Put a flat earthier into space

[Nukehasslefan]

Yes he did.

No, he hasn't.

But a part from the link to the maths......

You don't know how this game is played. Ignore content of previous posts, even when quoted. That gets a FFS sake response from the poster. Make them type it out again in detail. Then ignore bits you don't like and then say that proves nothing. Then I'll repeatedly ask for maths or and explanation of how the data I showed shows that polaris gets lower by a predictable amount as you move south. Best I'll get is some wooly answer involving magic bending light with no real explanation, I'll ask again for maths or science behind it, he will say maths and science don't matter, they are tools to help tell fanciful stories, everyone will say bollocks, I'll give up. End result, nowt except 35 replies which will greatly excite him.

The only way you can calculate the curvature of Earth is to know Earth curves like you are told and this is exactly what the reliance is on. Basically being told the Earth is a spinning ball with a circumference of 24,901 miles.

You do not know this as factual, so what are you measuring?

 

[DaveH]

No, he hasn't.

The only way you can calculate the curvature of Earth is to know Earth curves like you are told and this is exactly what the reliance is on. Basically being told the Earth is a spinning ball with a circumference of 24,901 miles.

You do not know this as factual, so what are you measuring?

It is showing the data and basic geometry fits exactly what is observed. I could have taken it the other way and said I have accurate measurements of the effect of polaris appearing consistently lower in the sky by a measurable amount, when I travel a measurable amount due south, if we were on a globe, what would the radius be? That would have come out to be the well documented radius of the earth.

It stands to reason and can be demonstrated with models that the further you travel around the edge of a circle or sphere that the observed object will change position in the sky, and the maths comes out to show the widely accepted values. Isolated this is not complete proof, you need other observations and maths to do that but alone this is a strong indicator.

Now I think the onus of evidence turns to the alternate models. You accuse those following established maths of just following the story and not having the intelligence for independent thought. I think it is time you showed us what that is like. Given my observations that polaris consistently drops 3.55 degrees lower in the sky as you travel 245 miles due south, can you provide a model and mathematics to explain that effect for a different shaped earth? Can you demonstrate how that would work with your earth?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

It is showing the data and basic geometry fits exactly what is observed.

No, it's not. Nothing like that is observed, in my honest opinion and if you're honest with yourself you are reliant on being told it is Earth that is curved, convexly.
So what are you measuring and calculating?

I could have taken it the other way and said I have accurate measurements of the effect of polaris appearing consistently lower in the sky by a measurable amount, when I travel a measurable amount due south, if we were on a globe, what would the radius be? That would have come out to be the well documented radius of the earth.

Again, what is polaris to you? You see a bright light in the sky and that's basically it.
You're told it's light years away and moves away from you because the Earth supposedly spins.
What are you measuring?
The only thing you're measuring is the calculations handed to you based on what you're told of supposed star distances and supposed angles.
Your reliance is solely down to that.

It stands to reason and can be demonstrated with models that the further you travel around the edge of a circle or sphere that the observed object will change position in the sky, and the maths comes out to show the widely accepted values. Isolated this is not complete proof, you need other observations and maths to do that but alone this is a strong indicator.

The farther you travel around a circle from a set viewpoint of an object will naturally change the angle of view and distance. But that's in a circle that you know and has no bearing on looking up at any sky as id you are on a circle or a ball as you believe.
The lights move and we observe this but are told it's the opposite.
Depending on the story told also depends on how the story is perceived. If a person's told they are on the conveyor belt and the lights are in situ as you pass below them then that's what that person will believe.
If a person's told the lights are moving and they are stationary then it comes down to a belief in that.
And then you have people who use their own senses to gauge whether they are stationary or moving.

We get told a lot and are basically told to follow that pattern and not question it, in terms of stuff like Earth and so called space and so called stars...etc....etc..

Now I think the onus of evidence turns to the alternate models. You accuse those following established maths of just following the story and not having the intelligence for independent thought. I think it is time you showed us what that is like.

No I don't. You say this because it suits your argument.
I don't pass any of my stuff off as fact. That's my alternate view and the minute I do pass it off as factual I have to back it up.
However you pass off your global belief as factual so you should be able to hand out facts to prove it.
You can only do that by appealing to authority because there's absolutely nothing you can do from your own independent tests to prove any of what you say pertaining to your global Earth belief.

Given my observations that polaris consistently drops 3.55 degrees lower in the sky as you travel 245 miles due south, can you provide a model and mathematics to explain that effect for a different shaped earth? Can you demonstrate how that would work with your earth?

3.55 degrees as you travel 245 miles? What does any of that mean?
Tell me exactly what that means?

You're asking me to provide a model that does this but what exactly are you showing?

 

[The Krankie Returns]

No, it's not. Nothing like that is observed, in my honest opinion and if you're honest with yourself you are reliant on being told it is Earth that is curved, convexly.
So what are you measuring and calculating?


Again, what is polaris to you? You see a bright light in the sky and that's basically it.
You're told it's light years away and moves away from you because the Earth supposedly spins.
What are you measuring?
The only thing you're measuring is the calculations handed to you based on what you're told of supposed star distances and supposed angles.
Your reliance is solely down to that.


The farther you travel around a circle from a set viewpoint of an object will naturally change the angle of view and distance. But that's in a circle that you know and has no bring on looking up at any sky as id you are on a circle or a ball as you believe.
The lights move and we observe this but are told it's the opposite.
Depending on the story told also depends on how the story is perceived. If a person's told they are on the conveyor belt and the lights are in situ as you pass below them then that's what that person will believe.
If a person's told the lights are moving and they are stationary then it comes down to a belief in that.
And then you have people who use their own senses to gauge whether they are stationary or moving.

We get told a lot and are basically told to follow that pattern and not question it, in terms of stuff like Earth and so called space and so called stars...etc....etc..


No I don't. You say this because it suits your argument.
I don't pass any of my stuff off as fact. That's my alternate view and the minute I do pass it off as factual and have to back it up.
However you pass off your global belief as factual so you should be able to hand out facts to prove it.
You can only do that by appealing to authority because there's absolutely nothing you can do from your own independent tests to prove any of what you say pertaining to your global Earth belief.



3.55 degrees as you travel 245 miles? What does any of that mean?
Tell me exactly what that means?

You're asking me to provide a model that does this but what exactly are you showing?

@DaveH

Told you!!

 

[Nukehasslefan]

@DaveH

Told you!!

You're wanting this shut down so why are you paying attention to it?

 

[The Krankie Returns]

You're wanting this shut down so why are you paying attention to it?

For the sanity of everyone involved, which doesn’t include you. I couldn’t give a shiny shite about you.

 

[DaveH]

3.55 degrees as you travel 245 miles? What does any of that mean?
Tell me exactly what that means?

You're asking me to provide a model that does this but what exactly are you showing?

First bit I removed from the quote is your lack of understanding so lets not go there.

Second bit, really simple.

Stand outside on a clear night. Look to the horizon, that is at 0 degrees, Keep one arm pointing at the horizon and use the other arm to point at any star of your choosing, the angle between your hands is the angle it appears at in the sky. "What is Polaris to me?". Polaris is the point of light that stays in the same place as the other points of light rotate around it. While the other points change their position and hence their angle to you throughout the night. Astronomers use more accurate ways to measure the angle than flapping their arms about, but that suffices for now to explain.

Polaris stays in the same place (to the naked eye). That means it makes a really good reference point and it is why telescopes use it to 'polar align' and why I have accurate measurements of it's height. Regardless of the reasons why, if you photograph the night sky with a standard fixed tripod, you will get blurring as the objects rotate around the night sky. Great if you want star trails, not so great if you want a long exposure of something in the sky. An equatorial mount is aligned to polaris and mechanically rotates around that point meaning a camera or telescope attached to that mount appears to be pointing at the same thing. That allows you to have long but crisp exposures or many minutes where as a fixed tripod will only get you about 30 seconds. From the imaging point of view, it doesn't matter what the night sky is, real stars and nebula in deep space or projections on some dome. The rotation around the fixed point of Polaris is an observed fact and equatorial mounts rotate slowly to combat that effect.

So at home, I bring out my imaging setup and no matter what time of the year, Polaris is always at the same angle to the horizon. Always there, always the same place, I don't need to adjust the angle. However if I travel 245 miles north, I need to make an adjustment of 3.55 degrees. Always the same thing. It is a small scale or a larger observed effect. Get towards the equator and polaris is almost on the horizon, get towards the north pole and it is almost overhead at 90 degrees to the horizon.

However that change in angle of miles due north-south to degrees can be accurately calculated for anywhere in the world, assuming a global model.

Can you provide a model and calculations for any other shape?

 

[The Krankie Returns]

First bit I removed from the quote is your lack of understanding so lets not go there.

Second bit, really simple.

Stand outside on a clear night. Look to the horizon, that is at 0 degrees, Keep one arm pointing at the horizon and use the other arm to point at any star of your choosing, the angle between your hands is the angle it appears at in the sky. "What is Polaris to me?". Polaris is the point of light that stays in the same place as the other points of light rotate around it. While the other points change their position and hence their angle to you throughout the night. Astronomers use more accurate ways to measure the angle than flapping their arms about, but that suffices for now to explain.

Polaris stays in the same place (to the naked eye). That means it makes a really good reference point and it is why telescopes use it to 'polar align' and why I have accurate measurements of it's height. Regardless of the reasons why, if you photograph the night sky with a standard fixed tripod, you will get blurring as the objects rotate around the night sky. Great if you want star trails, not so great if you want a long exposure of something in the sky. An equatorial mount is aligned to polaris and mechanically rotates around that point meaning a camera or telescope attached to that mount appears to be pointing at the same thing. That allows you to have long but crisp exposures or many minutes where as a fixed tripod will only get you about 30 seconds. From the imaging point of view, it doesn't matter what the night sky is, real stars and nebula in deep space or projections on some dome. The rotation around the fixed point of Polaris is an observed fact and equatorial mounts rotate slowly to combat that effect.

So at home, I bring out my imaging setup and no matter what time of the year, Polaris is always at the same angle to the horizon. Always there, always the same place, I don't need to adjust the angle. However if I travel 245 miles north, I need to make an adjustment of 3.55 degrees. Always the same thing. It is a small scale or a larger observed effect. Get towards the equator and polaris is almost on the horizon, get towards the north pole and it is almost overhead at 90 degrees to the horizon.

However that change in angle of miles due north-south to degrees can be accurately calculated for anywhere in the world, assuming a global model.

Can you provide a model and calculations for any other shape?

He’s drawing you in again mate.

 

[DaveH]

He’s drawing you in again mate.

I’m happy to run with this a bit. Either he dismisses observational evidence, fails to provide any form of model and calculation method or amazes us all with new physics and repeatable mathematics that might really make those of us doubting anything but a globe think again. The first two will give insight into a flat earther’s mentality, the third one will be a wow moment and perhaps change my life. Worth waiting for I think.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Second bit, really simple.

Stand outside on a clear night. Look to the horizon, that is at 0 degrees, Keep one arm pointing at the horizon and use the other arm to point at any star of your choosing, the angle between your hands is the angle it appears at in the sky.

The angle it appears at?
What are you proving with this?

"What is Polaris to me?". Polaris is the point of light that stays in the same place as the other points of light rotate around it. While the other points change their position and hence their angle to you throughout the night. Astronomers use more accurate ways to measure the angle than flapping their arms about, but that suffices for now to explain.

So you admit that other points of light rotate around polaris, so Earth has to be stationary, right?

Polaris stays in the same place (to the naked eye). That means it makes a really good reference point and it is why telescopes use it to 'polar align' and why I have accurate measurements of it's height.

You have accurate measurements of Polaris height?
Are you not supposed to be measuring these lights in terms of light years distance?

Regardless of the reasons why, if you photograph the night sky with a standard fixed tripod, you will get blurring as the objects rotate around the night sky.

At what speed are they rotating around the night sky ?

Great if you want star trails, not so great if you want a long exposure of something in the sky. An equatorial mount is aligned to polaris and mechanically rotates around that point meaning a camera or telescope attached to that mount appears to be pointing at the same thing. That allows you to have long but crisp exposures or many minutes where as a fixed tripod will only get you about 30 seconds. From the imaging point of view, it doesn't matter what the night sky is, real stars and nebula in deep space or projections on some dome. The rotation around the fixed point of Polaris is an observed fact and equatorial mounts rotate slowly to combat that effect.

An observed fact is irrelevant.
What that observed fact is actually showing is what's relevant. It does not show any spinning global Earth and you know this.

So at home, I bring out my imaging setup and no matter what time of the year, Polaris is always at the same angle to the horizon. Always there, always the same place, I don't need to adjust the angle. However if I travel 245 miles north, I need to make an adjustment of 3.55 degrees. Always the same thing. It is a small scale or a larger observed effect. Get towards the equator and polaris is almost on the horizon, get towards the north pole and it is almost overhead at 90 degrees to the horizon.

However that change in angle of miles due north-south to degrees can be accurately calculated for anywhere in the world, assuming a global model.

You are assuming a global model because that's the model you've been handed and taught to work from with all this.
It proves nothing of spinning globe at all. Absolutely nothing.

Can you provide a model and calculations for any other shape?

I don't need to provide any calculations for any other shape because I don't pass any other shape off as factual.
But, for the sake of it, if the lights in the sky are moving and the Earth is stationary, then you will see what you see and calculate what comes from that.
You travelling north to see adjustments is absolutely irrelevant to any global Earth. You know this.

 

[Pancho]

You must be logged on to see media items

 

[FN-2187]

Why would they lie?

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Why would they lie?

Why does anyone lie?
People lie everyday to dupe others into a belief system of their making, whether it's a salesperson or news...etc....etc....etc.
There could be many many reasons why there's a lie but guessing which one would not be any easy task for us lot that are basically chewing up and swallowing storylines in abundance.

What if this Earth offers a lot more than we're told?
Getting told it's a ball in space pretty much ensures we've go nowhere else to roam, kind of thing. Maybe...or maybe not. Maybe other reasons.

 

[FN-2187]

Why does anyone lie?
People lie everyday to dupe others into a belief system of their making, whether it's a salesperson or news...etc....etc....etc.
There could be many many reasons why there's a lie but guessing which one would not be any easy task for us lot that are basically chewing up and swallowing storylines in abundance.

What if this Earth offers a lot more than we're told?
Getting told it's a ball in space pretty much ensures we've go nowhere else to roam, kind of thing. Maybe...or maybe not. Maybe other reasons.

Well that's me convinced.

 

[Nukehasslefan]

Well that's me convinced.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
You asked a question and I gave an answer.

 

[FN-2187]

I'm not trying to convince you of anything.
You asked a question and I gave an answer.

No bother.

 

[DaveH]

The angle it appears at?
What are you proving with this?




So you admit that other points of light rotate around polaris, so Earth has to be stationary, right?





You have accurate measurements of Polaris height?
Are you not supposed to be measuring these lights in terms of light years distance?

At what speed are they rotating around the night sky ?


An observed fact is irrelevant.
What that observed fact is actually showing is what's relevant. It does not show any spinning global Earth and you know this.


You are assuming a global model because that's the model you've been handed and taught to work from with all this.
It proves nothing of spinning globe at all. Absolutely nothing.



I don't need to provide any calculations for any other shape because I don't pass any other shape off as factual.
But, for the sake of it, if the lights in the sky are moving and the Earth is stationary, then you will see what you see and calculate what comes from that.
You travelling north to see adjustments is absolutely irrelevant to any global Earth. You know this.

And there we have it, the sort of response I was expecting and looking for.

Twice basic observational information has been offered, the changing apparent height of polaris in the night sky depending on how far north you are and what response do I get? More questions, doubt and some deflection. I had tried to move on from the globe model but here the flat earther sticks to attacking it.

Why? To me that is what a lot of being a conspiracy theorist is about. Attack the accepted model. Why? Well it annoys and frustrates people. I asked about the alternative model and the response is an attack of the norm and more questions, literally asking for the same thing again that I have provided 3 times. Why? Well a question or a leading statement gets a response.

The bottom line is that this particular flat earther clearly has no knowledge of the night sky and has never made an accurate observation because they just don't (or pretend not to) understand the most basic of observations of how the sky changes. Yet they persist with the idea that there is no evidence. It comes back to what I said last week, there is no evidence that they understand, and that is the key difference.

If someone went back to the roman invasion and tried to explain football streaming to an ipad it would just make no sense at all. This is the same. So claims of "no evidence at all" is, actually I don't understand the evidence.

So what does the conspiracy theorist do? They dismiss all the evidence they don't understand, doubt the most basic of observations and write off the world of mathematics. Remove all of that and you are left with zero evidence. But the bit I struggle to understand is, after all this attack on the reality of a globe, it is instantly replaced with something else they can't really describe and replace it with something of which there is zero evidence. I think deep down that can only come down to attention seeking.

I have said many times that every post by a conspiracy nutter is designed to get replies and look at the post above. Designed to be infuriatingly stupid, begging me to repeat the same thing I've said a few times again. Yum yum, troll is fed.

A strange breed but thankfully very few an in no position to make a difference anyway.

 

[peachy]

I love this thread, from the misspelled title to the sheer persistence shown.

And the photos.
Not seen the butterfly nebula before, how beautiful is that!

 

[Nukehasslefan]

And there we have it, the sort of response I was expecting and looking for.

Of course. Any response would be like that with you so I'm under no illusions about it.
You're armed with the all go no stop Earth is a globe paraphernalia and ready made answers to anything against it and I'm under no illusions about that, either.

Twice basic observational information has been offered, the changing apparent height of polaris in the night sky depending on how far north you are and what response do I get?

What are you proving?

More questions, doubt and some deflection. I had tried to move on from the globe model but here the flat earther sticks to attacking it.Why?

How are you moving on from a globe model when your argument is supposedly proving it with this angle of so called stars and all the rest of it?

Attack the accepted model. Why?

Because I don't accept it and it is absolute nonsense to me, just as alternate theories are absolute nonsense to you.

Well it annoys and frustrates people.

Then don't participate, you're all adults and can ignore me. Their/your frustration is purely down to me not following a narrative that I do not believe in. That's not my issue.

I asked about the alternative model and the response is an attack of the norm and more questions, literally asking for the same thing again that I have provided 3 times. Why? Well a question or a leading statement gets a response.

I can not and have told you time and time again about not having facts on an alternative model. I can't give you anything other than my own take on what I think Earth may be but I can also give you my take on what I think it is not, which is why I go back to the spinning globe narrative that is pushed.
The most basic stuff shows a globe to be nonsense and the stuff added in to try and make it work becomes more silly to me...but people differ in how they accept stuff which may not be silly to them.

It's swings and roundabouts.

The bottom line is that this particular flat earther clearly has no knowledge of the night sky and has never made an accurate observation because they just don't (or pretend not to) understand the most basic of observations of how the sky changes.

The night sky?
You are observing lights. Moving lights.
It's fair to say that what you observe is what you then reference in books and stuff as to what you believe you are looking at.

Yet they persist with the idea that there is no evidence. It comes back to what I said last week, there is no evidence that they understand, and that is the key difference.

There is no evidence for what we are told. We are basically told to accept what's written. Accept the storylines as and when they are added to, also.

So what does the conspiracy theorist do? They dismiss all the evidence they don't understand, doubt the most basic of observations and write off the world of mathematics.

No.
What happens is, when evidence is not shown to give a proof it can be questioned and proof asked for.
If gobbledygook is then given for a proof, then it becomes iffy, like most of the global stuff.
As for mathematics. It's perfect for realistic calculations and pointless for obscure equations that are meaningless as any end product or understanding by anyone other than the one's that concocted the stuff.

Remove all of that and you are left with zero evidence. But the bit I struggle to understand is, after all this attack on the reality of a globe, it is instantly replaced with something else they can't really describe and replace it with something of which there is zero evidence. I think deep down that can only come down to attention seeking.I have said many times that every post by a conspiracy nutter is designed to get replies and look at the post above. Designed to be infuriatingly stupid, begging me to repeat the same thing I've said a few times again. Yum yum, troll is fed.

It's not replaced by anything. It's cast aside whilst alternate theories/hypotheses/guessing is done which offers a potential for a realism against the absolute nonsensical offerings that supposedly show a spinning globe in a space vacuum and all the rest of it.
As for attention seeking. Another few words designed to batter down those who go against the grain.
I tell you all time and time again to ignore me. Don't give me any of your time but you keep doing that and then moaning that I'm attention seeking or trolling or whatever. Why?
Why not just treat me for the person you think I am (nutter/idiot/troll/attention seeker or whatever floats your boat) and totally blank me?
If you don't then who is the attention seeker?

 

[Pancho]

I love this thread, from the misspelled title to the sheer persistence shown.

And the photos.
Not seen the butterfly nebula before, how beautiful is that!

If an observer was a non committed sceptic then I think they'd acknowledge that at least NASA and the scientific community are putting in a bit of effort to convince with literally tens of thousands of these beautiful images.

By comparison the best the the flat earthers can come up with is a shoddy description of some sort of disc with a tupperware cover.

If both theories are bollocks, then on purely aesthetic grounds I'm plumping for the magnificent blue marbled globe as opposed to a giant cake stand.