Put a flat earthier into space


And that is the flat out denial that I said about and why you refuse to entertain a debate.

You openly state that you see a globe and instantly reject it without further analysis. You will later look to this discussion and claim that I have failed to offer any proof and that I'm following a "nice story I have been schooled in".
You are offering your side based entirely on a globe, as shown by your diagram.
That shows 100% bias for your set up which is fine but don't then claim I reject it without analysis when it offers nothing for analysis.
But it is right there in front of you. I admit that it does not mean we live on a globe, this is one simple question, does the angles in the simulation match those observed in real life observations. It just does, regardless of the actual shape of the earth.
If you're talking about light-year stars then no it doesn't offer any angles to them.
You may have noticed that there are two observers on that diagram and the distance across the surface between them is marked. If I set the angle for A to Polaris to be 54.9 degrees (the angle I regularly set if I'm doing astronomy from my mam's house in the north east), and set the angle of observer B to be 51.3 degrees (the angle I have measured at home), the distance between is 398.6 km or 247 miles. According to maps, if I draw a line due south from my mam's house for 247 miles, I get a location due west of my house. Why would this simulation exactly match my observations teamed up with a map?
Ok, so you're observing angles to points of light for navigation.
It offers no proof of any spinning globe, so what are you getting at?
I'm sorry, I can't answer a question as simple as that. I have a different way of understanding things so I can't consider anything that you say.
Ok, no problem.
 
As I said I have no issues with a ban but do it for the right reasons not because I've hit back at a person who's had many a go at me for answers and didn't like the answers and decided to make a bit of fun, which was and is fine but I have no chance of argument with a mod who takes a side.
Ah so you were basically told to stop being condescending over a subject you literally know nothing about and you have spat your dummy out. And you are now saying a professor is wrong even though its his specialist field :lol:
 
You are offering your side based entirely on a globe, as shown by your diagram.
That shows 100% bias for your set up which is fine but don't then claim I reject it without analysis when it offers nothing for analysis.

If you're talking about light-year stars then no it doesn't offer any angles to them.

Ok, so you're observing angles to points of light for navigation.
It offers no proof of any spinning globe, so what are you getting at?

Ok, no problem.
A am offering a globe because that is what we are examining. I'm happy to and was intending to repeat the same process for any other shape of the earth and sky. That way we have a fair and balanced view, this is called debate. The question I'm asking and hoping to explore together is does the globe model match real life observations to Polaris? This is how science works. Come up with a theory and test to see if that theory fits. So the theory is that the earth is a globe, does it pass or fail the test? Next we could try a pyramid. If the test is passed, then it indicates it is possible the earth could be a globe but is not conclusive proof. But if it fails the test, then it seriously places doubt on the earth being a globe. It becomes a process of elimination. It is important that if it does pass the test we do not immediately jump to the assumption that it must be.

You question the angle and that is a reasonable question, how do we measure that angle and we should have perhaps agreed on this first? I think you will like this one because it fits in with other things you have previously said. This applies no matter what the shape of your earth. If you consider a perfectly level telescope where the tube is perfectly horizontal then we can say this is pointing at a level horizon and it is at an angle of 0 degrees. If we tilt that telescope up to look at a star, moon, plane, etc we can count this as the measured angle to the horizon. This is also what a sexton does and was used in navigation. The distance to whatever polaris is, is irrelevant at this stage and you are again getting ahead of yourself trying to take in potentially huge distances into account. All we are measuring is the angle a telescope needs to be pointed at in order to centre Polaris in the view.

So disregarding any pre-conceived shape of the earth, do you agree or accept that?:
1) To an observer in a fixed position, Polaris will appear in the same position in the sky night after night? (previously agreed)
2) A levelled telescope with a suitable gauge can measure what angle it is pointing up at and this is the angle to the horizon?
3) That such facilities are well within the means of an amateur, and that it is feasible that I could own such a telescope?
4) That it is feasible that I have used such facilities to measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris from my Mam's house in the north east to be 54.9 degrees
5) That is is feasible that I have used such facilities to measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris from my house and found the angle be 51.3 degrees
6) That it is reasonable for me to have taken a map and measured a line due south from my mam's house until I reach a point due west from my house, and found that distance due south to be 247 miles or 398 km?

Now to engage in this as a debate and not flat out denial, can you tell me if you disagree with any of the above points, which ones you disagree with, and the key question for each one, why? I appreciate I'm effectively asking 6 questions here, but I didn't want to draw this bit of the debate out for 3 days to get them all asked. I appreciate you don't know where me or my mam lives and I'm not willing to publish addresses on this forum, so there is an element of trust here.
 
Last edited:
Do you not find it odd that this Polaris (so-called) star just happens to stay directly above what you term as the north pole, at all times even though we're told it's 323 light years away and yet it just happens to keep perfectly aligned with a spinning and wobbling Earth.
I find it more odd that no matter how often it's been explained, and it has been explained, you still don't get it. You even give most of the answer in that one sentence.

There are literally billions of stars all around us so no, it's not all that surprising that one just happens to line up with Earths axis of rotation and It's a really long way away. Our orbit around the Sun is a small distance by comparison so it appears to stay there all year round. The only wobble that will affect that is precession, which has also been explained.

Tell us the one about the wobbly orbit again :)
 
A am offering a globe because that is what we are examining. I'm happy to and was intending to repeat the same process for any other shape of the earth and sky. That way we have a fair and balanced view, this is called debate. The question I'm asking and hoping to explore together is does the globe model match real life observations to Polaris? This is how science works. Come up with a theory and test to see if that theory fits. So the theory is that the earth is a globe, does it pass or fail the test? Next we could try a pyramid. If the test is passed, then it indicates it is possible the earth could be a globe but is not conclusive proof. But if it fails the test, then it seriously places doubt on the earth being a globe. It becomes a process of elimination. It is important that if it does pass the test we do not immediately jump to the assumption that it must be.

You question the angle and that is a reasonable question, how do we measure that angle and we should have perhaps agreed on this first? I think you will like this one because it fits in with other things you have previously said. This applies no matter what the shape of your earth. If you consider a perfectly level telescope where the tube is perfectly horizontal then we can say this is pointing at a level horizon and it is at an angle of 0 degrees. If we tilt that telescope up to look at a star, moon, plane, etc we can count this as the measured angle to the horizon. This is also what a sexton does and was used in navigation. The distance to whatever polaris is, is irrelevant at this stage and you are again getting ahead of yourself trying to take in potentially huge distances into account. All we are measuring is the angle a telescope needs to be pointed at in order to centre Polaris in the view.

So disregarding any pre-conceived shape of the earth, do you agree or accept that?:
1) To an observer in a fixed position, Polaris will appear in the same position in the sky night after night? (previously agreed)
2) A levelled telescope with a suitable gauge can measure what angle it is pointing up at and this is the angle to the horizon?
3) That such facilities are well within the means of an amateur, and that it is feasible that I could own such a telescope?
4) That it is feasible that I have used such facilities to measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris from my Mam's house in the north east to be 54.9 degrees
5) That is is feasible that I have used such facilities to measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris from my house and found the angle be 51.3 degrees
6) That it is reasonable for me to have taken a map and measured a line due south from my mam's house until I reach a point due west from my house, and found that distance due south to be 247 miles or 398 km?

Now to engage in this as a debate and not flat out denial, can you tell me if you disagree with any of the above points, which ones you disagree with, and the key question for each one, why? I appreciate I'm effectively asking 6 questions here, but I didn't want to draw this bit of the debate out for 3 days to get them all asked. I appreciate you don't know where me or my mam lives and I'm not willing to publish addresses on this forum, so there is an element of trust here.
Should be an interesting reply if you get one to reasonable questions
 
Should be an interesting reply if you get one to reasonable questions
I don't see why I wouldn't. Those questions do not relate to the shape of the earth. We are just agreeing on reasonable experimental data.

The same data and technique will apply to measuring the angle to a point of light on a dome or indeed to measure the angle between the horizon and the top of a tall tree. The question is not so much what you are looking at and perhaps i should have phrased it as the angle between the horizon and any object in your view. Basically I'm asking if you tilt your telescope up to look at something higher, can you measure the angle you have tilted it at. I'm not expecting anyone to deny that such a thing is possible.
 
I don't see why I wouldn't. Those questions do not relate to the shape of the earth. We are just agreeing on reasonable experimental data.

The same data and technique will apply to measuring the angle to a point of light on a dome or indeed to measure the angle between the horizon and the top of a tall tree. The question is not so much what you are looking at and perhaps i should have phrased it as the angle between the horizon and any object in your view. Basically I'm asking if you tilt your telescope up to look at something higher, can you measure the angle you have tilted it at. I'm not expecting anyone to deny that such a thing is possible.
You don't need angles and maths, just common sense observation.

(Just cutting to the chase)
 
I can accept many many things like I've said time and time again.
I do not have to believe anything in its entirety.


It is allowed. I do not ask nor tell anyone to not believe. I simply offer questions and offer a person alternative thought processes which they're obviously entitled to accept or reject or even ridicule.
So you are now admitting that you have no evidence for any of what you say they are just musings
 
Ah so you were basically told to stop being condescending over a subject you literally know nothing about and you have spat your dummy out. And you are now saying a professor is wrong even though its his specialist field :lol:
Nope, try not to waste your time having a go as it'll just frustrate you.
 
I find it more odd that no matter how often it's been explained, and it has been explained, you still don't get it. You even give most of the answer in that one sentence.

There are literally billions of stars all around us so no, it's not all that surprising that one just happens to line up with Earths axis of rotation and It's a really long way away. Our orbit around the Sun is a small distance by comparison so it appears to stay there all year round. The only wobble that will affect that is precession, which has also been explained.

Tell us the one about the wobbly orbit again :)

"Taking turns as the North Star​

A motion of Earth called precession causes our axis to trace out an imaginary circle on the celestial sphere every 26,000 years. Thousands of years ago, when the pyramids were rising from the sands of ancient Egypt, the North Star was an inconspicuous star called Thuban in the constellation Draco the Dragon. Twelve thousand years from now, the blue-white star Vega in the constellation Lyra will be a much brighter North Star than our current Polaris.

Polaris could be a name for any North Star. Our current Polaris used to be called Phoenice. It is the 49th brightest star in the sky. It is not known for its brightness, but for its unique position in the sky.

Proper motion​

By the way, Polaris – like all stars – has more than one kind of motion. The stars we see in our night sky are all members of our Milky Way galaxy. All of these stars are moving through space, but they’re so far away we can’t easily see them move relative to each other. That’s why the stars appear fixed relative to each other. And it’s why, for the most part, we see the same constellations as our ancestors.

But over time, this movement, called proper motion rearranges the patterns of stars we see in our sky. For Polaris, that movement is small, about 46 arcseconds in 1,000 years. That is about 1/40th of the diameter of the full moon as seen from the earth. So when you’re talking about stars moving or staying fixed, remember … they are all moving through the vastness of space. It’s just the relatively short time of a human lifespan that prevents us from seeing this grand motion."

Thought this explained it quite nicely
 
A am offering a globe because that is what we are examining. I'm happy to and was intending to repeat the same process for any other shape of the earth and sky. That way we have a fair and balanced view, this is called debate. The question I'm asking and hoping to explore together is does the globe model match real life observations to Polaris?
And I'm saying your diagram does not offer a reality, in my opinion.
This is how science works. Come up with a theory and test to see if that theory fits.
That's all fine if it's being tested with known reality. Earth itself as in view to a globe and what's beyond it is not a known reality in my opinion.
So the theory is that the earth is a globe, does it pass or fail the test?
It fails miserably for me, a one that we supposedly walk upon whilst spinning and all the rest of the shenanigans.
Next we could try a pyramid. If the test is passed, then it indicates it is possible the earth could be a globe but is not conclusive proof. But if it fails the test, then it seriously places doubt on the earth being a globe. It becomes a process of elimination. It is important that if it does pass the test we do not immediately jump to the assumption that it must be.
You need something better than just throwing up a diagram and offering shapes and angles to supposed stars.
You can bring up as many shapes as you want with that and it's not going to offer any proof.
It needs to be looked at in many many ways to even get potential.
You question the angle and that is a reasonable question, how do we measure that angle and we should have perhaps agreed on this first? I think you will like this one because it fits in with other things you have previously said. This applies no matter what the shape of your earth. If you consider a perfectly level telescope where the tube is perfectly horizontal then we can say this is pointing at a level horizon and it is at an angle of 0 degrees. If we tilt that telescope up to look at a star, moon, plane, etc we can count this as the measured angle to the horizon. This is also what a sexton does and was used in navigation. The distance to whatever polaris is, is irrelevant at this stage and you are again getting ahead of yourself trying to take in potentially huge distances into account. All we are measuring is the angle a telescope needs to be pointed at in order to centre Polaris in the view.
I have no issue with angles being offered. What I am saying is those angles do not represent seeing stars from a globe.
They may work well with navigation but that to me offers something other than an external globe we supposedly walk upon.

So disregarding any pre-conceived shape of the earth, do you agree or accept that?:
1) To an observer in a fixed position, Polaris will appear in the same position in the sky night after night? (previously agreed)
No problem.
2) A levelled telescope with a suitable gauge can measure what angle it is pointing up at and this is the angle to the horizon?
I'll go along with it.
3) That such facilities are well within the means of an amateur, and that it is feasible that I could own such a telescope?
Ok, I'll go with it.
4) That it is feasible that I have used such facilities to measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris from my Mam's house in the north east to be 54.9 degrees
I have no issues with what you measure in angles.
5) That is is feasible that I have used such facilities to measure the angle from the horizon to Polaris from my house and found the angle be 51.3 degrees
Ok, I'll go with you.
6) That it is reasonable for me to have taken a map and measured a line due south from my mam's house until I reach a point due west from my house, and found that distance due south to be 247 miles or 398 km?
Ok but this comes back to navigation as I said earlier.
Now to engage in this as a debate and not flat out denial, can you tell me if you disagree with any of the above points, which ones you disagree with, and the key question for each one, why? I appreciate I'm effectively asking 6 questions here, but I didn't want to draw this bit of the debate out for 3 days to get them all asked. I appreciate you don't know where me or my mam lives and I'm not willing to publish addresses on this forum, so there is an element of trust here.
I'm going to go along with you from this point to see where you end up.
I find it more odd that no matter how often it's been explained, and it has been explained, you still don't get it. You even give most of the answer in that one sentence.

There are literally billions of stars all around us so no, it's not all that surprising that one just happens to line up with Earths axis of rotation and It's a really long way away. Our orbit around the Sun is a small distance by comparison so it appears to stay there all year round. The only wobble that will affect that is precession, which has also been explained.

Tell us the one about the wobbly orbit again :)
You're told one thing and how it apparently works.
Reality to this shows it not to be but, as I mentioned a few times before, the movement of a globe around a sun whilst still pointed at a so-called star on a tilted axis has to offer the star itself following that pole point from 323 light years away as if it's fixed.
It's utter nonsense but clearly, I won't get it when the mindset is firmly stuck on the mainstream ideal.
So you are now admitting that you have no evidence for any of what you say they are just musings
For my Earth, yes. It's not now admitting anything. I made it abundantly clear from the start.
 
Last edited:
And I'm saying your diagram does not offer a reality, in my opinion.

That's all fine if it's being tested with known reality. Earth itself as in view to a globe and what's beyond it is not a known reality in my opinion.

It fails miserably for me, a one that we supposedly walk upon whilst spinning and all the rest of the shenanigans.

You need something better than just throwing up a diagram and offering shapes and angles to supposed stars.
You can bring up as many shapes as you want with that and it's not going to offer any proof.
It needs to be looked at in many many ways to even get potential.

I have no issue with angles being offered. What I am saying is those angles do not represent seeing stars from a globe.
They may work well with navigation but that to me offers something other than an external globe we supposedly walk upon.


No problem.

I'll go along with it.

Ok, I'll go with it.

I have no issues with what you measure in angles.

Ok, I'll go with you.

Ok but this comes back to navigation as I said earlier.

I'm going to go along with you from this point to see where you end up.

You're told one thing and how it apparently works.
Reality to this shows it not to be but, as I mentioned a few times before, the movement of a globe around a sun whilst still pointed at a so-called star on a tilted axis has to offer the star itself following that pole point from 323 light years away as if it's fixed.
It's utter nonsense but clearly, I won't get it when the mindset is firmly stuck on the mainstream ideal.

For my Earth, yes. It's not now admitting anything. I made it abundantly clear from the start.
Ok so some progress, you agree with the experimental technique and you agree with that data.

Now if you put A and B in my simulation at the angles I said, the distance between then is exactly the measured distance in reality. Do you agree?
 

"Taking turns as the North Star​

A motion of Earth called precession causes our axis to trace out an imaginary circle on the celestial sphere every 26,000 years. Thousands of years ago, when the pyramids were rising from the sands of ancient Egypt, the North Star was an inconspicuous star called Thuban in the constellation Draco the Dragon. Twelve thousand years from now, the blue-white star Vega in the constellation Lyra will be a much brighter North Star than our current Polaris.

Polaris could be a name for any North Star. Our current Polaris used to be called Phoenice. It is the 49th brightest star in the sky. It is not known for its brightness, but for its unique position in the sky.

Proper motion​

By the way, Polaris – like all stars – has more than one kind of motion. The stars we see in our night sky are all members of our Milky Way galaxy. All of these stars are moving through space, but they’re so far away we can’t easily see them move relative to each other. That’s why the stars appear fixed relative to each other. And it’s why, for the most part, we see the same constellations as our ancestors.

But over time, this movement, called proper motion rearranges the patterns of stars we see in our sky. For Polaris, that movement is small, about 46 arcseconds in 1,000 years. That is about 1/40th of the diameter of the full moon as seen from the earth. So when you’re talking about stars moving or staying fixed, remember … they are all moving through the vastness of space. It’s just the relatively short time of a human lifespan that prevents us from seeing this grand motion."

Thought this explained it quite nicely
Nice story, but if I deliberately choose to misunderstand any part of that then the whole thing falls apart.
 
For my Earth, yes. It's not now admitting anything. I made it abundantly clear from the start.
Well no you clearly said you'd done experiments on things including superfluids, at least we now have clarity that you haven't done any experiments or have any evidence they are just musings.
That's fine we can now all just chat, we have our pieces of evidence and experiments we can call upon and share, you have thoughts in your head, doesn't mean we can't enjoy the conversations.
 
You're told one thing and how it apparently works.
Reality to this shows it not to be
Your reality. Your entirely made up and un-real reality.

but, as I mentioned a few times before, the movement of a globe around a sun whilst still pointed at a so-called star on a tilted axis has to offer the star itself following that pole point from 323 light years away as if it's fixed.
Yes, you mentioned it a few times and were shown how and why you were misunderstanding what is happening but you don't want to be corrected and pretend it never happened.
It's utter nonsense but clearly, I won't get it when the mindset is firmly stuck on the mainstream ideal.
You will not get it because you don't want to. It's that simple.
 

Back
Top