nahwee
Winger
Still trying.
-
The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on. Normal posting/reading should now be possible.
Please read this thread for more details.
New user registrations are currently disabled.
Put a flat earthier into space
- Thread starter southstander
- Start date
The Snockerty Friddle
Winger
You must be logged on to see external links
Pffft.... gravity
BigPete
Striker
Of course it behaves as expected when it's following a narrative. So-called spheres
Last edited:
And if its totally level the horizon (you're weird pressure bit) would be lower than level, how come?
And talking about lying @Nukehasslefan is your club actually a real football club?
Apparently there was a film made called "goal" and tbh it makes me wonder if your club Is real or just part of the story. In this film the club played in Newcastle (3/4 the way up the lemon squeezer) they had a player called Alan Shearer and played in black and white.
Using your Star Wars logic your club can't be real as its just a film and a fictitious fantasy?
Do you have absolute proof the people you may watch on TV are really footballers or just actors playing the part to placate the masses
I mean real proof.......
Last edited:
And if its totally level the horizon (you're weird pressure bit) would be lower than level, how come?
And talking about lying @Nukehasslefan is your club actually a real football club?
Apparently there was a film made called "goal" and tbh it makes me wonder if your club Is real or just part of the story. In this film the club played in Newcastle (3/4 the way up the lemon squeezer) they had a player called Alan Shearer and played in black and white.
Using your Star Wars logic your club can't be real as its just a film and a fictitious fantasy?
Do you have absolute proof the people you may watch on TV are really footballers or just actors playing the part to placate the masses
I mean real proof.......
Some of our current squad are definitely not real footballers.
You put up a drawing of a lemon squeezer shaped earth. Spent weeks saying indentations kept the water from falling off the centre.
Another poster put up a sketch saying 'something like this'. You agreed.
Then when pointed out that the southern oceans would have to be hundreds of miles deep if the body of the earth was lemon squeezer shaped with with the south american landmass rising above that to avoid being submerged.
You then dismissed the drawing you agreed with then said you'd do your own.
This is a week ago and you still haven't managed to get the lid off the pen.
Last edited:
He can't draw what he is saying without contradicting one of his musings about the shape or the seas.
Hence no sketch.
He could easily put this to bed if he had any evidence or backup for his ideas but its all just random nonsensical words.
It was my sketch and my upside down bowl on a plate of water with continents drew on
He can't draw what he is saying without contradicting one of his musings about the shape or the seas.
Hence no sketch.
He could easily put this to bed if he had any evidence or backup for his ideas but its all just random nonsensical words.
It was my sketch and my upside down bowl on a plate of water with continents drew on
Thats the problem with all of this. Agree to even the slightest thing and it all falls apart. The drawing will never materialise imo
I agree. It can't really or his lemon squeezer world falls to bits.
Why not just say its flat
fyl2u
Striker
Ooh, "the devil's lay-by" as it is known to fans of Bill Bailey's "Part Troll" show.
It's a tangent because it extends either side of the place it meets the circle without there being any intersection with the circle. That's the definition of a tangent.
If it failed in any of those defining criteria it wouldn't be a tangent. It would have some other name. Like "normal". Or "line". Or "blancmange".
How thin does a line have to be? Are you really asking this question?
IT'S A LINE.
Do we really have to define what a line is for you in mathematics?
A LINE HAS NO THICKNESS. IT EXISTS ONLY IN ONE DIMENSION: ALONG ITS LENGTH.
If you're looking at a little pencil drawing of a circle and then trying to draw a tangent to it with a foot-wide paintbrush or a slice of watermelon, you're not just doing it wrong, YOU ARE TAKING THE PISS.
OK, i have my little circle...
Logon or register to see this image
...and now I've carved myself some paint-potatoes...
Logon or register to see this image
Hah, my line completely obscures the circle! All maths is bullshit! I told you there's no proof that anything exists outside my padded cell. THE WORLD IS A LEMON SQUEEZER! THE WORLD IS A LEMON SQUEEZER!
Last edited:
DaveH
Striker
Well, anyway.... A bit has been said on this thread about observing the planets and how what you see is consistent with what is best called reality. For those who have never looked but are of sound mind and judgement, I thought you might find this bit of background information interesting.
There are a few things you can observe. For a start there are the inner planets of Mercury and Venus. Being closer to the sun and in smaller orbits, these are usually seen as very bright 'stars' close to the sun, so you see them either in the early evening or early morning sky just after sunset or before sunrise.
For both of these, with a telescope, you see them show phases just like the moon. If there was a line, Sun->Venus->Earth, then we would be looking at the dark side of Venus and not see it (it would also be day light and we would be looking at the sun), much like a new moon. If the solar system was a clock and we were at 6 o'clock and Venus at 3 o'clock then to us the side of Venus would be facing the sun and light, so we would see a half crescent.
This is an image of some of the phases from Sky & Telescope magazine:
Further out you have Mars and Jupiter. With all but small telescopes, you can see features on both of these. There are some lovely pictures of Mars out there, mine is only a small scope so this is a bit grainy:
You can see dark features, which if you watch over the course of a few nights, you see Mars rotate and the features disappear off one side, coming onto the other side again later. It means that a home astronomer can actually measure the rotation speed of Mars.
Similar with Jupiter.
You can see the various storms and features on it's bands rotate. Being a gas planet the different parts of it rotate at different speeds. But what is also interesting about Jupiter is it's 4 brightest moons. With a pair of decent sized binoculars, you can see these and if you watch night after night you see them move as they rotate around the planet, with the inner ones orbiting faster then the others. You see them pass in front, then disappear behind and if you catch it on the right night with a telescope, you see the shadow of the moon cross the planet. At one point I promised to try and get an image or video of this, but I'm constantly thwarted by bad weather on the nights this happens, and Jupiter is low in the sky at the moment, so I only have a short period before it disappears behind the neighbours trees. But if you look due south just after sunset and can see a bright 'star' that is Jupiter. If you do have any binoculars, take a look and you will see the 4 brightest moons.
I've not got any of my own pictures of Saturn. While the planet itself is mostly featureless and you can't see it rotate, there are the rings. As our position changes relative to Saturn, we see the rings at different angles and can see the shadows they cast on the planet. Most people looking through a telescope for the first time have a real wow moment seeing the moon and Saturn. Unfortunately that is even lower than Jupiter at the moment and is not that great to see at the minute (in the UK anyway).
But what does get interesting is watching the orbits of the other planets. Astronomers will often say things like "Jupiter is at opposition". Basically that means that Jupiter is on the opposite side of the earth to the sun, which means it is at the closest and most brightest it will appear. The opposite of that is when the outer planets are at conjunction or the other side of the sun. As they approach this other side, they are at the furthest points in their obits to us and so appear smaller and not as bright.
But, with the outer planets, you also get another interesting effect. The planets stars and other things in space are so far away that we can't easily perceive any depth so we often imagine the concept of a 'celestial sphere', basically like we live on the inside of a large hollow ball and space is painted on the inside (I know what this is sounding like!). The reality is not like that but it works as a hypothetical model.
I've knocked up an animation:
It shows the Earth and Jupiter in orbit and there are two things to watch for. There is a faint dotted line moving round, which is the line between Jupiter and the sun. When the earth crosses this line passing between Jupiter and the sun, this is when Jupiter is set to be at opposition. You can see from this how they get so much closer together. You will also notice that the position in their orbits where they reach opposition change each time. So if the background stars on the 'celestial sphere' are fixed, then you can see Jupiter at opposition will appear in different parts of the sky each time.
The thicker line shows where we will see Jupiter appear on this celestial sphere. If you watch it carefully, you can see that relative to the background stars Jupiter appears to move quickly but as we reach opposition it slows and seems to double back on itself before moving forward and speeding up again. This is called retrograde motion and was one of the key observations that made people realise we were not at the centre of the solar system. Only the outer planets experience this. This movement can only be explained with the sun at the centre. They did try to explain it away with 'epicycles' an invisible object that the outer planets happened to jump around a bit every now and then. Moving the rotation around the sun simplified the model and it actually worked.
You can also see that as the Earth reaches the other side of the sun to Jupiter, the line of sight goes pretty close to the sun. That means that as we watch night after night, Jupiter appears closer and closer to the sun, only really being visible around sunset, and then we lose it altogether, only to see it appear as an early evening object just before sunrise a few days later.
Just two dots going round in circles shows the beautiful simplicity of it all and how easy it is to model the solar system and what we see with two simple orbits, match exactly what is observed.
Of course it is only recently that we have had computers to model this, so astronomers used to use an orrery, a mechanical model of the solar system. Just observing the movements like this alone is not enough to figure out the scale of the universe, but you can determine the ratio of how many Jupiter orbits there are to Earth. If you have two cogs (one for each planet) with the same ratio difference then you can build a mechanical representation and it works because cogs are round just like the orbits (though many of the orbits are not quite perfect circles and have eccentricities of their own). It is worth looking at the wikipedia article or doing a google search as there some really beautiful models out there (still talking astronomy here):
Computers and mechanical models are not the only tools available and if you want to predict how often a planet will come into opposition you can use maths.
We know that speed is equal to distance over time. So if we say once round an orbit is one rotation, then the rotational speed is the distance (one orbit) over time, 1 year. So for earth the rotational speed is:
se = 1 / e or
se = 1 / 365
Jupiter orbits over 4328.9 earth days, so Jupiter's rotational speed is
sj = 1 / j or
sj = 1/4328.9
The difference in speed is the speed of the earth minus the speed of Jupiter. But if we have said that 'speed = distance / time', then we can rearrange that to say 'time = distance / speed '.
Or we can say that:
difference in time = distance / difference in speed
which will give us how often they come into sync, so
opposition = distance / se - sj
The distance is one rotation so
opposition = 1 / se - sj or
opposition = 1 / (1/365 - 1/4328.9)
opposition = 398.61 days, or just over 13 months
This is exactly how often we see Jupiter reach opposition and why we are able to predict it looking larger and brighter with great accuracy.
How do we know the above maths works? Well we are all familiar with another thing where two objects move in a circle but occasionally overlap - a clock. The minute hand goes round once every 60 minutes and the hour hand goes round once every 12 hours (or 720 minutes). They align at 12 o'clock and again at 5 minutes past 1. That is no different to planets at opposition, so
sync = 1 / (1/60 - 1/720)
sync = 65.45 minutes
or if in sync at 12, they will be in sync again at 5.45 minutes past one, or 1:05:27. That is exactly what we do see.
So there you have it, the solar system really does work like clockwork.
There are a few things you can observe. For a start there are the inner planets of Mercury and Venus. Being closer to the sun and in smaller orbits, these are usually seen as very bright 'stars' close to the sun, so you see them either in the early evening or early morning sky just after sunset or before sunrise.
For both of these, with a telescope, you see them show phases just like the moon. If there was a line, Sun->Venus->Earth, then we would be looking at the dark side of Venus and not see it (it would also be day light and we would be looking at the sun), much like a new moon. If the solar system was a clock and we were at 6 o'clock and Venus at 3 o'clock then to us the side of Venus would be facing the sun and light, so we would see a half crescent.
This is an image of some of the phases from Sky & Telescope magazine:
Logon or register to see this image
Further out you have Mars and Jupiter. With all but small telescopes, you can see features on both of these. There are some lovely pictures of Mars out there, mine is only a small scope so this is a bit grainy:
Logon or register to see this image
You can see dark features, which if you watch over the course of a few nights, you see Mars rotate and the features disappear off one side, coming onto the other side again later. It means that a home astronomer can actually measure the rotation speed of Mars.
Similar with Jupiter.
You can see the various storms and features on it's bands rotate. Being a gas planet the different parts of it rotate at different speeds. But what is also interesting about Jupiter is it's 4 brightest moons. With a pair of decent sized binoculars, you can see these and if you watch night after night you see them move as they rotate around the planet, with the inner ones orbiting faster then the others. You see them pass in front, then disappear behind and if you catch it on the right night with a telescope, you see the shadow of the moon cross the planet. At one point I promised to try and get an image or video of this, but I'm constantly thwarted by bad weather on the nights this happens, and Jupiter is low in the sky at the moment, so I only have a short period before it disappears behind the neighbours trees. But if you look due south just after sunset and can see a bright 'star' that is Jupiter. If you do have any binoculars, take a look and you will see the 4 brightest moons.
I've not got any of my own pictures of Saturn. While the planet itself is mostly featureless and you can't see it rotate, there are the rings. As our position changes relative to Saturn, we see the rings at different angles and can see the shadows they cast on the planet. Most people looking through a telescope for the first time have a real wow moment seeing the moon and Saturn. Unfortunately that is even lower than Jupiter at the moment and is not that great to see at the minute (in the UK anyway).
But what does get interesting is watching the orbits of the other planets. Astronomers will often say things like "Jupiter is at opposition". Basically that means that Jupiter is on the opposite side of the earth to the sun, which means it is at the closest and most brightest it will appear. The opposite of that is when the outer planets are at conjunction or the other side of the sun. As they approach this other side, they are at the furthest points in their obits to us and so appear smaller and not as bright.
But, with the outer planets, you also get another interesting effect. The planets stars and other things in space are so far away that we can't easily perceive any depth so we often imagine the concept of a 'celestial sphere', basically like we live on the inside of a large hollow ball and space is painted on the inside (I know what this is sounding like!). The reality is not like that but it works as a hypothetical model.
I've knocked up an animation:
You must be logged on to see external links
It shows the Earth and Jupiter in orbit and there are two things to watch for. There is a faint dotted line moving round, which is the line between Jupiter and the sun. When the earth crosses this line passing between Jupiter and the sun, this is when Jupiter is set to be at opposition. You can see from this how they get so much closer together. You will also notice that the position in their orbits where they reach opposition change each time. So if the background stars on the 'celestial sphere' are fixed, then you can see Jupiter at opposition will appear in different parts of the sky each time.
The thicker line shows where we will see Jupiter appear on this celestial sphere. If you watch it carefully, you can see that relative to the background stars Jupiter appears to move quickly but as we reach opposition it slows and seems to double back on itself before moving forward and speeding up again. This is called retrograde motion and was one of the key observations that made people realise we were not at the centre of the solar system. Only the outer planets experience this. This movement can only be explained with the sun at the centre. They did try to explain it away with 'epicycles' an invisible object that the outer planets happened to jump around a bit every now and then. Moving the rotation around the sun simplified the model and it actually worked.
You can also see that as the Earth reaches the other side of the sun to Jupiter, the line of sight goes pretty close to the sun. That means that as we watch night after night, Jupiter appears closer and closer to the sun, only really being visible around sunset, and then we lose it altogether, only to see it appear as an early evening object just before sunrise a few days later.
Just two dots going round in circles shows the beautiful simplicity of it all and how easy it is to model the solar system and what we see with two simple orbits, match exactly what is observed.
Of course it is only recently that we have had computers to model this, so astronomers used to use an orrery, a mechanical model of the solar system. Just observing the movements like this alone is not enough to figure out the scale of the universe, but you can determine the ratio of how many Jupiter orbits there are to Earth. If you have two cogs (one for each planet) with the same ratio difference then you can build a mechanical representation and it works because cogs are round just like the orbits (though many of the orbits are not quite perfect circles and have eccentricities of their own). It is worth looking at the wikipedia article or doing a google search as there some really beautiful models out there (still talking astronomy here):
You must be logged on to see external links
Computers and mechanical models are not the only tools available and if you want to predict how often a planet will come into opposition you can use maths.
We know that speed is equal to distance over time. So if we say once round an orbit is one rotation, then the rotational speed is the distance (one orbit) over time, 1 year. So for earth the rotational speed is:
se = 1 / e or
se = 1 / 365
Jupiter orbits over 4328.9 earth days, so Jupiter's rotational speed is
sj = 1 / j or
sj = 1/4328.9
The difference in speed is the speed of the earth minus the speed of Jupiter. But if we have said that 'speed = distance / time', then we can rearrange that to say 'time = distance / speed '.
Or we can say that:
difference in time = distance / difference in speed
which will give us how often they come into sync, so
opposition = distance / se - sj
The distance is one rotation so
opposition = 1 / se - sj or
opposition = 1 / (1/365 - 1/4328.9)
opposition = 398.61 days, or just over 13 months
This is exactly how often we see Jupiter reach opposition and why we are able to predict it looking larger and brighter with great accuracy.
How do we know the above maths works? Well we are all familiar with another thing where two objects move in a circle but occasionally overlap - a clock. The minute hand goes round once every 60 minutes and the hour hand goes round once every 12 hours (or 720 minutes). They align at 12 o'clock and again at 5 minutes past 1. That is no different to planets at opposition, so
sync = 1 / (1/60 - 1/720)
sync = 65.45 minutes
or if in sync at 12, they will be in sync again at 5.45 minutes past one, or 1:05:27. That is exactly what we do see.
So there you have it, the solar system really does work like clockwork.
Nah, bollocks
Last edited:
fyl2u
Striker
First of all, AWESOME POST. Thanks for taking the time to put that together. A thoroughly enjoyable read.
Secondly, that animation is amazing. Really interesting to watch. Mesmerizing.
I wish we could give more than one "like" each for a post, because this one deserves about 40 or 50 from me alone.
Last edited:
DaveH
Striker
Cheers. I only discovered geogebra a few months ago, but it is a brilliant tool for knocking up diagrams or animations. Well worth a go next time you need to try something. And it is free.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Can you elaborate on this. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
To me, yes, to you, I don't know.
That's something you have to choose.
That's for you to decide.
The film, goal, was it real or was it an act. I think an act and I accept it as that.
Going to watch Newcastle United at St James' Park is acceptably real for me.
If I could never get to Newcastle or the stadium and can't find trusted people who did, then I'd be sceptical. But this isn't the case.
I take it you're questioning whether star wars is real, right?
That's a choice you need to make, not me.
Do you have absolute proof the people you may watch on TV are really footballers or just actors playing the part to placate the masses
Meeting them in the flesh would be a pretty good yardstick for reality...but you never know...eh?
I'd regard that as real proof and this is the argument.
What we're arguing in terms of a globe and space, has zero real proof for me but curving water round a ball and spinning in a space vacuum seems real to you and you are welcome to it.
Great post mate.
I know nish really about astronomy but that was a great read. Cheers.
Nukehasslefan
Winger
And I stand by that.
I agreed to indentations? If so, yes.
This is where paying attention would help.
I said the landmass has indentations that hold water on them. Around them would be oceans.
Lakes and what not are held in indentations.
The oceans are held in a massive one around which land mass rises above it.
Nothing I've said I back down from.
I didn't dismiss it, I just said it does not show raised landmass in the moat and it shows a mountain for a centre. If you'd paid attention I gave the diagram as nothing more than an idea of what I was talking about with my Earth and it was taken as exactly that diagram.
I know what I have and you don't seem to because you keep mentioning hundreds of miles deep oceans based on looking at a , what you think is hundreds of miles high mountain.
If I draw it you'll then say it's not to scale and I don't know what scale is and what not.
I can't help you to be fair. You'll just have to have it impossible in your mind and have me as wrong and accept it as that.
In the mean time, nothing's changed from my part.
I was under the impression I was to use crayons.
So you can't do a sketch to explain your world that's fair enough, I wonder whyAnd I stand by that.
I agreed to indentations? If so, yes.
This is where paying attention would help.
I said the landmass has indentations that hold water on them. Around them would be oceans.
Lakes and what not are held in indentations.
The oceans are held in a massive one around which land mass rises above it.
Nothing I've said I back down from.
I didn't dismiss it, I just said it does not show raised landmass in the moat and it shows a mountain for a centre. If you'd paid attention I gave the diagram as nothing more than an idea of what I was talking about with my Earth and it was taken as exactly that diagram.
I know what I have and you don't seem to because you keep mentioning hundreds of miles deep oceans based on looking at a , what you think is hundreds of miles high mountain.
If I draw it you'll then say it's not to scale and I don't know what scale is and what not.
I can't help you to be fair. You'll just have to have it impossible in your mind and have me as wrong and accept it as that.
In the mean time, nothing's changed from my part.
I was under the impression I was to use crayons.
I and many others can look through a telescope or binoculars and see proof of planets so there you go that's us sorted.
Brilliant post mate
But but but atmospheric crystal reflections.
Last edited:
Nukehasslefan
Winger
Yes I can.So you can't do a sketch to explain your world that's fair enough, I wonder why
Of course that's you sorted. I have no issue with what you believe.
I just don't follow it, that's all.
Last edited:
