paul's got wright Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 bob's lookin strong for the "flat earth" crismus number one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 these must be "mental". as if anyone would even have a live radio debate about it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 The introduction is full of errors. To take just one the analemma's shape and position cannot be explained on a flat earth. We are back to a cargo cult version of science where they can produce something which initially looks superficially like reality but when put to scrutiny totally fails. The trouble is Flat Earthers seem unwilling to accept this while being unable to do the maths required to show it. The flat earth model cannot explain how the sun's position in the sky changes at different latitudes over the year, but that fact is ignored time and time again. It is basically pointless trying to explain this as all you get in reply is either an erroneous denial or an acknowledgment of ignorance but one which still claims there's some merit in the flat earth view. PGW the people you are linking to are wrong about the analemma - do you understand that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmanx Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Are you seriously still trying China? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted December 21, 2015 Author Share Posted December 21, 2015 The flat earth model cannot explain how the sun's position in the sky changes at different latitudes over the year, but that fact is ignored time and time again. Could this have something to do with it. The Mercator projection, the map most commonly seen hanging in classrooms and in text books, was created in 1596 to help sailors navigate the world. The familiar map gives the right shapes of land masses, but at the cost of distorting their sizes in favor of the wealthy lands to the north. One of the best alternatives to the Mercator projection was presented in 1974 by D. Arno Peters (pictured). The Gall-Peters projection makes seeing the relative size of places much easier. However it also has its flaws as certain places appear stretched, horizontally near the poles and vertically near the Equator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 The introduction is full of errors. To take just one the analemma's shape and position cannot be explained on a flat earth. We are back to a cargo cult version of science where they can produce something which initially looks superficially like reality but when put to scrutiny totally fails. The trouble is Flat Earthers seem unwilling to accept this while being unable to do the maths required to show it. The flat earth model cannot explain how the sun's position in the sky changes at different latitudes over the year, but that fact is ignored time and time again. It is basically pointless trying to explain this as all you get in reply is either an erroneous denial or an acknowledgment of ignorance but one which still claims there's some merit in the flat earth view. PGW the people you are linking to are wrong about the analemma - do you understand that? i'm still researching china. conclusions come at the end remember x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 a resurgence in cartography is inevitable it seems gerry x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 you should get involved a bit more and broaden your experience in experiments china. sounds a bit borin lyin on the beach in peel, measurin the angle of the sun. spaghetti science is much more fun it seems. polaris measured with great precision here x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Oh ... yes, I'll play with that one with you, PGW. Are you willing to try to do some maths? So this bloke is saying Polaris is directly above the North Pole, and 3 people, all at 50 degrees latitude, are looking up at polaris: one just after sunset, one just before sunrise and one at midnight. In his scenario Polaris is just less than 2 earth diameters away - should we simplify it and say exactly 2 earth diameters away. So, can you do a sketch drawing and do the maths? - what angle do the 3 people all measure for polaris? With maths you can calculate it far more accurately than you can measure it with Spaghetti and a protractor. PGW ... honestly, please do try and answer this question - what angle do the 3 people all measure for polaris? It isn't that hard maths to do - maybe a bit of trigonometry. I'm perfectly willing to help you along if you want some help. Or ask Gerry, or, what the heck, why not comment on Antonio Subirats channel and see if he'll help you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 The flat earth model cannot explain how the sun's position in the sky changes at different latitudes over the year, but that fact is ignored time and time again. Could this have something to do with it. The Mercator projection, the map most commonly seen hanging in classrooms and in text books, was created in 1596 to help sailors navigate the world. The familiar map gives the right shapes of land masses, but at the cost of distorting their sizes in favor of the wealthy lands to the north. One of the best alternatives to the Mercator projection was presented in 1974 by D. Arno Peters (pictured). The Gall-Peters projection makes seeing the relative size of places much easier. However it also has its flaws as certain places appear stretched, horizontally near the poles and vertically near the Equator Great! Just getting the hang of a flat earth and now it's rectangular shaped with grid lines all over it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Oh ... yes, I'll play with that one with you, PGW. Are you willing to try to do some maths? So this bloke is saying Polaris is directly above the North Pole, and 3 people, all at 50 degrees latitude, are looking up at polaris: one just after sunset, one just before sunrise and one at midnight. In his scenario Polaris is just less than 2 earth diameters away - should we simplify it and say exactly 2 earth diameters away. So, can you do a sketch drawing and do the maths? - what angle do the 3 people all measure for polaris? With maths you can calculate it far more accurately than you can measure it with Spaghetti and a protractor. PGW ... honestly, please do try and answer this question - what angle do the 3 people all measure for polaris? It isn't that hard maths to do - maybe a bit of trigonometry. I'm perfectly willing to help you along if you want some help. Or ask Gerry, or, what the heck, why not comment on Antonio Subirats channel and see if he'll help you. yes please help me do the math china and or gerry. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 PGW please try and think about it yourself, first. Try visualising the globe and working out what angles and distances can be put in. Do you know the sin and cosine rules? That is all you need to solve it. Do try it yourself- make a sketch to help you visualise or a model like Antonio. From there you can then use maths to get a more accurate result than estimating with a protractor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul's got wright Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 ok thanks china x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I hope this sketch will help to work things out. The radius of the Earth is R. We are looking for the angle X. They are at latitude 50 degrees. Does that make sense? Spot any errors? So, how do you work out X? Any ideas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I hope this sketch will help to work things out. The radius of the Earth is R. We are looking for the angle X. They are at latitude 50 degrees. Does that make sense? Spot any errors? So, how do you work out X? Any ideas? Sketch.png Pearls before swine China...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.