have access to.  I have not been able to use perspective to physically block an object from view. In the flat earth delusion, it’s impossible for the flat earth to block the sun from view.  Or a ship at sea in the example below.



Thus, thus is true.



***********

Your delusions are proven wrong.

No, what I can't answer was how the southern stars look different. Mainly because I have never seen any of them, so I can't visualize the night sky over there.

You don't need to go and see them in person. There are plenty of photos, and it is quite easy to visualise.

The entire solar system doesn't have to move. The idea of the sun orbiting the galaxy, while the Earth spirals around all creation is absurd.

Invoking delusional BS like creation is absurd.
But you not liking reality with a moving Earth doesn't make it absurd.
What is truly absurd is the idea that Earth is magically fixed in place.

Why do the stars only project to those specific locations?
You seem to just be doing whatever BS you can to pretend it works on a FE.

Why should a star at the north project to a point due south?
Why don't they appear due north?
How does this cause the stars to appear to circle a point due north and due south?
How does this account for the constellations appearing the same regardless of where you look at them from?

This, not curvature, is responsible for our limited vision. Our parabola.

Except, as already explained that doesn't work at all.
If it was going to work, you would have objects disappear from the top down, not the bottom up. And to explain limited vision you need to have it 5 km away, putting the sun and stars entirely out of reach.
This means you need to have the stars magically project onto each parabola, for no reason at all.

At the top of the inner dome (the video poster puts it with two start sets, but I disagree), we see only a single North Star projected from outside the Earth. At the outer dome, we see four stars at the southern part. How do we account for this? How does four stars turn into one

It isn't just 4 stars turning into 1.
It is an entirely different set of constellations around the celestial poles.
And you can't forget regions that can see both.

needing no orbit, spin, or otherwise from the Earth itself.

No, instead you need pure magic to try and account for how the FE magically has all the stars magically project to just the right location to match what is expected for a rotating round Earth.

Not only does Polaris A have a vaguely cross-shaped shine, but check it out.

Polaris does not have a vaguely cross-shaped shine.
That is caused by diffraction from the support in the telescope used to photograph it.

Welp, I had fun. But no, asking people "Well how do you explain this thing (you have never seen before in your life)" is more than a bit asinine.

No, it isn't asinine.
You not having seen it before doesn't magically mean it is no longer evidence that destroys the FE fantasy.

Trying to dismiss the evidence because you haven't personally seen it or personally verified it is extremely asinine.

What is the evidence for the dome? Well, you can see see it with your own eyes.

No, we can't.
Observations match that expected for a RE with no dome at all.

You are needing to invoke a magical non-existent dome to try and pretend these observations work on a FE.
That is not evidence for the existence of the dome.

Lying on our back, we then discover that the arc not only continues behind our head but actually starts at the ground, and the horizon is just due to our head being on a stalk, so to speak. We connect the lines from the ground to as high as we can see above us, and continue tracing and the understand not only is the sky a dome, but we have a personal dome surrounding us.

All you are saying here is that the ground blocks roughly 1 hemisphere of our vision.
That doesn't magically mean there is a dome.

We gradually understand that what we are seeing is probably not the dome of the the sky as we originally thought (which is probably invisible except maybe as we move through hemispheres observing the night sky), but a parabola surrounding us. It moves with us, and objects appear in view.

No, we don't.
We understand that Earth is blocking roughly a hemisphere of our view. And as we move around, with Earth in a different position relative to us, it blocks a different portion of our view.

Again, no need for any magical dome.

Moreover, as you climb to a higher altitude, you can generally see objects below you for a greater distance.

Just like you would expect for a RE.

I will tell you that you are spinning around superfast

You mean at the incredible speed of 1 rotation every day?
I wouldn't call that superfast.

This is how we can know the Earth is flat and the sun goes around it, rather than the other thing. It's that simple.

No, it isn't that simple. You are spouting pure nonsense.
Visually you cannot tell if you are rotating with other things around you stationary, or if you are stationary with other things around you circling.
Visually the 2 are identical.
What you need is something like a laser ring gyroscope or Foucault's pendulum to tell what is rotating.

And those observations fully support a RE, not a FE.

But you can also apply Ocam's razor.
Which is more realistic, that everything around earth, except those relatively close by (the sun, moon and other planets) are magically moving in sync, almost perfectly, or that Earth is rotating?

What is more realistic, that Earth is round and blocks half our view, with what is visible depending on where on Earth you are? Or a magical parabola which magically also makes things appear to sink for no reason at all, with the celestial objects magically projecting to a point on this magical parabola which then someone redirects the light to your eyes, so it appears as if we are on a round Earth?

You're being gaslighted

You might be trying to gaslight us, be we can see through your BS.

Don't you think most people understand the difference between themselves spinning around and something else spinning around them?

No. Just like it is clear you don't.
Why don't you try explaining how you can tell if you are spinning or things around you are moving. Make sure you also note how fast you need to be spinning (measured as  an angular velocity) to be able to tell.

But I do have a basic sense of logic

Then why are you so bad at it?

The very fact that pespective makes no sense should already lead you to doubt what you've been told about a fixed curvature

Just how does perspective make no sense?

so when these large numbers show up,and they seem to lead in circles

Only because you are being intentionally dishonest to hide where they actually come from.
It's a lot easier for you to lie and pretend it is all circular than to admit there is an actual measurement which these numbers came from, and in plenty of cases, multiple measurements.

So I explain why I came up with things, and ignore the numbers.

No, you don't. You ignore the numbers and then spout pure nonsense which the numbers would show as nonsense.
All so you can avoid explaining what is actually going on, as what is actually going on doesn't fit your fantasy at all.

Okay ppl, I just watched Moonfall which was about how the moon was a "megastructure" (basically the benign version of a Death Star) powered by a small star core, which was put in place by ancient humans following a disaster on their original world.

The only part of this I believe for sure is that astronauts accidentally struck the moon, and it reverberated.
https://coolinterestingstuff.com/is-the-moon-really-hollow-its-appears-so

When Apollo 12 and Apollo 13 left the moon, they jettisoned the ascent stages of their spacecraft. The pieces of the craft fell back and hit the moon. Despite the relatively small size of these objects, when they struck, the entire moon reverberated for over eight minutes! The moon registered as being more hollow than full!

Scientists at NASA said, “It reacted like a gong!” They are at a loss to explain this, and so they avoid discussing it with the public.

Get some perspective. There are theories out there that make alot of what I say look like the most sane thing ever.  Because actually it is, you just have trouble understanding how I could even think that. Actually, I've decided to become a hollow moonist. Why not?

Why do the stars only project to those specific locations?

Do you get what perspective is? Had I space in the drawing, I could likely make another stick figure below. the two outers. From anywhere above the equator no matrer where you stand, you see Polaris (always points north). Anywhere south of the equator, see Crux (always pounts south).  Losing the telescopic Polaris is part of Crux theory...

Last night, I was out returning Netflix (not Moonfall, another film, I decided to keep that one longer), and the only star out was Polaris, the North Star. It was bright near the town so eventually Polaris faded from sight too.

The point is, we in the northern hemisphere can see Polaris, nor Crux because that set of stars is lower and brighter. It has to do with angles. At the northern hemisphere, it is a high enough angle that we can brightly see the star for longer than other stars, and use its position to find north. South of the equator, Polaris is below the horizon because of its height, while a higher up star shows up in the south. The angle would be higher. Again, I do not know what Crux looks like in the sky. I do know that in a FE model, the sky has to get wider outward as you move from the center. This would be similar to the difference between looking at the troposphere closer to the center, and looking at the stratosphere. I'm not saying this happens but from what I saw of the North Star, it was pretty much centered in the sky.  I assume Crux is not, but yet again, I have no way of knowing short of arranging a road trip outside my price range. For all I know, Crux may also appear centered in the sky.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 22, 2022, 08:06:33 PM

Well, you can see see it with your own eyes

No.  I have had access to ground graded to be “flat”. Tried to give every advantage to “perspective” or “dome”.  I couldn’t get ground graded flat make anything disappear. 

Sorry to repeat this.  But since you won’t post in the debate forum.

************
Trying to push the limits of perspective and small object photography to try to get a flat surface to make an object to become physically blocked from view where zooming cannot bring it back into view.

Yesterday I tried to use a small object on the railroad tracks at 350 steps.  Which is about 750 feet.  Unfortunately, the heat coming off the track made it impossible to focus on the target.

So. Changed gears. Did an experiment at night.  Placed a relatively small flashlight right on the track.  Took pictures of the flashlight at various distances.

Using the track because it is relatively on a grade made flat for the old railroad car yard. 

My camera was placed so it could be close to the tracks as possible on its highest zoom setting.


Used this flashlight.




Place the flashlight on the track


View from 100 steps no flash


View from 100 steps with flash


200 steps no flash


200 steps flash


300 steps no flash


300 steps flash


360 steps.  About 750 feet. No flash.


360 steps flash


360 steps camera at a greater hight above ground.  About three feet.


In conclusion. Pushing the limits of photography using the smallest practical objects on the flattest and longest surfaces I have access to.  I have not been able to use perspective to physically block an object from view. In the flat earth delusion, it’s impossible for the flat earth to block the sun from view.  Or a ship at sea in the example below.



Thus, thus is true.



***********

Your delusions are proven wrong.

300 steps? Not even 300 feet?

And then I assume you stood on a ladder. Or is it a tripod? And I assume this is an abandoned track so nobody came to take this way and interrogate and there was no danger of it being run over.

So in what universe does this prove that you can see a boat infinitely?




You think a single step is two feet (it's actually closer to half a foot unless you are fully stretching your leg wit each step) but even at your pathetic  unscientific measurements, you can clearly see that at 360 steps, it has dimmed alot from the picture of 100 steps. But second, you have a low object already below your sight and then elevating the camera. Was the camera placed at ground level? Was it independent from your height? Otherwise, you might actually be meaning that it's nine feet up when you say 3 ft up, because we are including your height standing on this ladder. Assuming ground and a tripod, my theory explained the higher objects can be seen farther, especially from a vantage point, so why did you choose to put the flashlight on the ground?

So you create angles without understanding the experiment you are doing.

We also are getting light interference from the girder thing. This is evident when the flashlight changes color at 100 feet because we are near the yellow light.



This is a very unscientific test that introduces alot of factors that shouldn't be in there.

Using steps not feet. Not bothering to standardize steps.  Not accounting for the added glare of the lights reducing the light. Not finding a sufficiently dark and uncluttered street where this matters. Using the light as the endpoint, instead of using it as a tool. Using flash instead of height. Not turning the experiment around (you should have stood with the street lights 20 ft at your back pointing towards darkness and had someone else move the flashlight, that way the glare is on your side)

How the experiment should have been set up: you need one flashight, one camera, one friend with a reflector, that they can move with, one open area roughly a size of a football field, a ladder or vantage point and absolutely no streetlights shining directly in the path. You shine the flashlight at a point and move the camera and flashlight up and down, as the person holding the reflector gradually moves back. You test whether having a vantage point makes a difference.

Your inexact measurements and your light interference screwed up the experiment.

And even so, we very clearly saw how even at 360 steps, the light gets smaller. How does this prove that you can see a ship from infinite miles off on flat Earth. It doesn't. It doesn't prove anything in fact, because you didn't manage to control the factors in your experiment.

And then I assume you stood on a ladder.

Nope.  The cellphone with a small a$$ lens on its edge with the camera as close to the track as I could get. About 1/4” off the track from the center of the camera lens.

360 steps is about 750 feet at a conservative estimate at 25 inches a step.




You

And even so, we very clearly saw how even at 360 steps, the light gets smaller.

But the light was never blocked from view. Was it.

And line of sight was maintained with no proof of your parabola crap. 

Other things that don’t support your BS.

Snipper kills.

Bench shooting.

Long distance team shooting.

I don’t like it one bit.  But varmint shooting. 

Since May 2017, one Canadian soldier has held the distinction of the longest confirmed kill in military history. The 3,450-meter shot — 3,870 yards — shattered the 2009 record by British sniper Craig Harrison by nearly 1,000 meters.

https://www.historynet.com/small-but-mighty-how-canadas-military-has-produced-record-breaking-snipers/

The “Holy Grail” of prairie dog shooting is dispatching a dog at ultra-long-range — the farther the better. Here we recount the quest of Forum member VolDoc to nail a Prairie Dog at 1000+ yards with a Savage .20-caliber rifle. If you’re a fan of the “Terrific 20s”, or have an interest in ultra-long-range varminting, you’ll enjoy this story. VolDoc, a dentist by trade, is a seasoned Prairie Dog Hunter who has made many trips to the P-Dog fields in Colorado with his hunting buddies. But until recently he had never managed to nail a P-Dog at 1000 yards with a .20-caliber rifle. Nor, as far as we can determine, had any one else. But VolDoc did it — accomplishing a verified Prairie Dog kill at 1032 yards, possibly the longest recorded with a .20-Caliber rifle.

https://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2017/04/tiny-twenty-punches-p-dog-at-1032-yards-voldocs-story/

Less violent proof there is no parabola effect in the way you push it.

Hobby Rocketry, visually tracking model rockets, and aerial photography using model Rockets.

Aerial photography in general.

More violent methods that strive for tactical superiority.

Everything I learned about shooting at home, in the military, and tactical deployment of everything from pistols, rifles, large bore weapons, and missiles. 

Nothing supports your parabola crap.

Not even radar surveys of Venus, bouncing lasers off the moon for distance measurements. And nothing I seen being an amateur astronomer. 

What happnes to a person standing in the inbetween spaces?

What do they see?

How about draw a continuous line of people evenly spaced and let us know what can be seen

Actually, I've decided to become a hollow moonist. Why not?

Ok, so after watching one of the worst movies ever, (I saw it and can't now un-see it - The worst dialogue ever, Halle got $10m to literally sleep walk through it, probably because she had to read those terrible lines), I digress...So after seeing that piece of trash you're now a hollow moonist? Speaks volumes as to the extent of your knowledge acquisition skills & methodology.

Do you get what perspective is?

Yes. You apparently don't.

Last night, I was out returning Netflix...

Wait, you still get DVD's by mail from Netflix?!?!?!

That literally explains EVERYTHING!

The point is, we in the northern hemisphere can see Polaris, nor Crux because that set of stars is lower and brighter.

Depends on where you are. It ain't low when you're up in lat 80's & 90's. Blows up that theory right there.

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 24, 2022, 05:20:44 AM

Actually, I've decided to become a hollow moonist. Why not?

Ok, so after watching one of the worst movies ever, (I saw it and can't now un-see it - The worst dialogue ever, Halle got $10m to literally sleep walk through it, probably because she had to read those terrible lines), I digress...So after seeing that piece of trash you're now a hollow moonist? Speaks volumes as to the extent of your knowledge acquisition skills & methodology.

mermaid?

Okay ppl, I just watched Moonfall which was about how the moon was a "megastructure" (basically the benign version of a Death Star) powered by a small star core, which was put in place by ancient humans following a disaster on their original world.

The only part of this I believe for sure is that astronauts accidentally struck the moon, and it reverberated.
https://coolinterestingstuff.com/is-the-moon-really-hollow-its-appears-so

Quote

When Apollo 12 and Apollo 13 left the moon, they jettisoned the ascent stages of their spacecraft. The pieces of the craft fell back and hit the moon. Despite the relatively small size of these objects, when they struck, the entire moon reverberated for over eight minutes! The moon registered as being more hollow than full!

Scientists at NASA said, “It reacted like a gong!” They are at a loss to explain this, and so they avoid discussing it with the public.

Get some perspective. There are theories out there that make alot of what I say look like the most sane thing ever.  Because actually it is, you just have trouble understanding how I could even think that. Actually, I've decided to become a hollow moonist. Why not?

Quote

Why do the stars only project to those specific locations?

Do you get what perspective is? Had I space in the drawing, I could likely make another stick figure below. the two outers. From anywhere above the equator no matrer where you stand, you see Polaris (always points north). Anywhere south of the equator, see Crux (always pounts south).  Losing the telescopic Polaris is part of Crux theory...

Last night, I was out returning Netflix (not Moonfall, another film, I decided to keep that one longer), and the only star out was Polaris, the North Star. It was bright near the town so eventually Polaris faded from sight too.

The point is, we in the northern hemisphere can see Polaris, nor Crux because that set of stars is lower and brighter. It has to do with angles. At the northern hemisphere, it is a high enough angle that we can brightly see the star for longer than other stars, and use its position to find north. South of the equator, Polaris is below the horizon because of its height, while a higher up star shows up in the south. The angle would be higher. Again, I do not know what Crux looks like in the sky. I do know that in a FE model, the sky has to get wider outward as you move from the center. This would be similar to the difference between looking at the troposphere closer to the center, and looking at the stratosphere. I'm not saying this happens but from what I saw of the North Star, it was pretty much centered in the sky.  I assume Crux is not, but yet again, I have no way of knowing short of arranging a road trip outside my price range. For all I know, Crux may also appear centered in the sky.

Someone can't distinguish between science and science fiction.

Get some perspective. There are theories out there that make alot of what I say look like the most sane thing ever.

No, they don't.
Just because you can find things even more insane than what you are spouting, that doesn't make what you say look sane.

Quote

Why do the stars only project to those specific locations?

Do you get what perspective is?

Yes. Do you?

Do you notice that when you look at an object, it doesn't magically disappear from view if you take a step left or right?

The point is, we in the northern hemisphere can see Polaris, nor Crux because that set of stars is lower and brighter. It has to do with angles.

If it has to do with angles, why bother saying it is brighter?
If it was due to brightness, the same argument should hold everywhere, not just in the northern hemisphere.

And if it is due to angles, you still have the issue of WHY?

At the northern hemisphere, it is a high enough angle that we can brightly see the star for longer than other stars, and use its position to find north. South of the equator, Polaris is below the horizon because of its height, while a higher up star shows up in the south.

Great job contradicting yourself.

In your fantasy Polaris doesn't go below the horizon because of its height.
Instead it magically projects to a certain position on your dome of perception, and for those in the south it doesn't hit it at all.
And then Sigma Octantis (I figured I may as well use the actual south pole star, rather than Crux which merely points south; Crux is only at -60 degrees, meaning it can be seen all the way up to ~30 degrees north of the equator, and you need to be at least 30 degrees south to be certain to see it at night regardless of time of year) magically only projects to those in the southern hemisphere.

That means it isn't a simple case of angles.

The question is why can't it be like this:

Why can't Polaris follow the purple line and show up on the magic dome of perception for those in the southern hemisphere?
Why can't Sigma Octantis (or Crux) follow the purple line and show up for people in the northern hemisphere, including those near the north pole?

i.e. why is your model so magically complex that the stars magically manage to project to theses magical domes of perception to cause exactly what is expected for a RE?

You think a single step is two feet (it's actually closer to half a foot unless you are fully stretching your leg wit each step)

Are you thinking of m?
A single pace is roughly 70 to 80 cm.
That is more than 2 archaic units.
If you are stretching your leg out it is even longer, and can be over 1 m long (over 3 archaic units)

Assuming ground and a tripod, my theory explained the higher objects can be seen farther, especially from a vantage point, so why did you choose to put the flashlight on the ground?

As your "theory" didn't explain what causes this magic dome of perception, or why objects are observed to appear to sink, disappearing from the bottom up, it didn't real explain anything.

And even so, we very clearly saw how even at 360 steps, the light gets smaller.

Yet the sun doesn't.
But you think that doesn't mean the sun is a similar distance away.

Perspective shrinkiage happens in both horz and vert planes.

Can some one take the classic railway travks and rotate 90degrees


I feel like we did this before with sceppy

Some rockets launched over a mile.  Line of sight maintained?

No sign / indication of your parabola crap….









Funny how interacting with reality through shooting, rocketry, astronomy, serving in the military and there is no evidence of your keyboard warrior claims, and your BS is never a factor. 

 

By the way, how does the above explain how the earth’s shadow is cast on the moon during a lunar eclipse?

Total lunar eclipses occur when the whole moon passes through the innermost part of Earth's shadow — the umbra.

https://www.space.com/33786-lunar-eclipse-guide.html

One of the first leads the earth was spherical as questioned by the Greeks around 2000 years ago.


You should really get out and experience the real world instead of sitting around and creating a delusion……

A parabola, you see?

You can clearly see the moon as it crosses the sun's own arc (which has curved out of sight at night). This makes perfect sense in a geocentric model (though I probably got one of the arcs wrong), but in a heliocentric model we get... this.



Uhhhh, you realize with the sun this big, this sorta thing would happen all the time, right? The sun is literally too big to get out of its own way, so practically every night, we'd have the moon cross the sun.



Likewise for this. Which you're referring to.

On the other hand, if the sun and moon are roughly the same size, eclipses are as rare as about how often they are, probably happening fairly often but not almost daily.

A parabola, you see?

You can clearly see the moon as it crosses the sun's own arc (which has curved out of sight at night). This makes perfect sense in a geocentric model (though I probably got one of the arcs wrong), but in a heliocentric model we get... this.



Uhhhh, you realize with the sun this big, this sorta thing would happen all the time, right? The sun is literally too big to get out of its own way, so practically every night, we'd have the sun cross the moon.
On the other hand, if the sun and moon are roughly the same size, eclipses are as rare as about how often they are, probably happening fairly often but not for prolonged periods of time almost daily.

My face hurts at how hard this made me facepalm. 

Quote from: bulmabriefs144 on September 24, 2022, 05:20:44 AM

Some rockets launched over a mile.  Line of sight maintained?

No sign / indication of your parabola crap….









Funny how interacting with reality through shooting, rocketry, astronomy, serving in the military and there is no evidence of your keyboard warrior claims, and your BS is never a factor.

So... they didn't even make it past the troposphere?

Seriously, learn science.

Line of sight maintained? Are you sure that's what you're seeing? Cuz I see the camera around a smaller circle. Then seeing nearby roads. Then seeing for miles.





Btw, where are they taking this shot from? A helicopter or something? Basically, by the time it gets level with whatever the aerial shot is coming from, you can see just how far you can see at even that altitude.

I didn't even have to watch two minutes of that to laugh it off completely.
That's kinda what I mean by line of sight changing.

So... they didn't even make it past the troposphere?

This one did last night...