Chinahand Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 This disappearing over the horizon effect is also possible on a flat earth due to the law of prospective, no projection tricky is needed. As the stars are not as far away as they tell us then think of it as a high object, as you move away from it the object will look lower in the sky and appear to disappear under the horizon, this is the same for the sun and moon also as the move away from us and out of our perspective, think of the top of a very tall building, as you move away the top of it appears to get closer to the ground and then disappears out of sight. It is this post which has made me call Gerry a liar. This post is totally wrong and I specifically addressed it in my previous post on Polaris. To keep insisting a falsehood, when it has clearly been shown to be a falsehood is to lie. Let's look at what the world would look like if it was flat and the stars weren't that far away from the earth. If Polaris is a certain height (h) over the pole then if the world is flat then the angle you will have to raise your telescope from the horizontal (its altitude) to view Polaris depends how far you are away from the pole (x). The angle of a star's altitude would be the arctangent of (h/x). Gerry, are you going to disagree with this. If you do disagree then its time to stop arm waving and show some beef - explain your workings. It is really easy to work out how the altitude changes as you move further away from the pole. This graph shows the results you would get looking at how altitude changed depending upon how far you are from the pole and how far away Polaris is. Reality looks nothing like any of the flat earth lines. Come on Gerry, pick your height for Polaris - how does it compare with reality? You can go out to your garden tonight and measure this with your telescope Gerry. You've said you've got one - go and measure Polaris, and tell us what it's altitude is. Then compare the result to the graph. And then, the next time you go on holiday you can take a second measurement - you over a few patient years could with your own eyes prove this one way or the other. As has been repeatedly put to you there are multiple experiments you could do yourself which clearly show that the world isn't flat. This is really simple basic science - you develop a some theories - is the earth flat or spherical, are the stars close to us or far away. You go and do the maths to see what results you would get if your theory was true. You then go and take some actual measurements and see if any of your theories, once you've taken account of any errors possible in your measurements, are useful in predicting reality. A flat earth model fails. It fails categorically. It is disproven by doing these simple experiments. Gerry, how far is Cape Town from the North Pole - I'm not interested in exact figures - give me a range. I'm going for between 13,500 and 14,000. How far away do you think is Polaris - I think you've said between 1,500 and 5,000 Km away. Well then, Gerry, are you brave enough to put your ideas about perspective and buildings to the test? What is the altitude of Polaris from the top of Table Mountain in Cape Town? Or Madrid? Can you capable of doing really simple maths? Come on - post up three figures for us - a guestimate of the height of polaris, a guestimate of the distance from the North Pole and then do the maths and tell us what the altitude would be for those two figures. Are you capable of doing that? Have some faith in your abilities and your world view. Post the altitudes up for us. I'm sure we can rustle up some distant lurkers to take some measurements for us. You, Me, ScotsAlan, Amadeus etc. Let's go and crowd source the dots on the graph? Are you brave enough to test your theory against reality? I am. Who's game - I don't think you'll even need a telescope, just a protractor and a pointer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yin & Yang Posted June 20, 2015 Share Posted June 20, 2015 I'm afraid gerrydandridge thinks he's on the Truman Show! Surprise - your not <) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Chinahand, I have no problem performing an experiment to find the true shape of earth, believe it or not, I will except I am wrong if proven to be so, however I don't think you have understood my perspective argument correctly and I have a concern about your experiment which doesn't take this into account, I will sleep on it and explain why I think perhaps your experiment may be flawed in more clarity tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 China, that's all very well, but this so called maths you keep referring to is only what they want you to know. They control the schools, the textbooks etc. Your arctan function is designed purely to keep the truth from us. I suggest you redo your calculations using the equivalent hyperbolic function. You'll see then that Gerry may be on to something. Am I right Gerry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Chinahand, my first thoughts of your experiment is that I agree with your curves that you present on the flat earth model, they would behave as you have them, the object in the sky would never fall below the horizon, it would just flatten out as with your curves. The problem I have with this is, 1: The amount of atmosphere that you would be viewing the star through, at the greater distances as the observer traveled southerly. 2: Knowing the actual distance to Polaris from earth. 3: The Size of Polaris, (from a perspective point of view) As for distance an approximation could only be made, considering the sun and the moon are supposed to be 3000 miles from earth, and appear to be in front of the stars then perhaps 4000 miles would be a fair guess, if you think this is an unscientific approach then I remind the reader that NASA and modern astronomy say Polaris is is somewhere between 323-434 light years away, so that is between 1,938,000,000,000,000 and 2,604,000,000,000,000 miles, so even the "experts" have a difference of (you will like this Bobster more woo) 666 Trillion miles, So my 4000 mile estimate cannot be any further out than their scientific estimation, does this seem fair? The size of Polaris is also important as remember the Flat earth argument rests on “perspective” which you did not seem to accept yesterday as a good argument, this is how perspective works. Our eyes range of vision is from 110 to 1 degree, the smallest angle of which an object can be seen is 1/60th of a degree , so when an object is 3000 times its diameter away it will seem to disappear from sight, this can been shown by watching ships apparently sail over the horizon with the naked eye and when they eventually disappear from sight you can then reach for a telescope and you will see the ship again, hull and all, not half a ship as science and the youtube science shills will tells you. So if this is correct, when we get to 3000 times the diameter of Polaris away from Polaris (remember flat earth doesn’t agree with it being a massive star ) it will disappear, we can increase this distance with a telescope, however as it passes lower we will also find atmospheric problems and when so far away it gets to a ridicules angle, I would suspect that land obstacles like mountains and hills would obstruct the view also. So therefore the theory of your maths is heavily flawed from what I can see, hopefully others reading this will also see your error and not be blinded by the math once again. Chinahand, your “The angle of a star's altitude would be the arctangent of (h/x)” is fine. But giving that science doesn't have much of a clue on the distance of Polaris can I ask how you have come about the “actual results” on a sphere in your graph please ? This is also interesting. “If the Earth is a sphere and the pole star hangs over the northern axis, it would be impossible to see it for a single degree beyond the equator, or 90 degrees from the pole. The line-of-sight would become a tangent to the sphere, and consequently several thousand miles out of and divergent from the direction of the pole star. Many cases, however, are on record of the north polar star being visible far beyond the equator, as far even as the tropic of Capricorn.” -Dr. Samuel Rowbotham, “Earth Not a Globe, 2nd Edition” Are we able to view the pole star from the equator? or anywhere south of the equator? if this is true then Ball Earth takes yet another huge blow I am afraid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Take yourself to Antarctica and find out for yourself... http://www.kuoni.co.uk/antarctica Oh... hang on! Didn't you say Antarctica was off limits to everyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 so even the "experts" have a difference of (you will like this Bobster more woo) 666 Trillion miles 1071.825km, actually... So my 4000 mile estimate cannot be any further out than their scientific estimation, does this seem fair? hahahahahahahah, more hilariously funny than fair. D-, must try harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 China, that's all very well, but this so called maths you keep referring to is only what they want you to know. They control the schools, the textbooks etc. Your arctan function is designed purely to keep the truth from us. I suggest you redo your calculations using the equivalent hyperbolic function. You'll see then that Gerry may be on to something. Am I right Gerry? Nice one. Thought this was actually gerry until I got to his name at the end! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbie Bobster Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 ...atmospheric problems...so therefore the theory of your maths is heavily flawed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Take yourself to Antarctica and find out for yourself... http://www.kuoni.co.uk/antarctica Oh... hang on! Didn't you say Antarctica was off limits to everyone? Yes it is the only way you will get there, on a sanctioned tour, to the points they take you to...see a few penguins, take a few photos at the south pole "not" and then be escorted home again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 I cannot see how we can see the north star from the equator on the ball earth? What am I missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 I would expect Polaris to be approx 54 degrees above the horizon from here? I will have to wait until this evening and hope for a clear night as I think tonight is garden astronomy night for me.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxy Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Just a quick update with reference to the Van Allen Belt and I found it quite an Interesting area but time consuming. I have not looked at any youtube claims and my information has been mostly sought from the US. Next thing to do is look at the conspiracy theories and seek answers to their claims and then the counter claims. Keeping it simple, there are two electron belts - inner and outer (example picture shown) with each colour representing a different radiation dosage. Providing that OSHA's figures are correct and not falsified to mislead, it has been calculated that the Apollo astronauts transit time through this was 52.8 minutes resulting in a total radiation dosage of some 11.4 rads and recalculated (0.88 hours) to 13 rads in one hour. A lethal dose is estimated at 300 rads and working off this information, I conclude initially at this time that it is feasible in travelling through the Van Allen Belt. Further research necessary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerrydandridge Posted June 21, 2015 Author Share Posted June 21, 2015 Chinahand, lets run with 3,500 miles above the north pole for Polaris on the flat earth and lets see what we get.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted June 21, 2015 Share Posted June 21, 2015 Chinahand, lets run with 3,500 miles above the north pole for Polaris on the flat earth and lets see what we get.. So how far away is the Moon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.