Flat Earth?

[Chinahand]

 

 

Gerry, I have got to come back on this. The lack of awareness it portrays is stunning.

 

You've put this diagram up as an explanation as to how the moon rotates from the perspective of an observer on the same line of longitude, but at different latitudes.

 

Please look at the diagram and THINK.

 

Your little man is walking from the N.Pole south towards the equator, will the image of the moon seem to rotate from their perspective, as they move? Or will the moon simply become higher in the sky? - Please be intellectually honest enough to answer this.

 

The only rotation that occurs is when the man turns round at the equator.

 

This diagram does not in anyway explain the well observed phenomena that the view of the moon gradually and progressively rotates with latitude At all.

 

Do you have the honesty to acknowledge this?

 

As ever, your explanations don't work, they are totally inconsistent with evidence, and genuinely show a real inability to conceptually think about how a model represents reality. But hey, that's not a reason to re-evaluate the relevance of your theory ... because NASA uses photoshop.

 

That is such a good reason to cling to a vision of reality which totally fails to provide any explanation for well observed, real life phenomena which anyone with a pair of eyes can gather any day of the week.

 

I anticipated this very question prior to posting up the image yesterday as the thought had also crossed my mind at the time, and the way I see it, is that it would gradually rotate as the man walked from north to south, I am trying to think of a way I can relate this thought to you at the moment through the available medium, its not easy. But....

 

Does this address your concerns?

 

 

 

 

 

Does this address my concerns ... Gerry, you really are very poor at understanding conceptual models and how to use evidence to work out which ones are useful and which ones are dross.

 

Gerry, can you look at your drawing and explain how much parallax of the moon there will be for all your observers. How much parallax is there in reality?

 

Also the case we are meant to be discussing isn't observers along a curve [we could try this later, but you are showing yourself singularly incapable of understanding a straight line example first so lets not run before we can walk, hey].

 

We are discussing observers along a straight line of latitude, North South. If these observers were standing with a compass looking at the moon just after it had risen they would all see the moon on the same bearing (correcting for magnetic anomalies etc), but* the face of the moon would appear at different angles depending upon where the observer is - on the equator the terminator of the bright and dark parts of a half moon would be parallel with the horizon, on the Isle of Man 50 or so degrees, on the North pole 90 degrees.

 

Are you going to dispute this, Gerry?

 

Your explanation does NOT explain these facts. It does not address my concerns, it is not worthy of serious consideration.

 

Sorry if that sounds rude or harsh, but it is simply factual.

 

*Edited - the bearing won't be constant at all times - it's a bit like the mid-summer, autumn equinox, mid-winter and vernal equinox cycles - the bearing will only be constant when the moon rises due east which I think will happen twice a year.

[paul's got wright]

 

this video proves the subject is being discussed, as opposed to the fallacious opinion that no one would ever discuss it because it's so stupid x

 

 

 

A video or series of videos is not evidence of a serious discussion. I suspect that you are either deliberately searching youtube for flat earth videos or they are now being recommended to you by youtube as you watch them.

 

The top 100 in the most popular videos in the UK at the moment contain no videos about the flat earth theories. In fact this is the current top 10;

 

Capture.JPG

 

Using your logic these must be some of the most important videos in the world...

 

PS. I agree that the number one video is ironic in the context of this thread.

 

no need to suspect i have already stated here that i am researching the subject, so obviously that involves searching for what others are finding out in their research. been 7 months now and i am better educated than ever before, about the ball, amongst other things. you are not using my logic fella that's you using yours. the number is not ironic it is proof that people are genuinely discussing the subject. and as i said, the scrutiny should be welcomed by any true scientist. it's all about repeating the tests and finding what the data says. no need to worry. if we live on a ball, that's what the results will show in the end. it's called doing science! x

[paul's got wright]

 

and it's better than the videos you made china,...........oh wait you haven't made any have you! that's right nasa and brian cox make yours for you sorry!!! x x

I don't need to make a video, Nasa, or Brian Cox to understand how the moon looks in the night sky in South Africa, Spain and the Isle of Man.

 

I've observed these things myself and know how to use mathematics to understand how well different conceptual ideas might fit into this reality.

 

A flat earth cannot explain these observations. Gerry's conceptions are to be frank a joke, a caricature of a working conceptual model which fails again and again to explain well observed phenomena - like sunsets, the parallax of the moon, the sun at mid-day on the IOM and in Egypt (something I repeatedly asked Gerry to work out ... he never did ... crickets again hey).

 

I'll waste my time trying to explain reality and a conceptual model to understand it on here, but I doubt that will ever involve any videos ... but who knows hey.

 

ok mate x

[Chinahand]

Here's a good example:

On the 24th of February next year the moon will be basically in its equivalent of the equinox.

On that day the moon will rise basically due to the East for basically the entire earth.

Everyone watching it rise will see the same moon, rising above the horizon at the same compass bearing.

But the face of the moon will be rotated depending where they are on the Earth. At the equator the line joining terminator's end points will be parallel with the equator, at the mid latitudes it will be at an angle, at the poles 90 degrees.

So Gerry's task is to explain this on a flat earth.

He needs to explain:
the tiny parallax of the moon compared to the background stars - tiny, but measurable by any motivated pair of amateurs!
the fact the moon at moon rise is at a constant bearing for everyone along a line of latitude.
why the face is rotated .

He needs to explain all three of these facts.

His current efforts fail dismally.

Now there is a very simple way to explain these results - the moon is far away (though no where near as far away as the stars) and we are observing it on a sphere.

Can Gerry find a better model to explain these results? Over to you Gerry, but sadly you've not managed it at all so far.

[paul's got wright]

your a one directional thinker in a 3d illusion china x

[paul's got wright]

i apologise for my spelling x

[quilp]

 

 

''Gerry, I have got to come back on this...''

 

 

Oh no!

[gerrydandridge]

Here's a good example:

 

On the 24th of February next year the moon will be basically in its equivalent of the equinox.

 

 

So Gerry's task is to explain this on a flat earth.

 

He needs to explain:

the tiny parallax of the moon compared to the background stars - tiny, but measurable by any motivated pair of amateurs!

the fact the moon at moon rise is at a constant bearing for everyone along a line of latitude.

why the face is rotated .

 

He needs to explain all three of these facts.

 

His current efforts fail dismally.

 

Can Gerry find a better model to explain these results? Over to you Gerry, but sadly you've not managed it at all so far.

 

Perhaps it would be easier to tackle one question at a time, so number 1 is "the tiny parallax of the moon compared to the background stars - tiny, but measurable by any motivated pair of amateurs!"

 

I assume your thinking is that as the moon is apparently so close to Earth in the FE model then parallax observed would be much greater than we observe in reality, so my thought on this are to remember that the stars are not trillions of miles away behind the moon in the FE model, so if they are just hundreds of miles behind the moon would the parallax still be "tiny" as observed.?

[wrighty]

"They'll tell you black is really white, the moon is just the sun at night"

 

- Ronnie James Dio

- Black Sabbath, Heaven and Hell, 1980

 

He knew the truth, and now he's dead. Are NASA responsible?

[Chinahand]

@Gerry.

 

I've already tried to explain this (multiple times!), but I'll try again: parallax doesn't really need any background stars.

 

Parallax, at its most simple, is: you position your equipment consistently in location A, you take a bearing on an object, you move a known distance, you position your equipment consistently to ensure location B is aligned with location A, you take the bearing again.

 

The bearing will change a certain amount depending upon how far away the object is and how large the distance between the two points.

 

It is as simple as that.

 

All your models of the flat Earth basically rely on parallax whether it is saying the sun is close and so is directly overhead in Egypt and whatever angle it is in Douglas, or how the position of the moon changes.

 

Astronomy doesn't get results like this - at all. Saying this is simply a factual statement.

 

There is a small parallax on the moon - here is an image of it from the IOM tonight, and from Alexandria. If you switch between the images you'll see that it's right ascension and declination change - and it moves a little bit compared to the background stars, but that isn't really relevant. Even if there were no stars you could measure this parallax change - by measuring its right ascension and declination.

 

For the stars they are simply so far away that without pretty expensive equipment it is really difficult to measure. Again, patient dedicated amateurs can do it, but it is a real challenge and takes dedication.

 

See here.

 

This is the binary stars 61 Cygnus - the shift against the stars helps you see the effect, but if your telescope was aligned correctly you wouldn't need the background stars - you could just measure the positional differences directly:

 

 

Gerry, You could get these photos yourself sitting in your back garden with £5000 of kit.

 

When all is said and done, my basic point is simply your models don't reflect reality - your diagrams rely on huge parallax changes - person A measures the moon to be at one angle, another B a totally different one.

 

This just isn't so - your diagrams have the moon being in the North for one observer, the South for another and every other point of the compass in between.

 

Reality isn't really like that - on a given night the position of the moon is basically fixed apart from the small parallax already discussed. It's declination and right ascension do not alter anything like your diagrams.

 

I should also explain astronomers do have two coordinate systems - right ascension and declination; and altitude and azimuth. You convert between the two based on your longitude, latitude and the time.

 

Superficially this produces results that seem to have some resemblance to you diagrams trying to use parallax to explain the position of the moon or height of the sun in Alexandria and elsewhere on the Earth, but as I've tried to explain repeatedly, whether with the Pole Star or the Height of the sun at midday, your systems don't match reality, you can force them to fit at one place on the Earth, but then everywhere else is out, by increasing amounts as you get further away from that point.

 

This is simply the truth - you can go and get a telescope and do these measurements.

 

The flat earth models don't work, you can't use them to consistently find where the moon will be or basically anything else.

 

But as ever, Gerry, I presume you'll ignore me and prefer to believe in conspiracies.

 

Whether conspiracies exist or not is irrelevant to discovering the shape of the Earth. You can do it by observing the sun and the stars yourself. Conspiracies can't stop you doing this. I find it really difficult to accept you ignore this truth, hence me continuing to bang my head against a brick wall.

 

Go and learn some astronomy. It is a wonderful pass time and genuinely helps you understand the world in a practical way.

 

Believe me it will give you knowledge - something you'd have difficulty finding in a 1000 Youtube videos of the quality being posted here - though I'm sure PGW is going to attempt to prove me wrong.

 

[paul's got wright]

not my intention china i just enjoy the research x

[gerrydandridge]

@Chinahand, good points, admittedly it's not looking good for any flat earth models I have seen so far.

 

Genuinely...thank you.

[Chinahand]

PGW - this is probably a bit too post modern, and our styles probably too different to have a constructive dialogue, but when you say your are enjoying the research I think it is important to question if you are really actually learning anything about the physical universe when listening to the type of videos you are publicising here. You'll definitely learn about people's opinions and motivations, and that, from a sociological point of view, can be interesting, but time and time again when I've watch these things I hear people stating things about the Earth which are observably wrong.

 

The dip of the horizon, the way the view of objects changes as they move away from us, the change in the positions of the sun and stars - in your videos I hear again and again factually incorrect statements - things which are difficult to observe, but which, with patience, can be, are dismissed as being unobserved and false; and claims are made about using Flat Earth assumptions which might superficially look like they work, but when applied generally they don't.

 

There is a huge amount of anti-knowledge in videos claiming the Earth is flat. The Earth isn't flat, and if you try to educate yourself about the Earth from these videos you'll likely end up with views which do not coincide with reality.

 

Now I can already imagine a post modern reply to this. But if you have a conceptual model which takes a measured value of the noonday sun over Douglas and then consistently applies the conclusions of that model to calculate the the noon day sun over Alexandria then for the model to be consistent generally around the Earth then a person using that same model but living in Alexandria could only correctly work out what the noon day sun in the IOM is, if the actual sun over Alexandria is the same as the result calculated by the person in the Isle of Man.

 

I have to admit that last sentence is a bit of a mouthful and I hope it makes sense.

 

Someone in IOM observes Sun = A, calculates Alexandria = B. Using same calcs for someone in Alexandria to get IOM = A, Sun has to = B at Alexandria.

 

If the Sun ≠ B in Alexandria model cannot be applied consistently to calculate the position of the Sun.

 

I've repeatedly tried to get Gerry to do this simple set of calcs - knowledge is a process which consistently provides useful results about reality. Flat Earth models can't do that.

 

Knowledge exists, using a flat earth model does not create knowledge.

 

How do I know that - because the model which creates knowledge - allows us to navigate on the Earth, predict sunset and eclipse times etc rely upon a spherical Earth model and you cannot transform a working spherical model into a working flat plane model - they are axiomatically incompatible.

 

But yeah we are all just brains in vats in the matrix fed a fake illusion ... I fully agree a simple spherical Earth model is WRONG. Reality is far far more complex with quantum and probably extra-dimensional complications ... but though it is wrong, a spherical Earth model is useful, sadly for believers in a flat earth it has been demonstrated multiple times, and you could demonstrate how useless it is today by trying to use it to calculate the height of the midday sun so many thousand miles away in Alexandria, a flat earth model is not.

 

That is a simple truth.

 

But what is truth hey, x.

[paul's got wright]

just listen to this china, i know the earth isn't flat! come on, there's hills everywhere. but glad you finally admitted it's not a ball. we don't know is the truth mate, and that's why it's so interesting to research. here's a geocentrist on the ball earth skeptics/flat earth show. it's a really good show just have a listen. there is such things as up and down and you cannot convince me otherwise. i work from there x

 

[paul's got wright]

now the submarine story x