Jump to content

Flat Earth: the last thread about this subject on this forum


 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, peter said:

I said I would explain it in 6 days ,after which you said DONE , my reply was I have already explained it but here it is again and repeated the post , two which there was silence,if you like I will go back and find exactly what was said and re-post it for all to see, and they can work out the context of what was being said for themselves

The only interaction I've had with you on this forum was to ask what you meant by "done", In response to the following paragraph of yours: "You can talk about it as much as you want I'm not stopping you , after 6 days I will tell you why I think the laser experiment has a fundamental problem then I'm done , maybe you would like to give it some thought as well"

 

I was enquiring as to what you were done with, laser discussion? The thread? Or the FE subject. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oddsnsods said:

 

Draco, as shown in both star maps.

 

The instrument was set up in November 1725, and observations on γ Draconis were made starting in December. The star was observed to move 40″ southwards between September and March, and then reversed its course from March to September. [10] At the same time, 35 Camelopardalis, a star with a right ascension nearly exactly opposite to that of γ Draconis, was 19" more northerly at the beginning of March than in September.[11] These results were completely unexpected and inexplicable by existing theories.

 

The following table shows the magnitude of deviation from true declination for γ Draconis and the direction, on the planes of the solstitial colure and ecliptic prime meridian, of the tangent of the velocity of the Earth in its orbit for each of the four months where the extremes are found, as well as expected deviation from true ecliptic longitude if Bradley had measured its deviation from right ascension:

 

image.png.56bc1ffe3113ee7950ee71a192e9889b.png

Bradley proposed that the aberration of light not only affected declination, but right ascension as well, so that a star in the pole of the ecliptic would describe a little ellipse with a diameter of about 40", but for simplicity, he assumed it to be a circle. Since he only observed the deviation in declination, and not in right ascension, his calculations for the maximum deviation of a star in the pole of the ecliptic are for its declination only, which will coincide with the diameter of the little circle described by such star. For eight different stars, his calculations are as follows:

 

Gamma Draconis --- uk sky  northsouth centre, east in  June , December North and west

 

These are completely different directions in the Heliocentric model. The slightest angular deviation results in a target billions/trillions of miles difference

 

 

 

DRACO.jpg.8fc728955c98d386835b3f3a2f62a124.jpg

Regarding Bradleys abberration theory, we already know [that the tilt takes 26,000 years not 6 months] and [the night time is still away from the Sun ] so its misappropriated and inapplicable

 

Edited by zArk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, zArk said:

Gamma Draconis --- uk sky  northsouth centre, east in  June , December North and west

 

These are completely different directions in the Heliocentric model. The slightest angular deviation results in a target billions/trillions of miles difference

 

 

 

DRACO.jpg.8fc728955c98d386835b3f3a2f62a124.jpg

Regarding Bradleys abberration theory, we already know [that the tilt takes 26,000 years not 6 months] and [the night time is still away from the Sun ] so its misappropriated and inapplicable

 

 

No not to do with precession,, is to do with the speed of light & earths rotation causing aberration..why it appears to move back & forth & what originally was meant to prove the helio theory true.

 

Airys failure is the only thing that lets it dowm. But thinking about that experiment with your water filled light refracting dome or water moisture in the atmosphere. I dont believe that argument has been properly settled.

 

There are other ways to prove the earth is spinning. I pointed a few to Nobby on this thread, he didnt have a fucking clue what he was talking about as usual. I have brought up geo stationery sats to you & you ignore.

Easily visible from earth..

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, peter said:

You never responded to my reasons why lasers across the lake was in my opinion  invalid as evidence as to a flat earth all I got from you was dead silence 

if i remember correctly you asserted the lake isnt big enough to represent the curvature of the earth.

is that what your response was?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS BlueSky the posts start on the 14/8 leading to your DONE post on the on the 21/8 I originally told zark 7 days 

 

I said I would explain it in 7 days ,after which you said DONE , with some sarcasm thrown in, my reply was I have already explained it but here it is again and repeated the posts , to which there was silence from you

The posts start on 14/8  leading to your DONE post exactly 7 days later on the 21/8 ( the implications of that is you want me to explain it and the rest of your statement is just obviously sarcasm)  if people wish to check the statements and the contexts in which they were written they're quite welcome

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, zArk said:

if i remember correctly you asserted the lake isnt big enough to represent the curvature of the earth.

is that what your response was?

So you are going to cherry pick bits out of context ,comment on the entire statement, you know what I said

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

12 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

No not to do with precession,, is to do with the speed of light & earths rotation causing aberration..why it appears to move back & forth & what originally was meant to prove the helio theory true.

 

Axial tilt is too slow to provide a December angle of observation for the stars in June.

Night is night , day is day

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, peter said:

So you are going to cherry pick bits out of context ,comment on the entire statement, you know what I said

On 8/11/2021 at 10:30 PM, zArk said:

The end height of laser was 1.8m whereas the globe model required 4.32m.

 

I conclude from your quoted statement above in this post that the globe heads say

The theoretical calculations are perfect and unquestionable...... 4.32meters

Quote

 

I will take your analogy as fact ,however I would say there is a rather large difference in scale and perspective, concerning the size of the earth and this experiment .

This is the very reason I don't watch these things from either side of the argument as I think they certainly muddy the waters

 

 

if i remember correctly you asserted the lake isnt big enough to represent the curvature of the earth.

 

it wasnt badly paraphrased really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zArk said:

Gamma Draconis --- uk sky  northsouth centre, east in  June , December North and west

 

These are completely different directions in the Heliocentric model. The slightest angular deviation results in a target billions/trillions of miles difference

 

 

 

DRACO.jpg.8fc728955c98d386835b3f3a2f62a124.jpg

Regarding Bradleys abberration theory, we already know [that the tilt takes 26,000 years not 6 months] and [the night time is still away from the Sun ] so its misappropriated and inapplicable

 

 out of scale star charts again,they must be your red lines, try drawing them parallel and vertical , even if you draw the right hand red line parallel with the left the point of observation is still in darkness and how thick do you want to make them I'm just wondering if that red dot to the right represents your mythical moon or sun refactor

Edited by peter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zArk said:

Axial tilt is too slow to provide a December angle of observation for the stars in June.

Night is night , day is day

 

 

As a friend of Samuel Molyneux, who was interested in measuring the annual parallax of stars, from which it would be possible to calculate the distances to the nearest stars, Bradley was invited by Molyneux in December 1725 to his estate at Kew, a district of London, to assist him in observing the star Gamma Draconis, specifically, attempting to determine its annual parallax.

Gamma Draconis was specifically chosen since it crosses the meridian almost overhead, thus allowing observers to ignore any problems caused by refraction of light through the earth's atmosphere. According to theory, the star would culminate at its most southerly point in December, with its point of culmination shifting northwards every day to its most northerly point in June, returning over the following six months.

What was actually observed however was that after December, Gamma Draconis continued to culminate at more southerly points, reaching its most southerly point in March, rather than December, and its most northerly point in September, rather than in June. The overall change in position over the six months was about a one hundredth of a degree.

Bradley thus, from August 1727, in an attempt to explain the cause of this movement, decided to observe a number of stars over the year. He found that they each displayed a similar motion.


https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Bradley/

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, zArk said:

 

if i remember correctly you asserted the lake isnt big enough to represent the curvature of the earth.

 

it wasnt badly paraphrased really.

well you don't remember correctly ,that's not what I said at all , no it wasn't badly paraphrased ,just simply incorrect and as usual out of context

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, BlueSky said:

The only interaction I've had with you on this forum was to ask what you meant by "done", In response to the following paragraph of yours: "You can talk about it as much as you want I'm not stopping you , after 6 days I will tell you why I think the laser experiment has a fundamental problem then I'm done , maybe you would like to give it some thought as well"

 

I was enquiring as to what you were done with, laser discussion? The thread? Or the FE subject. 

@peter Lets not get ahead of ourselves. This post hasn't been dealt with.

I had/have no wish for you to explain the laser experiment to me. There was no question from me to indicate this. Just an answer to the above three choices. That was all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oddsnsods said:

There are other ways to prove the earth is spinning.

 

The problem is that the 'flat earth believers' don't want to listen.

 

If the Earth is flat and not moving, and the stars are 'fixed' in the firmament, which rotates above us, then surely the night sky would appear to look the same every day of the year?

 

But it doesn't. I've casually observed the night sky with my own eyes for most of my lifetime, and the patterns of stars do change, depending on the time of year.

 

I have also travelled in my lifetime, and while I've only ever travelled as far south as the Canary Islands, I've seen the night sky is much different to what I see when I get back home.

 

For those without the patience to stay up all night, all year, to watch the night sky, there is now an online version of the popular Stellarium software, which runs in your browser.

 

https://stellarium-web.org/

 

As it reproduces pretty much what I can see with my own eyes, I'm happy to accept that it's modelling is accurate.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlueSky said:

The only interaction I've had with you on this forum was to ask what you meant by "done", In response to the following paragraph of yours: "You can talk about it as much as you want I'm not stopping you , after 6 days I will tell you why I think the laser experiment has a fundamental problem then I'm done , maybe you would like to give it some thought as well"

 

I was enquiring as to what you were done with, laser discussion? The thread? Or the FE subject. 

Rubbish ,what you just quoted was addressed to Morpheus go and check

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

The problem is that the 'flat earth believers' don't want to listen.

 

If the Earth is flat and not moving, and the stars are 'fixed' in the firmament, which rotates above us, then surely the night sky would appear to look the same every day of the year?

 

But it doesn't. I've casually observed the night sky with my own eyes for most of my lifetime, and the patterns of stars do change, depending on the time of year.

 

I have also travelled in my lifetime, and while I've only ever travelled as far south as the Canary Islands, I've seen the night sky is much different to what I see when I get back home.

 

For those without the patience to stay up all night, all year, to watch the night sky, there is now an online version of the popular Stellarium software, which runs in your browser.

 

https://stellarium-web.org/

 

As it reproduces pretty much what I can see with my own eyes, I'm happy to accept that it's modelling is accurate.

 

Thanks Grumps, Zark knows as I explained earlier I dont know much about astronomy, but clearly he is trolling me on this checking that site June & December. What a sneaky droid.

Flerthers will never know better, but I fear Zark is just trolling for the lolz.

 

 

rrr.jpeg.bd22a1dca162f3ce54713646e9c1c511.jpeg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BlueSky said:

@peter Lets not get ahead of ourselves. This post hasn't been dealt with.

I had/have no wish for you to explain the laser experiment to me. There was no question from me to indicate this. Just an answer to the above three choices. That was all. 

Ok if that was genuinely  the case I apologize, I can see what you said with the question you asked from your point of view was innocent and in your opinion I have the wrong end of the stick,so I have to respect that so once again I apologize 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BlueSky said:

I didn't ask you to explain about lasers across the lake. The only thing I've ever asked you is "Done? As in lasers, the thread or the FE subject?" To which you didn't answer. 

 

Hmm, you're responding to peter's post which was aimed at someone else...

 

1 hour ago, BlueSky said:

The only interaction I've had with you on this forum was to ask what you meant by "done", In response to the following paragraph of yours: "You can talk about it as much as you want I'm not stopping you , after 6 days I will tell you why I think the laser experiment has a fundamental problem then I'm done , maybe you would like to give it some thought as well"

 

I was enquiring as to what you were done with, laser discussion? The thread? Or the FE subject. 

 

So now I'm enquiring as to what you're trying to achieve with suddenly reappearing in this topic. What are your thoughts on this subject?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

Hmm, you're responding to peter's post which was aimed at someone else...

 

 

So now I'm enquiring as to what you're trying to achieve with suddenly reappearing in this topic. What are your thoughts on this subject?

Its alright grumpy I can see it from their point of view maybe I did get the wrong end of the stick I guess I'll never know

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Grumpy Owl said:

 

Hmm, you're responding to peter's post which was aimed at someone else...

 

 

So now I'm enquiring as to what you're trying to achieve with suddenly reappearing in this topic. What are your thoughts on this subject?

I could ask you the same. I didn't know that was against forum rules.

 

The only reason I commented on this thread again is because Peter misquoted me in a post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BlueSky said:

I could ask you the same. I didn't know that was against forum rules.

 

The only reason I commented on this thread again is because Peter misquoted me in a post.

I didn't miss quote you, I assumed your intent was different than what you stated,I'm still 50/50 due to the context and timing of your post but as I said I have to give you the benefit of the doubt

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, peter said:

I didn't miss quote you, I assumed your intent was different than what you stated,I'm still 50/50 due to the context and timing of your post but as I said I have to give you the benefit of the doubt

If you think "Done? As in lasers, the thread or the FE subject? Means "your comrade asked me to explain it" I'm not sure I can help you further. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, oddsnsods said:

The dome has water above it, but is damaged & leaking & planets moving fast in the primordial waters above is causing the spherical aberration that refracts the images inside the dome, which manifests at the Helium & Krypton layer...

This making sense to you yet Peter?

 

 

 

I 'm thinking he's writing a science fiction novel and trying out the plot on us first ,that's all that makes sense at the moment

I just wonder if the Chronicles of zArk will be in a book shop near you before xmass

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, zArk said:

IMG_20211010_160923.jpg.4a353368c86a0ef3e8f4a45acbe6653c.jpg

 

 

so where do the extremities of the waters above finish up and what separates the waters from god, another invisible barrier maybe? and where are the two bodies that refract the moon and sun are they swimming or up there in the hollowed reaches of god him/her self

Since you wont let us know your theory ,how's your novel coming along

 

Ah ,the point of observation ,around and around and around she goes and where the nonsensical  statements of zark will stop ,nobody knows

Edited by peter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...